I don't know how I missed this but I have just discovered that two years ago something that I wrote in the Huffington Post was discussed in a Podcast by Professor William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig is an actual philosopher and one that atheist writer Sam Harris once said "seems to put the 'fear of God' into his fellow atheists." He has debated the whole gauntlet of the "new atheists" though Richard Dawkins famously chickened out of his debate with him at Oxford. He is, in my estimation, a very impressive thinker and that he saw fit to discuss (for 20 min!) something associated with me is quite astounding.
In any event, if you have any interest in the Cosmological Argument for God's existence you might enjoy giving this a listen:
A Rabbi Looks at the Kalam Argument.
Most of the information in the piece came from the writing of Theological Philosopher Edward Feser so at best I can only take credit for having understood what he said, but still. You can see the original article
here.
I wrote two blog posts on the Kalam, and you may find them interesting. To wit, the Torah is not at all clear creation ex-nihilo. Dont take my word for it, take the word of our famous Jewish theologians as well as modern Bible Scholars. Start here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/02/kalam-cosmological-proof-of-god.html
ReplyDeleteWould like to hear you thoughts on my discussion of the kalam. It is not at all clear the Torah means creation ex-nihilo. In fact, just the opposite. That is the opinion of some great Jewish sages as well as many if not most Bible Scholars. Have no fear Rabbi. If science someday tells us their was no creation Ex-Nihilo, Rabbis can explain that was really the meaning of Bereshis all along. But Craig will be out of a Job.
ReplyDeleteQuoting the Ibn Ezra on the word "bara" (created): "the majority of the sages said that the creation was ex-nihilo."
DeleteIn any event, my original post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html specifically states that the Kalam formulation "will be rejected." The rest of the piece explores Aquinas's approach which does not require an ex-nihilo creation.
Science was dragged kicking and screaming into an acceptance of an ex-nihilo creation (Big Bang) and has been endeavoring mightily to mitigate their own findings ever since. Those quixotic efforts, in my opinion, grow more fanciful (and less scientific) year by year.
"Science was dragged kicking and screaming"
DeleteThat is how Science works. New paradigms are not just accepted. They go thru a process to be accepted.
" into an acceptance of an ex-nihilo creation (Big Bang)"
Not a correct formulation. See my other post on the Kalam and Big Bang - the links are in the blog post you read. Thanks for comments on it.
Science in general is now more 'fanciful' than in the past. This is because new discoveries require discarding some 'common sense' notions and sometimes require speculations until it can be sorted out, if we ever do.