William Lane Craig Doesn't Deal With Morriston's Critiques of the Kalam
Jeffrey Jay Lowder first alerted me to Dr. Wes Morriston's critiques of the Kalam Argument for God's existence, saying they were the best critiques of the Kalam to be found. I agree. They are as far as I know. So imagine my utter surprise when I received Craig's 3rd edition of his "signature" book, Reasonable Faith, by finding him taking on atheist scholars like J.L. Mackie, Richard M. Gale, Graham Oppy, Howard Sobel, along with New Atheists like Daniel C. Dennett and Richard Dawkins, only to find that Craig doesn't even mention Morriston's critiques, must less try to respond to them! Morriston's critiques are not to be found in any bibliography in Craig's book, nor is Morriston's name in the index...at all!
Why? What reason can he give for this? I'm sure he'll come up with some reason. But one thing he cannot do is to say he doesn't know about them, because he responded to the first one, but not to the second one!
Maybe, just maybe, Craig is hoping that the popular audience he's writing for in his apologetics book will not see or hear of Morriston's critiques, because after all, they can only be found in the scholarly literature. Most of the readers of his book will never see it. Maybe he thinks he already answered Morriston in his one and only reply? But I do not think he did so at all.
That's where I come in *ahem.* I'm not writing for professional scholars. I've written a counter-apologetics book for the average college student. I'm taking the arguments of the professional scholars and articulating them for the average college student, educated person in the pew, and pastor.
In my book I tell the average college student about Morriston's critiques of the Kalam. That's right. I deal with the Kalam in my book by using Morriston's critiques. The average person will now be able to understand the best critiques of the Kalam when he or she reads my book. Then Dr. Craig will have to respond to Morriston sometime in a debate or in the next edition of this book.
You can read the exchange between Craig and Morriston for yourself. All of the following articles can be found online: Wes Morriston,“Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Faith and Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2000): 149–69; William Lane Craig, “Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder”; and Morriston’s counter-reply, “Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig,” Faith and Philosophy 19, no. 2 (April 2002): 233–44.
Why? What reason can he give for this? I'm sure he'll come up with some reason. But one thing he cannot do is to say he doesn't know about them, because he responded to the first one, but not to the second one!
Maybe, just maybe, Craig is hoping that the popular audience he's writing for in his apologetics book will not see or hear of Morriston's critiques, because after all, they can only be found in the scholarly literature. Most of the readers of his book will never see it. Maybe he thinks he already answered Morriston in his one and only reply? But I do not think he did so at all.
That's where I come in *ahem.* I'm not writing for professional scholars. I've written a counter-apologetics book for the average college student. I'm taking the arguments of the professional scholars and articulating them for the average college student, educated person in the pew, and pastor.
In my book I tell the average college student about Morriston's critiques of the Kalam. That's right. I deal with the Kalam in my book by using Morriston's critiques. The average person will now be able to understand the best critiques of the Kalam when he or she reads my book. Then Dr. Craig will have to respond to Morriston sometime in a debate or in the next edition of this book.
You can read the exchange between Craig and Morriston for yourself. All of the following articles can be found online: Wes Morriston,“Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” Faith and Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2000): 149–69; William Lane Craig, “Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder”; and Morriston’s counter-reply, “Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig,” Faith and Philosophy 19, no. 2 (April 2002): 233–44.