William Lane Craig Using Reason?

[Phil]

William Lane Craig wrote an article in Christianity Today called God Is not Dead Yet and in it said...

The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.

Can someone explain how someone can be so close yet so far off of reality?

[Markos]

Just looking at the quote in context (which is on the fifth page of the article you linked to) he doesn't seem to be endorsing this view, but rather describing it:

"A robust natural theology may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general, Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated Western society. While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic."
William Lane Craig, quoted from here.

After all, it comes in the context of an article containing a whole host of apologetic arguments (whatever you make of them - I don't particularly rate them myself) which WLC endorses as reasonable.

[Phil]

Just looking at the quote in context (which is on the fifth page of the article you linked to) he doesn't seem to be endorsing this view, but rather describing it:

"A robust natural theology may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general, Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated Western society. While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic."
William Lane Craig, quoted from here.

After all, it comes in the context of an article containing a whole host of apologetic arguments (whatever you make of them - I don't particularly rate them myself) which WLC endorses as reasonable.

The reason I linked to the first page is so that anyone who was interested could read the entire article not just on paragraph which by itself doesn't say much. For that matter, the entire article doesn't appear to say much but it is a total reversal from what WLC has said in the past. Now that you say WLC endorses those arguments as reasonable, then when he says "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." Either he is lying or the entire article is saying do not use reason to be a Christian. Has the apologist slipped up?

[Markos]

The reason I linked to the first page is so that anyone who was interested could read the entire article not just on paragraph which by itself doesn't say much. For that matter, the entire article doesn't appear to say much but it is a total reversal from what WLC has said in the past. Now that you say WLC endorses those arguments as reasonable, then when he says "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." Either he is lying or the entire article is saying do not use reason to be a Christian. Has the apologist slipped up?

I can't myself see how one can interpret what he's said in that way in the light of the whole article: WLC's article is a defence of the use of (what he calls) natural theology, arguing that it is important to use arguments to present Christianity as intellectually viable. He supports this by noting a number of recent philosophers who have defended particular theistic arguments and notes that the New Atheists are very modernist in their approach to the debate. The immediate context, to me, seems to clearly indicate that he is describing the view of the "majority of Western intellectuals". If it is his view, then it rather jars with everything he's previously said, notably the number of Western philosophers he names who advocate arguments for the existence of god.

[Phil]

The reason I linked to the first page is so that anyone who was interested could read the entire article not just on paragraph which by itself doesn't say much. For that matter, the entire article doesn't appear to say much but it is a total reversal from what WLC has said in the past. Now that you say WLC endorses those arguments as reasonable, then when he says "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." Either he is lying or the entire article is saying do not use reason to be a Christian. Has the apologist slipped up?

I can't myself see how one can interpret what he's said in that way in the light of the whole article: WLC's article is a defence of the use of (what he calls) natural theology, arguing that it is important to use arguments to present Christianity as intellectually viable. He supports this by noting a number of recent philosophers who have defended particular theistic arguments and notes that the New Atheists are very modernist in their approach to the debate. The immediate context, to me, seems to clearly indicate that he is describing the view of the "majority of Western intellectuals". If it is his view, then it rather jars with everything he's previously said, notably the number of Western philosophers he names who advocate arguments for the existence of god.

What is it about the sentence The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic. that is causing you difficulty in understanding? Do you have a problem with a Christian apologist admitting that reason will not lead one to Christianity?

[Markos]

What is it about the sentence The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic. that is causing you difficulty in understanding? Do you have a problem with a Christian apologist admitting that reason will not lead one to Christianity?

I don't feel the need to repeat my reasons again for my understanding of the sentence. I have no interest in defending WLC or any other apologist - my views on WLC's arguments were made clear in my first post in this thread. If WLC thinks that pursuing reason leads to atheism or agnosticism then that is fine by me. So, if you would like me to respond to you further, may I politely suggest that you engage with what I have said, instead of reading me with the implicit assumption that, because I happen to share the same faith as WLC, I will therefore necessarily agree with and feel a desperate urge to defend everything he says.

[Phil]

What is it about the sentence The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic. that is causing you difficulty in understanding? Do you have a problem with a Christian apologist admitting that reason will not lead one to Christianity?

I don't feel the need to repeat my reasons again for my understanding of the sentence. I have no interest in defending WLC or any other apologist - my views on WLC's arguments were made clear in my first post in this thread. If WLC thinks that pursuing reason leads to atheism or agnosticism then that is fine by me. So, if you would like me to respond to you further, may I politely suggest that you engage with what I have said, instead of reading me with the implicit assumption that, because I happen to share the same faith as WLC, I will therefore necessarily agree with and feel a desperate urge to defend everything he says.

The OP was quite specific in what WLC said. If you want to change it's clear meaning you really have no reason to post in this thread so like your suggestion, I will make one. If you would like to respond further in this thread, please engage with what WLC actually said not what you wish it meant, if you can't do that, start another thread on a different topic.

[Rev. Rye]

The way I'm reading this sentence is that he's basically treating this argument like Lt. Somerset does the idea that "it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snxgxpVyt6Y

But still, William Lane Craig leaning more towards a Fideistic ideology? I'll file that under "important, if true."

[Phil]

The way I'm reading this sentence is that he's basically treating this argument like Lt. Somerset does the idea that "it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snxgxpVyt6Y

But still, William Lane Craig leaning more towards a Fideistic ideology? I'll file that under "important, if true."

Certainly sounds that way but what logical or reasonable "reason" would lead one to ignore it in favor of faith?

[Markos]

Phil, you may find this blog comment interesting, in response to a very similar claim to yours on this blog post. A little looking around for evidence is always a good thing, my atheist friends tell me.