On matters of religion, I have some profound disagreements with William Lane Craig, though there are some areas of agreement, too. Some of our disagreements are on very important issues but he is absolutely brilliant, especially in those areas of philosophy which he has specialized in. Even when we might not see exactly eye-to-eye on those things, what he says on them is worth listening to and thinking about. That's the reason I have listened to a number of his debates, his lectures and his interviews, especially on such issues as the interview he posted yesterday in which he went over an interview the eminent mathematical physicist, Roger Penrose gave to Robert Kuhn, on Closer To Truth. I am going to listen to the Penrose interview a few more times and might say something about that later. But I think Craig's critique of what Penrose says, especially on such things as mind-body dualism and what Penrose calls his "trialism" and the issues involved in materialist monism, mind-body dualism and Penroses introduction of mathematical objects and properties as a third realm of reality are worth listening to several times as well.
In light of the hackneyed and rote recital of the old argument against mind-body dualism, that an immaterial mind couldn't have any way to interact with a physical body (which is wrong*) it is interesting to think of why so many materialists who reject that possibility have no problem with such a proposed mathematical realm of reality having an even less explainable connection to materialism. It seems to me that a materialist having to explain everything in terms of the crudest and most basic of defined properties of material objects and forces is at a total loss to explain both the possibility of other entities having other properties and, in the case of minds, abilities, that aren't so limited, which aren't definable in terms of physical properties and laws.
Penrose seems to have no problem with understanding that problem in terms of the interaction of mathematics and the material realm, which he takes as separate realms but he doesn't seem to understand that minds, which he implies are real, may have abilities that make the obvious understanding of his mathematical realm unsurprising.
I don't agree with everything that William Lane Craig says in this video and our interests in the issue don't exactly match, his is obviously primarily as a support of theism (which is interesting and perhaps persuasive, though I'm reticent to go there) mine is obviously political, as well. But his analysis and criticism and agreement with Roger Penrose is worth considering. I'll be considering both of these recordings for a long time to come.
* I've been through that before, if there is a non-material mental realm then the entities in that realm would not be rationally expected to have the same limits as that of unconscious matter because if those minds had the same limits they would not be different than physical objects. And our experience of the mind is not explainable by physical or material laws. Including our understanding and perception of and consciousness of any external reality.
Mind-body dualism was never, actually, refuted, it was merely made unfashionable. As Craig points out someone as sophisticated in terms of material understanding implicitly accepts the validity of dualism which he wants to extend to a third realm of reality. I'm not sure, from what I've heard, that Penrose is entirely comfortable with that implication of his statements, though he is certainly aware of the inadequacy of the materialist, brain-only dogma that has a hegemonistic hold on the culture of academia.
Update: I just noticed that I linked to the wrong thing, above, here is what I'd meant to link to.
I started watching the video in the series where Kuhn talks to a younger William Lane Craig, I have to admit I was distracted by the vase on a piano in the background. If there's one thing that drives me nuts it's seeing people putting any liquid near a piano, knowing what water can do to, for example, a well working keyboard. Pianos aren't furniture. I'd dope slap anyone who put a vase of flowers or a glass of water or a drink on one.
Update 2: Nope, that wasn't the right link either. I can't find it, now. You'll just have to listen to it as WLC has it on the Youtube.