https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/lecture/dialogue-with-william-lane-craig/5694/

Conversation with William Lane Craig
Details

On January 13, 2018, Bishop Barron joined Dr. William Lane Craig, the esteemed Protestant apologist and evangelist, for an evening of dialogue at Claremont McKenna College. The event was hosted by the Claremont Center for Reason, Religion, and Public Affairs and was moderated by Dr. Edward Feser and Dr. Stephen Davis. Bishop Barron and Dr. Craig discussed faith, science, secularism, evangelization and more.

(Scroll down for a full list of the topics discussed during this dialogue.)

Earlier that afternoon, before the evening dialogue, the two men participated in an academic symposium along with around twenty other scholars. During the first half of the symposium, Bishop Barron delivered a paper on the divine simplicity, to which Dr. Craig responded followed by group discussion. In the second half of the symposium, Dr. Craig presented on the atonement, followed by Bishop Barron's reflections and then more group discussion.

Listen to both parts of the symposium below:

EVENING DIALOGUE - TOPICS DISCUSSED

3:09 - Introductions

Part I - Questions from the Moderators

10:47 - What advice do you have for evangelists today?
18:10 - What are the origins of our culture of "self-definition" and how should Christians respond to it?
20:04 - How does evangelization hinge on the story of Jesus Christ?
22:46 - How can beauty draw people into the Church?
24:22 - Do you have any last thoughts on how to evangelize the culture today?
29:12 - Where are the origins of "scientism" (the reduction of all knowledge to scientific knowledge)?
35:16 - Should apologetics and theology involve science?
39:39 - How should Christians think about the science of human origins and the origins of science itself?
47:09 - Would scientific proof of the emergence of life be a problem for Christians?
48:41 - How should Christians deal with an increasingly secular world?
56:15 - What role should apologetics play in evangelization?

Part II - Questions from the Audience

1:01:11 - Will battling secularism bring Catholics and Protestants closer together?
1:02:28 - What is your favorite argument for God's existence?
1:04:31 - Who else is effectively doing the work of evangelization?
1:06:24 - Which thinkers or theologians have most influenced you?
1:08:44 - What is the number one thing Christians should study today to be prepared for the future?
1:11:11 - Do we need more Christians studying science at the university level?
1:12:49 - What do you consider the best argument against Christianity and how would you respond to it?
1:15:39 - How would you respond to someone facing great suffering who asks: "Why me?"
1:19:14 - What would you consider the best objection to your favorite argument for God's existence?
1:22:50 - Should Christians still spend time on Catholic-Protestant debates?
1:25:12 - How can we keep young people from leaving the Christian faith?
1:28:18 - What book has most changed your life (other than the Bible)?

Part III - Questions for Each Other

1:31:20 - Bishop Barron: In your debates with the new athiests, did they ever strike you with a legitimate point?
1:35:10 - Dr. Craig: How can beauty, in practice, present the Gospel and bring people to faith?
1:40:20 - Bishop Barron: What do you find most attractiveand most concerningabout Catholicism?
1:44:56 - Dr. Craig: What are Catholics doing to train people in apologetics?
1:47:11 - Dr. Craig: What is the future of Catholicism in the United States?
1:50:35 - Bishop Barron and Dr. Craig: What does your prayer life look like?

1:54:13 - Closing remarks

Thanks. Two of my favorites. Great listen.

I really do commend this to all my fellow Christians. Hope they will take the time to enjoy it.

What makes you think that?

That's only if you discount the YECs and other nutters. But I'd bet he really half assed the " best argument against Christianity" question.

Watched about half of it.

Is Craig an anti-evolution guy? I can't remember, and based on this I can't quite tell.

Yes, but he's chicken **** about it. He likes to make these occasional odds arguments, but won't actually debate evolution with anyone. He's a member of the discovery institute, the ones associated with the Dover trial.

I like him but I am a Christian so obviously believe in Creationism.

Thanks for sharing, I'll listen when I get a chance

dargscisyhp said:

---

Watched about half of it.

Is Craig an anti-evolution guy? I can't remember, and based on this I can't quite tell.

---

My take away is that Craig does not believe in the literal 6, 24 hour days of creation to which some of his fellow Evangelicals adhere. He clearly believes in what he calls the "Ontological Argument" that first cause points to a creator and that something cannot br casued by nothing. So, he believes in a creator, obviously. As to whether he adheres to Darwinian evolution, my opinion is that he believes in evolution but not in the spontaneous generation of life from nothing.

XUSCR said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Watched about half of it.

Is Craig an anti-evolution guy? I can't remember, and based on this I can't quite tell.

---

As to whether he adheres to Darwinian evolution, my opinion is that he believes in evolution but not in the spontaneous generation of life from nothing.

---

If that is the case that seems very much like a God of the Gaps argument, which he specifically calls out as bad in this video. Based on this video I got the impression that he disagrees with evolution itself. He says it is on scientific grounds, and not religious grounds. I wish he had elaborated on this, because without knowing anything further that comment makes me question his credibility a bit.

"Based on this video I got the impression that he disagrees with evolution itself. He says it is on scientific grounds, and not religious grounds."

Upon further reflection, I think you are correct that he has issues with the science of the Darwinian evolution model, but I don't know if that means he is saying evolution is not scientific.

And I agree the God of the Gaps model is something he would be against.

Not sure there's enough detail in his explanation to be able to accurately articulate his view on evolution/biology and I don't pretend to know enough to speculate beyond what I have said above.

Quote:

---

Upon further reflection, I think you are correct that he has issues with the science of the Darwinian evolution model, but I don't know if that means he is saying evolution isn't scientific

---

Don't you think It would be strange to be a member of the discovery institute if you didn't think that.

IDK

If only Hitchens were here. Craig is a fool.

While I enjoyed hitchens in interviews, I was never very impressed with his formal debates.

dargscisyhp said:

---

While I enjoyed hitchens in interviews, I was never very impressed with his formal debates.

---

What do you mean?

If you mean he never got deep into the weeds theologically, sure, that's was never his intent. But to not acknowledge that he was one of, if not the best polemicist of the last half decade or so is just wrong. The guys recall of history was incredible.

There were times I felt like he substituted substance with flair. I think it played well in short interviews, not longer debates at times.

Can you think of anything specific?

Not off the top of my head. I might spend some time at some point to see if I can find an example.

Bishop Robert Barron is one of the best at explaining the true faith.

Macarthur said:

---

Can you think of anything specific?

---

So I've spent the last month or so immersing myself in everything Hitchens. Read his memoir, watched several debates, reread parts of God is not Great, etc. I love his oratory style. I didn't intend to watch as much Hitchens as I have, but I seriously love his oratory style. I've watched stuff going back to the 80s with Bill Buckley, all the way to his last appearance in Houston with Dawkins. But I stand by my original criticism of him: there are times he substituted substance with flair. You asked for a specific example.

I think in the debate with Frank Turek on whether or not God exists, if Hitchens won he won it on charisma and wit rather than on the content of his words. Don't get me wrong, I think many of Turek's arguments fell flat, but overall on the content itself I think he did a better job than Hitchens did. Here is an excerpt from that debate that I think exemplifies what I'm talking about:



Hitchens adroitly dodges around Turek's question and in some ways overpowers him with his oratory skills, but he doesn't actually address the point. Personally, I would have loved a real answer. This particular subject came up over and over again in that debate, and every time Hitchens dodged it similarly. In my opinion there were some other points he did this with as well. And, from what I've seen, these aren't exceptions to the rule either. This is his debating style quite often. And while I'm extremely impressed with him as an orator, I cannot say I think he wins all of his debates, because at times the content is substituted with flair.