God and Time

A few months ago there was a round of discussion on this list about God and time. Last night, a few ASA'ers (Jack Haas, Ian Hutchinson, and I) had the privilege of joining about 40 people at the MIT Faculty Club to hear William Lane Craig speak on this topic. I'll quote directly the handout that he provided, which was the essence of his talk, and then I'll share several aspects from the discussion afterwards.

God and Time
William Lane Craig
Basic premises:

1) God exists
2) An A-Theory of time is correct. (A-Series means time is tensed, that is, there is a past, a present, and a future. B-Series means time is tenseless, just a relative earlier than/later than)
3) If an A-Theory of time is correct, there are tensed facts and temporal becoming.
4) If God exists and there are tensed facts and temporal becoming, then God knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be. (i.e. he sustains them in being)
5) If God knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be, then God is temporal.
6) There are tensed facts and temporal becoming. (from premises 2 and 3)
7) God exists and there are tensed facts and temporal becoming. (from 1 and 6)
8) God knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be. (from 4 and 7)
9) God is temporal. (from 5 and 8)
10) If God is temporal, then a privileged reference frame exists.
11) If a privileged reference frame exists, then a Neo-Lorentzian Theory of Relativity is corret.
12) A privileged reference frame exists. (from 9 and 10)
13) A Neo-Lorentzian Theory of Relativity is correct. (from 11 and 12)

In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised.

Craig feels this is an instance of where theology can help distinguish among competing scientific theories. The Neo-Lorentzian, Einsteinian, and Minkowski formulations of the theory of relativity are mathematically equivalent but differ in their metaphysical interpretation. Einstein's view is that there is no absolute or privileged frame of reference while the Neo-Lorentzian says there is. On one hand, if these formulations are indeed empirically equivalent, then theology only reads on the metaphysical interpretation and does not, in fact, affect the scientific, observable theory. On the other, the cosmic background radiation measurements over the last few years indicate that there is indeed an absolute frame of reference for this universe. Craig feels that this absolute frame can be identified with the privileged reference frame he talks about. This means we may now have empirical evidence to distinguish among the theories of relativity and the results are consistent with Craig's philosophical conclusion starting from the premise that God exists and an A-Theory of time.

The notion of God being temporal (which will indubitably fire up Dave Siemens!) caused a lot of discussion. Craig feels that any other position ends up with God holding logically contradictory concepts. For example, if for God all time is present and there are no tensed facts, then there can be no sequence of events in this universe. (not sure I said that right or understood it correctly) Someone then asked, if God is temporal and time is part of creation, what was God's nature before creation? Craig responded that he thought God was timeless, and not temporal, prior to creation and that he made himself temporal as part of the act of creation. (have to think about that a while!) He said it was analogous to the incarnation where God became part of the spatial dimension whereas at the moment of creation, God somehow made himself temporal but not spatially localized.

After the discussion, I heard some attendees worry that Craig's view would put us on the slippery slope to process theology. I can see why they might worry but it doesn't seem to me as if that is a necessary consequence. Others worried about the role of free will in the premise of God being "the cause of things' coming to be" but I don't see that Craig's view puts any new twist or any particular concern on that well-worn issue.

I did get a copy of Craig's 2001 book, "God, Time, and Eternity" where he discusses all this in detail and deals with all the proposed arguments against it, but it's not a book for quick reading! Was it reviewed in our journal? I couldn't find a review but I only did a cursory search.

I found his ideas very stimulating and thought-provoking but I'll have to read a lot more and think about it before buying it wholeheartedly. Thoughts?

Randy
Received on Thu Mar 30 20:37:49 2006