Customer Reviews

Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This was a fairly good basic intro book for the issues of God/time and God's knowledge/future contingents. While this issue is usually discussed in philosophical journals and in books which cost an arm and a leg to purchase, Craig has brought the issue to the lay persons and scholars alike.

Before I review this book, it must be noted that I disagree with Craig's position. However, I think that Craig has done a noble job in defending his position, and I respect him for that. If I was able, I would have given Craig's book three and a half (3 1/2) stars for my own disagreements with Craig's overall assertions and some of the misunderstanding Craig had regarding certain philosopher's and their assertions (i.e. Aquinas being one which was mentioned below).

Craig's position in this book is that God is temporal (or omnitemporal) due to relations which occurred with the created universe (relations which were not present w/o creation). Craig argues his point based on several elements. First, Craig believes that God cannot remain untouched by the created order's temporality. In other words, according to Craig, God comes into (so to speak) new relations which were not present without the created universe. Second, Craig believes that once time begins at the moment of creation, God becomes temporal by virtue of His real relation to the temporal world. Third, thus God, at least, according to Craig, undergoes some type of extrinsic change due to this new real relation with the created world. These are Craig's underlying assertions regarding God and time.

Also, in this book, Craig rejects Einstein's interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Note, I did not say that Craig denies STR, rather he agrees with the Lorenzian interpretation of the theory over and against Einstein's interpretation. You can read why Craig believes this, since he details it in several chapters of this work.

I believe Craig's overall assessment of the issues is misdirected and wrong in several areas. First, He univocally predicates to God relations which occur between one human and another. This predication occurs via God's new relations with the universe. However, if God is a necessary being (which I think Craig would agree that God is), then any properties predicated of that Being must be predicated necessarily. However, if God is omnitemporal (as Craig asserts) then these properties must be predicated necessarily. By Craig's univocal predication, he does not predicate of God necessarily as he should. This is so because Craig declares that God "changes" from a being who is eternal to a being who is omnitemporal. This is, via Craig's view, an ontological change in God's nature and this is, I believe, metaphysically impossible. Either God is necessarily eternal or God is necessarily omnitemporal. He cannot move from one state to the other and remain a necessary being.

Another problem I had with this book was Craig's misunderstanding of Thomas Aquinas' assertions about God and real relations. In chapter three (3), "Divine Temporality," part II. "Divine Relations With the World," Craig asserts, "Thomas [Aquinas] escapes the conclusion that God is therefore temporal by denying that God stands in any real relation to the world." This could not be more inaccurate and wrong. Aquinas does not deny that God stands in any real relation to the world. In fact, Aquinas declares just the opposite. Aquinas asserted three types of relations: one where both terms are ideas, one where both terms are real, and one where one is real and one idea. That which is created, according to Aquinas, is really dependent upon God, but God is not really dependent upon the created. Thus, they are related as real to an idea. God knows about the relationship of dependence but He does not actually have it. The relationship between God and the world is very real, but God is not dependent in that relationship. In other words, Aquinas is only denying dependent relations between God and the world, not all real ones. Aquinas treats this issue in the Summa Theologiae, 1a. 13, 7, ad. 2. (Also, for an easy explanation of this issue see Norman Geisler's book titled "Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal" I briefly summarized this position based upon those two works).

Overall, Craig's book is pretty good, but it is wrought with several problems. I appreciate Craig's work to bring this issue to the non-philosopher, so to speak, but I would recommend reading Craig's book in light of Brian Leftow's book titled "Time and Eternity," and Paul Helm's work titled "Eternal God." Both of these books are available here at Amazon.com.

In this fascinating treatment of God's relationship to time, William Lane Craig argues that God, though timeless without the universe, is in time since the creation of the universe. This detailed study encompasses a wide variety of issues, including the biblical conception of God, the nature of time, relativity theory, the linguistic account of tensed facts, and a slew of other topics.

Near the beginning of the book, Craig considers arguments in favor of God's timelessness. He first considers arguments that God's immutability or simplicity necessitate a timeless nature. Craig points out that these doctrines, however, are more controversial than the doctrine of divine timelessness itself, and therefore cannot be used to support timelessness. Moreover, both of these doctrines have conceptual difficulties and lack a clear scriptural basis (verses discussing God's immutability only entail that God's character does not change).

The next argument leads into some exciting territory. Defenders of divine timelessness sometimes argue that Einstein's relativity theory supports their view. Since the special theory of relativity implies that there is no absolute "now" but rather a plethora of inertial frames, we must reject the idea that God is in time. For if God is in time, then He is either in a specific inertial frame (according to which He is ignorant of real facts concerning all the other reference frames) or He is in multiple inertial frames (which leads to a radical splitting of God's consciousness). Since both of these alternatives are untenable, we are forced to reject God's temporality.

Here, Craig argues that Einstein's interpretation of relativity theory is not the only valid interpretation, and, in fact, the physicist Hendrick Lorentz (a contemporary of Einstein) offers a better interpretation which upholds absolute time and space. According to Lorentz, measuring devices shrink or contract in the direction of motion, and it is impossible to experimentally determine one's absolute location and time, even though in reality there is an objective fact about the matter. Craig contends that Einstein's interpretation of relativity was heavily influenced by a verificationist epistemology and that Lorentz's interpretation is actually superior, since it upholds the commonsense notion of absolute time and actually accords better with some scientific findings.

Finally, Craig considers the argument offered by some advocates of divine timelessness which contends that temporal existence is not adequate for God, as the most perfect being. Due to the inherent limitations of temporal existence, God must exist timelessly. Craig argues that, while the argument has some plausibility, it is inconclusive. God's omniscience entails that He always knows what is coming in the future and He never forgets what happened in the past, and, moreover, there is some evidence that consciousness of time's flow can be an enriching experience.

In chapter 3, Craig offers two powerful arguments in favor of God's temporality. The first concerns God's actions in the temporal world. Given that God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the world, and is therefore Himself temporal. The second argument concerns God's knowledge of facts. Since some facts are tensed (and thus are past, present, or future), God's knowledge of such facts must change. For example, in order for God to know what time it is now, He must constantly change His belief about the current time. Craig argues that it is impossible for a timeless God to know tensed facts such as "It is now 3:00 P.M."

After discussing arguments for and against divine timelessness and divine temporality, Craig embarks on a fascinating discussion of the very nature of time. There are actually two main theories of time seriously discussed by philosophers today- dubbed the "A-Theory" and the "B-Theory" of time (or the tensed theory and tenseless theory of time, respectively). Essentially, the A-Theory is the theory of time of the man on the street. According to this view, there really is an objective `now' and things really come into and go out of existence. The B-Theory holds that `now' is just a subjective feature of consciousness and that things do not really come into or go out of existence. Past, present, and future events are all equally real.

Craig argues at length that our experience of tense and the ineliminability of tense in language provides powerful justification for adopting the A-Theory. The B-Theory of time is primarily justified on the basis of a Minkowskian interpretation of the special theory of relativity, according to which reality should be understood as a four-dimensional structure called "space-time." On this view, the universe just exists as a four-dimensional block and there is no room for tensed facts or temporal becoming. Craig argues that, once again, a Lorentzian interpretation of relativity can plausibly account for all the same facts and is metaphysically superior to the Minkowskian interpretation.

Having considered the arguments for and against divine temporality and divine timelessness and surveyed the arguments for the competing models of time, Craig concludes the book by arguing that God is in time. However, as can be recalled from a summary of the arguments for divine temporality, Craig's case that God is in time is based on the existence of a temporal universe. Without that universe, there is no reason to think that God is in time, and, Craig argues, this view leads to incoherencies. If God has existed for an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the universe, then why did He wait so long to create? Craig therefore concludes that God, though in time since the creation of the universe, is timeless without the universe.

Anyone interested in God's relationship to time should read Craig's illuminating study in "Time and Eternity." Whether or not you accept his conclusion, this book will help clarify your thinking on this complicated subject, as well as enhance your knowledge of a number of intriguing issues being discussed in philosophy and theology.

The extent of my philosophy background includes courses in introductory philosophy and logic in undergraduate school many years ago, two analytics courses in graduate school, supplemented by infrequent reading in the genre of philosophy and physics over several decades. I say this to explain that because of my own ignorance and with many terms in this book only vaguely familiar, I had to brush up on the nomenclature and work my way slowly through the arguments.

In spite of the voids in my own education, Craig does such an excellent job of presenting his case(s) clearly and with helpful reiteration, I could hold the train of thought as he progressively built up to the final conclusion of his overall argument in the last chapter. I found that the title of his book perfectly reflects its content. He truly explores God's relationship to time in light of the foremost prevailing arguments of physicists, philosophers, and theologians. Even where he patiently labors through some of the confusing, apparently fallacious arguments of contenders, Craig presents the opposing views with clarity and fairness and does his best to keep the reader on track. In his own inimitable style however, he is amusingly frank about the absurdities he unravels. In devoting a chapter to the relation of his conclusions to Biblical statements about God's existence in or before time, Craig gives focus and relevance to his arguments.

Craig states in his preface that this book "is written for Christians who want to grapple seriously with the concept of God's eternity", and he does for the reader exactly what he set out to do. I came away with clarity and not confusion due to his articulate, precise, and well organized presentation. Moreover, even though it was slow going for me, the author's style sustained my attention and overall interest. While giving periodic hints, there was nonetheless an air of intrigue as to what Craig's final conclusion would be. In short, the book is brilliant in entertaining, exercising, and edifying the reader.

Greg Boyd in his Is God to Blame? footnotes that William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity is "a definitive refutation" of Divine timelessness. Coming from Boyd, whose "hexagon of opposition" has accounted for contingency by reworking Aristotle's "square of opposition," this is a high enough recommendation to buy Craig's book.

While I do not agree with God's relation to time changing because of creation (and Craig himself admits that Personality implicitly requires duration/time; and the Godhead interacts from everlasting to everlasting), the more fundamental point is that the unfortunate tradition--based on rhetoric of words rather than concepts according with reality-- I say the tradition of "timeless eternity" always was flawed. We have nothing to fear by updating our language to line up with Scriptural revelation as applied in the context of a better understanding of God's creation (which itself arose from applying His Law to the study of physical creation). If, in the process, we also come to a better way to express His moral relations with beings created in His image, all the better for both evangelism and personal moral growth (sanctification).

To put Craig (and his Molinist commitments) in context BEFORE reading this book, I highly recommend carefully reading God and Time, edited by Ganssle. Craig there shows, as in the present book, a wide reading and ability to interact philosophically. He comes to the same basic conclusion (a timelessness apart from creation, and a dynamic interaction since creation) - and Wolterstorff lays the axe to that, though not exhaustively nor so explicitly as to be unkind. The main point, however, is that despite various current theorizings about God interacting dynamically in a a real duration, the divine timelessness idea is shown to be no longer serious in theology (just look at the necessary admissions of Helm in God and Time - as I said, that viewpoint holds to a rhetoric of words, not a reality we can take seriously).

All to say, read God and Time first. And also read Nicholas Wolterstorff's several page essay "God Everlasting" (sometimes titled "God is Everlasting"), he who also wins he debate hands down in God and Time.

That said, Craig deals more extensively with the literature, as he does here in Time and Eternity. While his pre-commitment to Molinism still prevents him from embracing a fully contingent future (as created by God, within the created constraints on those contigencies), Craig still cuts us loose from the unnecessary moorings of "Divine timeless eternity" rhetoric to engage an intelligent world with Divine revelation that remains powerful across the ages. Molinism seeks to hold the old overall theological constraint of an exhaustively pre-mapped reality within the growing recognition of contingency for free willed beings. But this is at least a step in the direction of recognizing that God knows all things truly, including knowing contingency AS contingency (as evangelical theologian J. Oliver Buswell noted long ago).

Time and Eternity gives the current lay of the land, and some interesting and thoughtful interaction. Even if the reader goes beyond Craig's thoughts, it is Craig who has done much spadework and who points the way. It is important in my library for the reason Boyd gives: it is a definitive refutation of "Divine timelessness." Therefore, even defenders of the more traditional view must interact with it. While I say "traditional," that is not to say that there have not been many in the past (including the prophets of the Jews) who never held such a mental conception of a pre-planned future; Augustine's neo-platonist syncretism is still causing us problems, defended as it was by the sword (see chapter 7 and Appendix A of Winkie Pratney's The Nature and Character of God for a concise summary display of Augustine's view next to identical non-reformed neo-platonic musings.)

Bill Craig does an excellent job comparing the various views proffered by philosophers regarding the question of the nature of time. He explains the A and B theories of time well. As an A theorist, he considers the 'tensed' nature of time as the most 'common sense.'

Briefly, the A-theory is that what is past is gone forever and what is future is yet to have happened. B-theorists believe time is dimensional and exists as an all-encompassing whole. A being outside of time, on B-theory could interact with any point in history as the present.

Bill goes on to expound upon the nature of God's relationship to time. Since God is considered unable to interact with his time-bound creation from a position outside of time, Bill believes that after the moment of creation God himself became time-bound. So on Bill's view, "prior" to creation, God is atemporal and after creation God becomes temporal.

He has been criticized for compromising God's immutability with his position, but he explains why he disagrees with his objectors. I personally believe the premise that God is unable to interact with his creation from a position of atemporality is a flawed premise. Hence I prefer the B-theory.

Nevertheless, even though I disagree, Bill's treatment of the issues is very thorough and well thought out. I'd recommend a potential reader also read Paul Helm's Eternal God: A Study of God without Time to gain two perspective on the issue.

Willaim Lane Craig describes and defends his view on God's relationship to time, giving arguments for and against both temporal and timeless existence for God. Craig concludes that there is better reason to think God is temporal. Then Craig defends his the A theory of time against the B theory. Craig deals with many interesting, difficult, and hard to understand theories in this book, but makes it as easy as it can possibly be made for a popular audience. (And, given his lengthy discussion of relativity theory, this was no doubt not easy). Anyone who reads this book will come away with a much better understanding of God's relationship to time, and time itself, then they had before they opened it.

The only drawback is that God's relationship to time is not a huge theological/philosophical topic, and therefore, this might not be a high priority book for many people. I concede that, but then say that for those who wish to learn more about it, I highly recommend it.

This is not just another book that will leave you wondering whether on not you are reading just for the sake of reading itself. Craig has once again brought to light some fascinating facts about time. He begins by giving a concise analysis of the history of relativity from Galileo and shows how Newton believe time and space to be absolutes in their own right. He further shows the development in history toward STR by introducing the laymen to Einstein's predecessors. Those of us who lack the acuity for physics can rest assured that Craig will enlighten even the most untrained in this area. He introduces the theory of relativity as a stepping stone to bring to light good reasons why Einstein's STR concerning reducing time and space to less than absolute, and preferring a verificationists point of view, is not as coherent as first thought in light of the discoveries in Quantum Mechanics. He goes on to show how combining time, as Einstein did to a three-D universe thereby making it a 4-D universe, has not shown that his model is anything more than a limited finite theory of time. This can be seen and understood when one considers how STR does away with those frames of reference that we all need in order to deal with one another on a daily basis. By bringing together the theory of tensed frames of time he cogently shows how STR is limited in its ability to take into consideration those areas of metaphysics that show the epistomology time. He continues to develope this idea throughout the book and never give rise to boredom as he builds a case for absolute time and space. The book is a good read and gives one the feeling as he reads that Craig is definitly a leader in this field of study. This book is an important reference for ones study in the areas of both biblical and philosophical theology.
Happy Reading , Mike from Little Rhody

Few people fall into the intersection of philosophy and physics. Add theology as a third curve on the Venn diagram and you're done to a small population. No one does this sort of explanation better than Dr Craig. Though he did not formally train as a scientist, he has grasped the key elements needed to deal with God, time, relativity, and experience without resorting to dense, formal, modal logic.

Dr. Craig does a splendid job of tackling a very complex subject, which is really beyond human capacity. Maybe that is why many of the arguments he presents must be looked at several times to truly understand his meaning. Just glossing over the text will provide many holes in your grasp of these concepts. Some grounding in physics is really essential for understanding. Otherwise it is a good read, but do not expect to read it quickly.

This is a well referenced book and gives much information. However, don't expect to find answers. I'm not a philosopher so qualify my comments accordingly. In my opinion the author sometimes uses uses terms loosely and even inappropriately to reach his conclusions. My disagreement with him made it a very stimulating book to read and helped clarify my own thoughts.