International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 243–257 | Cite as

A pantheist in spite of himself: Craig, Hegel, and divine infinity



In his 2006 paper `Pantheists in Spite of Themselves: God and Infinity in Contemporary Theology,’ William Lane Craig examines the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Philip Clayton, and F. LeRon Shults, whose conceptions of God are influenced by Hegel. Craig shows that these thinkers’ Hegelian formulations lead to monism, despite their attempts to avoid it. He then attempts to refute Hegelian thinking by appealing to Cantor. I argue that that this refutation fails because Cantor and Hegel are far more amicable than Craig realizes, as Small’s and Drozdek’s work shows.


Divine infinity Pantheism Hegel Cantor Craig 


  1. Anselm (2007). Anselm: Basic writings (T. Williams, Trans.). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Cantor, G. (1915). Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers. Translated, and provided with an introd. and notes. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Cantor, G., & Zermelo, E. (1962). Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  4. Clayton, P. (1997). God and contemporary science. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.Google Scholar
  5. Clayton, P. (2000). The problem of god in modern thought. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Clayton, P. (2004). Panentheism in metaphysical and scientific perspective. In P. Clayton & A. Peacocke (Eds.), In whom we live and move and have our being: Panentheisitc reflections on God’s presence in a scientific world (pp. 73–91). Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, W. L. (1979). The Kalm cosmological argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig, W. L. (2006). Pantheists in spite of themselves: god and infinity in contemporary theology. In J. K. Beilby (Ed.), For faith and clarity: Philosophical contributions to christian theology (pp. 135–156). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Drozdek, A. (1999). Number and infinity: Thomas and cantor. International Philosophical Quarterly, XXXIX(153), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). Hegel’s science of logic (A. V. Miller, Trans.). London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Kuyper, A., & Vries, J. H. D. (1893). Pantheism’s destruction of boundaries-part II. Methodist Review, 75(S 1893), 762–778.Google Scholar
  12. Meschkowski, H. (1965). Aus den briefbüchern georg cantors. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 2, 510–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore, A. W. (1990). The infinite. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oppy, G. (1995). Reply to Craig: inverse operations with transfinite numbers and the Kalam cosmological argument. International Philosophical Quarterly, XXXV(138), 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pannenberg, W. (1991). Systematic theology (G. W. Bromiley, Trans., Vol. 1). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Rowe, W. (2007). Does panentheism reduce to pantheism? A response to Craig. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61(2), 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shults, F. L. (1999). The postfoundationalist task of theology: Wolfhart pannenberg and the new theological rationality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  18. Shults, F. L., & Sandage, S. J. (2003). The faces of forgiveness: Searching for wholeness and salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Small, R. (1992). Cantor and the scholastics. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, LXVI(4), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Incarnate WordSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations