You might remember that Dr. Craig used a new argument in his debate with Lawrence Krauss in Melbourne, Australia.

My notes on the debate record it thus:

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:

- The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is
applicableto nature- Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction
- Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions
- But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see

And now Dr. Craig has expanded on it in the Q&A section of his Reasonable Faith web site.

The question:

Dear Dr Craig

Firstly can I thank you for all your work. My faith in Christ has been enormously strengthened through studying your work in apologetics in particular and I have grown in confidence in my Christian witness.

My question relates to numbers and mathematics as a whole. On the Defenders podcast you state that as God is the only self-existent, necessary being, numbers and mathematical objects, whilst being useful, don’t actually exist as these too would exist necessarily and independently of God. If this is the case, how can it be that mathematics is so easily applied to the natural world? Surely if mathematics only existed in our minds, we would expect to see no correlation between it and how the physical world actually is?

Michael

United Kingdom

Excerpt from the answer:

As philosopher of mathematics Mary Leng points out, for the non-theistic realist, the fact that physical reality behaves in line with the dictates of acausal mathematical entities existing beyond space and time is “a happy coincidence” (

Mathematics and Reality[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], p. 239). Think about it: If,per impossibile, all the abstract objects in the mathematical realm were to disappear overnight, there would be no effect on the physical world. This is simply to reiterate that abstract objects are causally inert. The idea that realism somehow accounts for the applicability of mathematics “is actually very counterintuitive,” muses Mark Balaguer, a philosopher of mathematics. “The idea here is that in order to believe that the physical world has the nature that empirical science assigns to it, I have to believe that there are causally inert mathematical objects, existing outside of spacetime,” an idea which is inherently implausible (Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics[New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], p. 136).By contrast, the theistic realist can argue that God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result.

This argument was also made by mechanical engineering professor Walter Bradley in a lecture he gave on scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. You can read an essay that covers some of the material in that lecture at Leadership University.

Excerpt:

The physical universe is surprising in the simple mathematical form it assumes. All the basic laws of physics and fundamental relationships can be described on one side of one sheet of paper because they are so few in number and so simple in form (see table 1.1).

[…]It has been widely recognized for some time that nature assumes a form that is elegantly described by a relatively small number of simple, mathematical relationships, as previously noted in table 1.1. None of the various proposals presented later in this chapter to explain the complexity of the universe address this issue. Albert Einstein in a letter to a friend expressed his amazement that the universe takes such a form (Einstein 1956), saying:

You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be in any way grasped through thought. . . . The kind of order created, for example, by Newton’s theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the “miracle” which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge.

Alexander Polykov (1986), one of the top physicists in Russia, commenting on the mathematical character of the universe, said: “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.” Paul Davies, an astrophysicist from England, says, “The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe” (Davies 1984). Successful development of a unified field theory in the future would only add to this remarkable situation, further reducing the number of equations required to describe nature, indicating even further unity and integration in the natural phenomena than have been observed to date.

The whole paper that started this off is called “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics”, and it is a must read for advanced Christian defenders. You can read the whole thing here.

Professor John Lennox has done a lot on this topic which is worth reproducing. Just saying

Best regards

David

David Kinnon

+44 7768 39 22 29

________________________________

LikeLike

Ecc. 1:9 There is nothing new under the sun.

Dr. Craig is NOT using a “new argument”. He is just Columbusing an old one. (“Columbusing is when you “discover” something that’s existed forever. Just that it’s existed outside your own culture, nationality, race or even, say, your neighborhood.”)

That mathematics define nature is neither unexpected nor unreasonable.

I recall such arguments from the late 70’s while at BIOLA.

I recently listened to a “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” podcast titled “Does logic apply to God? that offers up similar arguments.

And haven’t you seen any DaVinci drawings? If those aren’t mathematics and nature I don’t know what are.

To think that modern man has a monopoly on mathematics and the God questions is (something)-centric.

(See, even I Columbused something, here’s a whole book on the subject: Delimiting Modernities: Conceptual Challenges and Regional

It is “moderno-centric,” to use Bentley’s term (see above), deepens the hegemony of modernity, and is open to the same charge of bringing modernity in by the …)

The ancients didn’t just work all day and sleep all night. They figured stuff out. That we don’t have a record of it doesn’t mean they didn’t know what we know about nature and God.

Dr. Craig’s arguments may be compelling and unique TODAY, but I’m pretty sure like Tolkien, he has “borrowed” a LOT from others. I just read something about the Masada fortress that reminded me of some of the fortresses in Tolkien’s works. Tolkien was brilliant, but not unique. Think about the brilliance of those that designed what Tolkein borrowed and enhanced.

And I know for a fact that the Biola library has THOUSANDS of volumes of little read thinkers in which Dr. Craig could surely have found inspiration in for his “new arguments”.

LikeLike

What a beautiful exposition – thank you for writing that!

I think that WK meant that WLC had not previously employed this argument in his debates, not that the argument itself was new – just that it was “new” that he had used it.

And you are so right, even as an atheist I noticed this “miracle” of applicability. My problem was that I worshipped the mathematics, instead of the Mathematician.

Thank you for connecting some dots for me – very well-done!

LikeLiked by 1 person

This may help: https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/62/59

LikeLike