One of the most important parts of having a blog is showing off your own brilliance. Since I am both brilliant and lazy, I like to use things I have already written for other purposes as blog posts. This kills multiple avians with single projectiles (note my brainy use of words), and still makes me look smart.
Lately, an elder at my church has gotten me addicted to the writings of Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig (you can see his website at www.reasonablefaith.org). I have already read nearly all of Dr. Craig's website, and listened to most of his podcasts. I have even started buying his books (yes, like all addictions, it starts out free, but you may eventually have to spend $20-30!).
The time has clearly come to advance my celebrity-stalking to the next stage. No, not the sending him frightening pictures of his house stage... I mean the "contacting him through his website" stage.
Actually, Dr. Craig answers weekly questions. Many of his answers are great reads (though a few aren't because the questions are so boring). I decided to roll all my questions about his material up into one meta-question so I can hopefully get them all answered at once.
So you can all share my opinion that I am a really great (brainy yet respectful) asker of questions, behold the message I sent (I'll update if he answers).
Dear Dr. Craig,
Thank you for your ministry and especially your podcasts. I have taken to listening to your podcasts during my commute to work in the morning, and have found your defenders classes a great way to start my day.
Forgive me for submitting such a long question, I have divided it into three parts, and would be grateful if you answered any part.
I have been working through the section "The Existence of God", and something you say has left me with some questions.
You say that the transcendent cause (or explanation) of/for the universe must either be:
1. an abstract object or
2. an unembodied mind.
and that (1) is not suitable because abstract objects cannot be causes. In the absence of alternatives, therefore, a personal transcendent creator (God) is the most reasonable choice.
I am a theist, so I agree that God exists, but I have three questions about areas I could see an atheist objecting to.
(1) First, must abstract objects be casually impotent?
Science fiction writer Neal Stephenson suggests in a narrative (and so non-rigorous) way that perhaps abstract objects can be causes, but only through 'second causes' or in cooperation with other, embodied, causes.
Language certainly seems to suggest that this is valid. For a realist, it seems that all sorts of mathematical or scientific statements ascribe casual powers to numbers, laws, functions, etc. Other abstract objects seem to cause as well; Tolkein writes "It was pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand". Clearly, if abstract objects do exist, then the abstract object Pity, in cooperation with the mental processes of an individual, can cause actions or inactions. I know you are not a realist, but (aside from denying realism) how do you answer the realist atheist who suggests an abstract object may exist which happens to spawn universes (It may be interesting to note that popular science fiction writer and historian Orson Scott Card proposes just this explanation for reality in his influential "Ender's Game" series of books).
(2) My second question is: Must minds exist?
Clearly a "mind" is a sort of abstraction. We cannot see minds, measure them, etc. I have met atheists who are, I guess, non-realists about the concept of minds. One told me that:
"'Mind' is just a handy term for a whole bundle of distinct functions which are associated with human, biological, physical brains. A 'mind' is a synthesis of wholly biological processes, at least as far as any evidence shows us. The idea of a mind without a body is like the idea of sound without air. It seems coherent, but there is nothing behind the seeming"
This reminds me of your opinion of mathematical 'objects' like numbers, which I believe you call nominalism. Why believe minds to be immune from the nominalist objections? How would you respond?
(3) In one of your Q&A podcasts, you mentioned that atheists never seem to be able to articulate a third option (to the two options of abstract object and unembodied mind). I'm not an atheist, but I wonder what you will think about my proposal of a third option: an 'uncomputered' program.
I'm not a philosopher, but as a computer programmer I often encounter something that seems to be between abstract objects and minds: computer programs. Like a mind, a program seems to be something independent of its matieral form. The exact same program can be written in different programming languages, compiled into binary forms, interpreted as "byte code", and ported onto different computers using even very different sorts of hardware. In fact, a program can exist entirely in a human mind, in the settings of electrical switches, or even in complex mechanical arrangements.
If a mind is something more than neurons firing in a brain, why cannot a program be something other than electrons flipping in a chip? Like a mind, a program is not casually impotent, but unlike a mind, it lacks all freedom and personality. Could an eternal program substitute for God as a Creator? Is this a valid third option?
Thank you for your time and for considering my questions. Look forward to your future materials, and have just ordered a couple of your books, which I expect will teach me a lot.
Sincerely,
Gregory Seeds
Now aren't those just the bestest questions you've read today?
UPDATE: I just discovered Dr. Craig lives in Atlanta. Not only does this make the next step of my celebrity-stalking cheaper and easier, but it also means that... wait... no, that was all it means.
