Summary
A recent discussion centers on the concept of apotheism, defined as a psychological state where individuals neither affirm nor deny the existence of God, but simply do not care about the question. Jonathan Rauch, a Yale University scholar, suggests that this mindset represents an emerging civilizational force, potentially leading to a more peaceful society by reducing religious conflict. However, critics like Paul Copan argue that apotheism signifies a decline in civilizational values, as the question of God holds profound implications for culture, morality, and existence.
The conversation explores the philosophical implications of apotheism, questioning whether it is reasonable to disregard the existence of God. While some may argue that apotheism allows for a more civil society, others contend that neglecting the divine leads to an unexamined life, which is contrary to the philosophical teachings of figures like Socrates. The discussion also touches on the cultural contributions of religious belief, particularly Christianity, in fostering altruism, moral values, and societal advancements, suggesting that a secular worldview may struggle to sustain these benefits.
As the dialogue progresses, the hosts emphasize the importance of engaging with apatheism on both personal and societal levels. They advocate for a re-examination of the implications of a life without God, arguing that many who adopt an atheistic perspective ultimately find it unlivable. The conversation concludes with a call to awaken interest in the existence of God through philosophical inquiry and personal testimony, highlighting the transformative power of faith in addressing the apathy prevalent in contemporary society.
Show Notes
Journalist Jonathan Rauch's Atlantic essay "Let It Be" argued that apatheism, simply not caring whether God exists, is a mark of civilizational progress, making society safer and less prone to religious conflict. Philosopher Paul Copan disagrees, calling it a sign of decline. Kevin and Dr. Craig work through the disagreement: what's actually at stake if the question of God goes unexamined, whether a secular society can sustain objective meaning and purpose without a theistic foundation, and whether the altruism and self-sacrifice inspired by Christian belief have any real secular equivalent. Dr. Craig also revisits his case for the absurdity of life without God, drawing on thinkers from Pascal to Nietzsche, and argues that an atheistic worldview cannot be lived out both consistently and happily. He closes with thoughts on how Christians can awaken genuine curiosity about God in a culture that has simply stopped caring.
More from Reasonable Faith Podcast
A listener asks Dr. Craig to imagine a possible world filled with free persons, love, moral agency, and a genuine relationship with God, but with none of the cancer, war, animal suffering, or death we see in our own. If a world like that is logically possible, what greater good could justify God choosing a world like ours instead? Dr. Craig takes up this possible-worlds objection and considers whether it really undercuts his view that God permits suffering for the sake of bringing people freely to know Him.
Dr. Craig answers listener questions from around the world. If Christ paid for every sin, why would anyone still face judgment? Could God have made the universe and simply moved on? What should we make of a skeptical historian who says the disciples must have seen something? Plus: when science and Scripture seem to collide, which gives way? Why did God allow Mark’s snake-handling passage into our Bibles? And will the wicked exist forever?
A listener writes that his faith is hanging in the balance. Wherever he looks, from natural theology to the resurrection, he thinks the scholarly consensus seems to be against Christianity, and online critics accuse Christian thinkers, Dr. Craig included, of intellectual dishonesty. Questions about James Tour and the origin of life have only deepened his doubts. Is Christianity a respected position in the academy? Would a naturalistic account of abiogenesis threaten the faith? And how can we tell legitimate theological development from ad hoc accommodation to science? Dr. Craig responds.
Philosophical theologian Ryan Mullins argues that William Lane Craig’s version of Molinism is incoherent, and the charge comes down to one word: deliberation. If God already knows everything, can he really deliberate about which world to create? And if he can’t, is his choice truly free? Dr. Craig responds to Mullins’s critique, evaluates defenses offered by Tim Stratton and Reasonable Faith's own Tyson James, and explains why Mullins’s proposed fix would come at a steep theological price. Plus, a decades-old atheist argument from Dan Barker turns out to be the same puzzle in different clothes.
If nothing is impossible for God, how can some worlds be “infeasible” for Him? A listener named Howard presses Dr. Craig on a phrase that sounds like a limit on God’s power. Dr. Craig explains the Molinist idea behind it: true counterfactuals about how free creatures would choose narrow the range of worlds God can actually bring about. He then argues why this places no restriction on divine omnipotence.