This video has 3 parts, as well as questions and answers in individual clips.
For those who cannot watch the video, you can grab the MP3 file of the lecture, or read this essay by Dr. Craig which covers exactly the same ground as the video.
the topic of failure is not one that is often discussed by Christians
failure #1: failure in the Christian life which is the result of sin
failure #2: when a Christian is defeated while trying to serve God
the consequences for failure #1 can be worse for the Christian
the consequences for failure #2 can be worse for the world as whole
how is it possible for a person to fail when they are obeying God? (#2)
how can it be that God can call someone to a task then let them fail?
failure is not persecution – persecution is normal for Christians
failure is not trials – testing is normal for Christians to grow
Bill’s failure:
Bill had submitted all the coursework for his second doctoral degree
but he had to pass a comprehensive oral examination
he failed to pass the comprehensive exam
Bill and Jan and his supporters had all prayed for him to pass
how could God allow this to happen?
Solution to the problem:
God’s will for us may be that we fail at the things we try in life
there are things that God may teach us through failure
Bill learned that human relationships are more important than careers
we need to realize that “success” in life is not worldly success
true success is getting to know God well during your life
and failure may be the best way to get to know God well
it may even be possible to fail to know God while achieving a lot
the real measure of a man is loving God and loving your fellow man
Practical:
give thanks to God regardless of your circumstances
try to learn from your failure
never give up
The ending of Bill’s story:
Bill spent an entire year preparing for a re-take of his exam
Bill was awarded his second doctorate “magna cum laude” (with great distinction)
Bill learned that American students are not well prepared for exams
the year of studying remedied his inadequate American education
in retrospect, he is thankful for the failure – he learned more
If you like this, you should pick up Craig’s book “Hard Questions, Real Answers“, which has a chapter on this problem. And here is a similar lecture that Dr. Craig gave at his home church in Atlanta on the same topic. I’m not posting this because I’ve had a catastrophic failure or anything. But I think in this economy, I am seeing a lot of my plans dashed and I am being forced to circle the wagons a little and take fewer risks. I am being forced to aim for smaller goals, and plan for future difficulties. It does bother me that I can’t comfortably take risks to achieve the best goals that I want to achieve. But I have to play the hand I’m dealt, and do what looks doable right now. Some of my friends are having the same problem of having to recalculate what is probable and what is possible.
“But I’m a moral person and I don’t believe in God. Are you saying that atheists can’t be moral?”
“But what if you needed to lie in order to save someone’s life? It seems that morality is not absolute as you say it is.”
‘Where’s your evidence for objective morality? I won’t believe in anything unless I have evidence for it.’
‘If morality is objective, then why do some cultures practice female genital mutilation, cannibalism, infanticide, and other atrocities which we, in the West, deem unacceptable?’
‘But God carried out many atrocities in the Old Testament. He ordered the genocide of the Canaanites.’
That last one seems to be popular, so let’s double-check the details:
For starters, this isn’t really an objection to the moral argument. It does not attack either premise of the argument. It is irrelevant, but let’s entertain this objection for a second. By making a judgement on God’s actions and deeming them immoral, the objector is appealing to a standard of morality that holds true outside of him/herself and transcends barriers of culture, context, time period, and social norms. By doing this, he/she affirms the existence of objective morality! But if the skeptic wants to affirm objective morality after throwing God out the window, then there needs to be an alternate explanation for its basis. If not God, then what is it? The burden is now on the skeptic to provide a naturalistic explanation for the objective moral framework.
If you have heard any of these objections before when discussing the moral argument, click through and take a look.