Dawkins speaks: Why he won’t debate William Lane Craig … Craig advocates genocide

Dr Liddle: Pardon some fairly frank words. It seems only some fairly plain speaking will get through -- perhaps not immediately, but eventually. It is quite plain to me that you have not worked through either the implications of the Dawkins/new Atheist demonise the Christians Alinskyite agenda (you would doubtless be shocked to see where it is already at and where it is heading -- criminalisation and persecution or even murder of decent people . . . and that is exactly what has happened within living memory so do not try to brush it aside) nor the balance of relevant issues as can be seen here as an introduction. The persistent attempt to belittle and demonise -- I recall here Pullman in the Golden Compass and Brown in the Da Vinci Code etc, as well as Dawkins' fulminations and the machinations of the radical homosexualists in pursuit of their agenda for our civilisation -- the God we read of in the Bible and whose influence has so positively shaped our civilization, tells far more about those who do it than it does about the God we read in scripture, in history and in the transformed lives of millions who have come to know him in the face of Christ. In short, as I have pointed out here on from the beginning, your angry reading of the text, following that of Dawkins et al and those of like ilk, is irresponsible and unbalanced. It is dangerous, and predictably leads to justifying oppression of decent people of conscience. (I already have pointed out to you several cases right there in the UK, the last being the Christian coffee shop in Blackpool reported to the police and threatened with prosecution under the Public Order Act for the thought crime of showing a scripture readings DVD on a TV on its wall. Is that what you really want?) It caricatures, demonises and sets up people who have honestly and responsibly faced and struggled with difficulties in their worldview -- ALL worldviews have difficulties, some more insuperable than others [e.g. up to now, you have had no coherent account of the basis of objective morality in evolutionary materialism, cf my comment on your linked comment on p 2 of this thread, here; BTW, this means that you have no grounds in your system for objecting on moral grounds, other than the very borrowed Golden Rule from the very system you now so plainly despise and would belittle]. Let me snip from the updated discussion on the Potter's house, to suggest what a more reasonable and responsibly balanced reading would look like (go here for onward links): _______________ >> we may examine leading new atheist and multiply best-selling author, professor Richard Dawkins' notorious quote as he begins his attack on what he terms "the God Hypothesis," in his best-selling book, The God Delusion (2006):

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)]

The rebellion-rooted anger at God, the dismissal as "fiction[al]," the demonised strawman caricature, the multiple inaccuracies practically leap out. At least, to the reasonably informed reader who knows the balance of the Biblical and OT teachings and records on the good and just God who loves, is concerned, and therefore redeems, forgives, often relents even on the brink of destructive judgement (once there is penitence), and as a rule rescues a remnant -- whether a Noah and family, or a Rahab, or even the brands plucked from burning who save themselves from an untoward generation in the New Testament -- even in the midst of destructive judgement. Given the rising intensity of especially the snide insinuation deeply embedded in the above, that Bible-believing Christians are followers of an imaginary, barbarous bronze-age tribal deity and so are would-be theocratic tyrants, terrorists and supporters of racially-tinged genocide -- and the resulting rising tide of outright hostility or even hate, we should pause and notice how a more responsible reading would approach the troubling texts on God's destructive judgement of the nations:

a: Instead of the sort of incendiary rhetoric resorted to by Mr Dawkins, a responsible view would have highlighted that: our civilisation, historically, has had a strong respect for life, for justice and for protecting innocent life shaped by a moral climate deeply influenced by its Judaeo-Christian, biblical foundations. b: In that light, many people in our civilisation, Christians and otherwise, struggle with the apparent meanings of instructions given to the Israelites during the Canaanite conquest. c: This conquest is presented as a divine judgement of seven nations that — after 400 years of warnings dating to Abraham and the exemplary judgement from heaven against Sodom and Gomorrah — had defiantly filled up the cup of divine wrath [and as foreshadowing a similar fate hovering over Israel (and by extension other nations) if it too would forget and utterly rebel against God]; and there are other similar cases. d: There are different final views taken on these texts, but none -- including the dismissive -- are without fairly serious difficulties of one form or another. (This is part of why these passages, across the centuries, have troubled many concerned readers. [Cf recent discussions accessible online: Craig, Woods, Chin, Wade, Copan, Miller.]) e: However we may conclude, it seems well established in the theology of the Bible that God is judge of the nations, which are his tenants, and that the ultimate fate of nations is hinged to the question of national righteousness. f: So, historically, those who have been influenced by this tradition — e.g. the US founders when they looked at how they had come to the sad pass of oppression by England and war in the calls to prayer of Mar 16 1776 and Nov 1 1777, Thomas Jefferson in his well known “tremble” remark, and similarly Abraham Lincoln in his 2nd inaugural address — have been deeply concerned that the nations reform themselves from injustice and ungodliness. g: So, whatever our final conclusions about the passages, a responsible view should reckon with these factors instead of playing at the rhetoric of polarisation that Mr Dawkins has unfortunately resorted to.

From this, we can see how the object lesson-parable of the potter's house in Jeremiah 18:1 - 10 speaks to us as a key text for understanding passages on God's judgement of the nations (including Israel):

Jer 18: 1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’

In short, the "whole counsel" of the God of the Bible on his judgement of the nations includes an implicit conditionality. Penitence, even on the brink of disaster, can change the course of impending judgement. As a rule, we do not hear that side of the biblical story from the likes of a Dawkins. Indeed, from Jonah 4, we may see how the prophet, in a misguided sense of patriotism, had tried to run away from his call to prophesy a warning of judgement to the Assyrians, mortal enemies of Israel. And surely enough, the warning: "forty days and Nineveh [now Mosul] shall be destroyed" opened the door to national repentance led by the king, and to relenting in judgement. The prophet, still only half understanding the heart of God, complains (and God responds):

Jonah 4:1 . . . it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 And the LORD said, “Do you do well to be angry?” . . . . 11 " . . . should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”

Jonah was concerned and depressed about a plant that grew up, gave him shade then withered. God was more deeply concerned about a nation -- even, an enemy of Israel -- blindly heading for disaster, that it should have occasion to repent. So, a more balanced, better informed and nuanced, less angry-at-God reading of the texts, will give a very different view from prof. Dawkins' dismissal. But that is exactly the rhetorical point: all too many in our day have little or no knowledge of the Bible, not even a Sunday School level exposure. So, when they see the sort of distorted, out- of- context and slanderous summary above, that tries to push God into the dock, they are often misled to think it is an accurate and fair summary. And then, to try to correct the misperceptions and anger of those whose minds have thus been poisoned, is very hard. As a first balancing corrective, it is helpful to point the doubtful to the texts that lay out the core principles that Jesus highlighted as the support-hooks from which all the law and prophets hang:

Deut 6:1 “Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the rules that the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, 2 that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son's son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. 4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.2 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. [ESV] Lev. 19:9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. [ESV]

Such principles, concerns and contexts are unparalleled in the context of the Ancient Near East, and historically have been the bedrock foundation for reformation and liberation in our own civilisation. We would be most unwise to lightly walk away from them.>> _______________ I think the time for some serious reconsideration of some very poisonous rhetoric directed against God and those who take him seriously, has come. So, the ghosts of 100 millions from the past 100 years tell me. And anyone else willing to listen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

04:06 AM

4

04

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Genocide" is not restricted to the attempted elimination of populations with some kind of genotypic similarity. It is more often, in fact, applied to the attempted elimination of an ethnic group, more likely to be defined by culture than by genetics. Indeed, genetically, the concept of "race" is pretty hard to justify at all. Variance in the genes that cover the kind of superficial (literally) differences between population are trivial compared with variance that spans so-called "racial" groups. So, we are talking about the attempted elimination of an ethnic group here, not a racial group. Does that justify it? No. Not in terms of modern international law, nor in terms of basic ethics, IMO. Sure some cultural practices are abhorrent - female genital mutilation is one that springs to mind in modern times. But would that justify the elimination of an entire cultural group? Of course not. It would justify attempts to eradicate the practice, but certainly not the eradication of the population. If the allegedly divine command to eliminate the Canaanites was motivated by the divine wish to end child slaughter, why was it only accomplishable by military action that involved the slaughter of Canaanite children? Why is the allegedly omnipotent God, allegedly capable of all kinds of miraculous intervention, including the transmission of clearly articulated verbal commands to Israelite military leaders, unable to articulate those verbal commands to the Canaanite child sacrificers? It make no sense. Worse. It implies that God told the Israelites that killing babies was fine if they did it to please their god, but not if the Canaanites did it to please theirs. In other words, it underlines the subjectivity of any moral system based on the principle that right=equals what is divinely commanded. i.e. it begs the entire question of we are supposed to discern divine command.Elizabeth Liddle

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

03:49 AM

3

03

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kf, I did not "refuse to acknowledge its source". I gave my derivation quite explicitly. Here it is again:

The second [style of deriving moral principles] I’d call relatively objective, because independent people can come to the same conclusion given the same pair of pretty fundamental premises. First is: Morality is about what we ought to do. But what do we mean when we use the word “ought”? The word “ought” is the word we use when there is a conflict between the execution of actions that will fulfill our own inclinations and some alternative. We say: “I’d like to do this, but I ought to do that”. So “ought” is used to indicate a course of action that deprioritises self-centred (literally self-ish) interests in favour of the other-centred interests. So we have: Morality is about what we ought to do. What we ought to do is that which benefits others no less then ourselves. Therefore, morality is rooted in the maxim “treat others as you would be treated”. Or, if you prefer “love your neighbour as you love yourself”.

Please do not accusing me of "refusing" to provide things that I explicitly provided, although feel free to criticise it by all means. However, if your criticism is that it does not come from some Authority, then I would say that is circular, because my position is that moral precepts do not come from "Authority", but are derived from fundamental principles inherent in the way we choose our actions.Elizabeth Liddle

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

03:05 AM

3

03

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

One scenario is that the village holds a nuke or a germ warfare infection, and cannot be quarantined.kairosfocus

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

03:01 AM

3

03

01

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle, Pardon, but you are referring to a post in which you state objective morality but refuse to acknowledge its source or grounds:

That’s because morality really is objective. Even a four-year-old is capable of figuring out that he ought not to poke his sister, because he wouldn’t like to be poked, even if its fun to hear her wail. He may choose to ignore the “ought” in his head, but it’s still right there, in his head, because figuring out that kind of thing is what human heads are rather good at. Or, if you prefer, you can consider that God put it there when he made us human – that it’s what constitutes our humanity, our soul, our “knowledge of good and evil”.

A FOUR YEAR OLD, WITH GUIDANCE, IS PERHAPS CAPABLE OF FIGURING OUT THAT 1 + 3 = 4. On morality, he is responding to the testimony of his conscience so the real issue is whence that conscience and where does it derive its wisdom from. An examination of the evolutionary materialist account shows that instead of explaining conscience and its wisdom, it leads straight to self-referential absurdity on the cognitive capacity of mind, to a breakdown of the concept that we are significantly free and able to decide, and to amorality. (All of this is documented in the linked, here on and here on.) In fact, the record of the past century where such materialism has become a mass movement and has had power, is that it leads to benumbed conscience, absurd and abusive ideologies, and -- to often heavily bloody -- chaos. The basic grounds of the moral value of our fellow human being in our civilisation is that it recognises, under biblical influence through the influence of the now much despised and demonised Christians and their churches, that we are all equally made in God's image, and so must not be violated. Similarly, the conscience is the Lord's implanted candle, that speaks to us with God's core moral law, save where it has been corrupted and/or benumbed. That is why we see in Locke, in the intro to his essay on human understanding, sect 5, the following that has been brought to your attention previously several times -- and ignored:

Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.]

I think we need to look seriously at the counsels of Locke on this matter. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

02:59 AM

2

02

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Apologies! I hate it when people do that to me! Here: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/dawkins-speaks-why-he-won%e2%80%99t-debate-william-lane-craig-craig-advocates-genocide/comment-page-1/#comment-404990Elizabeth Liddle

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

01:34 AM

1

01

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I'm glad it was "telling", kf: it was meant to be. The challenge, as I see it, for Christians, or indeed a member of any Abrahamic faith, in reconciling the alleged divine commands to genocide with a good God, is to establish that (on the assumption that the stories are rooted in actual events) that their good God is in fact the same deity as what I am calling the "minor middle eastern deity" who is alleged to have issued these commands. For half a century I believed devoutly, in a good God. There is a sense in which I still have a referent for that signifier. However, I did not ever identify, for what seem to me pretty obvious reasons, that good God with the alleged divine agent to whom the order to commit genocide on the Canaanites and other populations was attributed. At best, it seemed to me, the writers of those accounts are reporting a misinterpretion divine command. More likely the whole thing was made up long afterwards. History, is, notoriously, written by the winners. And there is, as you probably know, a conspicious dearth of evidence for any wandering in the desert at all. None of this presents a theological problem unless you are committed to some kind of biblical inerrancy. I am actually not challenging theism, or even any specific mono-theism - merely the bizarre (to my mind) notion that there is a single divine text that represents an "objective" source for our knowledge of God and divine morality. That is the sense in which I find the accusation that atheists do not believe in "objective" morality actually inverted. From where I'm standing, a reasoned derivation of moral precepts derivable by anyone from pretty fundamental premises, independent of their position on the existence or identity of God of gods, has far more "objectivity" than any precept that depends for its validity on what seems to me a highly subjective choice of allegedly sacred text.Elizabeth Liddle

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

01:33 AM

1

01

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus, nullasalus I have to say that I agree that Uncommon Descent is rather unfocused at times in its presentation of different subjects. While I enjoy following some of the conversations that spring up regarding theology and philosophy, it would be wise to concentrate more on ID, and less on tangential topics. The title at the top of the browser states: "Uncommon Descent - Serving the Intelligent Design Community" or something to that effect. However, it often seems like the blog serves more as a news dump for "News" (Denise O'Leary?). Couldn't she be posting these kinds of stories on her own private blog (those concerning apologetics, politics, off-topic subjects in general)? I don't mean to single her out, and I mean no disrespect, but it would be wise if more discretion were exercised in what was posted and when. I find it difficult to track certain conversations just due to the overwhelming number of daily posts (I've lost count!). Of course I realize that there is little tie between Behe, Dembski and other prominent ID theorists to this blog, but it should still try its best to represent mainstream ID thought, literature, and so on.HouseStreetRoom

October 22, 2011

October

10

Oct

22

22

2011

12:19 AM

12

12

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

T, Well, I'd agree with you that ID should not be tied to any specific faith, or really, any faith at all. And I'd even agree that threads like this tend to get very far afield of what the ID focus should be. I disagree that the thread is 'clearly motivated by Christian concerns', at least in terms of topic presented. It's not merely Christians who have been calling Dawkins out on his ducking Craig - atheists have been doing so as well. Nor do you have to be a Christian to think that Dawkins' excuse of why he's avoiding Craig (an excuse which has changed pretty quickly in the past few days) is pretty damn unbelievable. I'd go so far as to say I doubt a single person here really believes Dawkins is being honest in why he's avoiding Craig. (Actually, the closest he came to telling the truth was saying that it would look better for Craig's CV than his. Being the premiere atheist who gets his head handed to him by a Christian apologist in debate tends not to do wonders for the CV.) I'd also disagree that it's evasive to point out the problems with making more claims given assumptions of atheism and materialism - in part because defenses of Craig's position inevitably entail discussing what is and isn't moral, what does and does not constitute grounding for moral claims, etc. If someone says "genocide is immoral!", then that invites the reply of, "Why?" or "Says who?" And if in the end immorality melts down to "Well, that just happens to be my personal standard, at the moment", the discussion is going to proceed from there. But frankly, I think I'm in agreement of what I see as your larger concern here. If this is an ID site - the main ID blog, as it were - then we probably should focus on ID. I'm not the boss around here, nor do I care to be, so if I'm in the minority on the question then that's that. But I do think discussing and/or promoting ID and the ID perspective should take priority far more than they've been. These conversations are worth having, but not necessarily needed here of all places.nullasalus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

11:11 PM

11

11

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

T, In what manner should a Canaanite culture engaging in child sacrifice, (along with other nefarious activities) be dealt with? Keep in mind the department of social services, the police, the courts, foster care and the threat of nuclear exchange did not exist then. It's easy to monday morning quarterback this thing.junkdnaforlife

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

11:04 PM

11

11

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

nullasalus: I don't agree with your analysis of what has happened on this thread. Elizabeth has been pressing the Christians here to say whether or not they agree with Craig's defense of the slaughter of the Canaanites. She hasn't argued that atheist regimes have been models of virtue or even that they are better than Christian regimes such as that of the Medieval Papacy; but we are getting all kinds of comments here about how bad atheist totalitarian states have been. This is to evade the question she is asking. It is equally evasive to ask Elizabeth what is the atheist basis of morality. The question is not whether atheist states have been moral, or whether atheist individuals can be moral, but whether certain passages of the Bible contain notions of God that are intolerable from a moral point of view, or even, for that matter, from a Christian point of view. I would like the Christians who are posting here to stand up and be counted on this question. I've stated my position. I think that there are parts of the Bible that are sub-Christian in theology and morals. Of course, Dawkins misuses such passages from the Bible to attack Christianity itself, and more generally, all religion, all notions of God, etc. His arguments are trite and deeply flawed, as even secular humanist philosophers have pointed out. But it doesn't follow that Dawkins is entirely wrong in what he says about parts of the Bible. I, for one, don't want the success or failure of ID tied to some of the views expressed on this thread, or for that matter on many other UD threads. I don't want the cause of ID wedded to the cause of Christian apologetics. Christianity could be entirely false, and ID could still be sound. ID is compatible with Judaism, for example, or Islam. And if ID doesn't even need "Christianity in general" to function, still less does it need extreme Biblicist forms of Christianity to function. If the Bible turns out to be a less than perfect book, nothing is at stake for ID. This is what ID proponents should be making clear to the world. This is what makes ID different from Creation Science. If people want to argue that atheism cannot provide a firm basis for morality, that is a discussion for a thread of its own, but in my view such a thread should be on another website altogether, because this is not a website about the ontological grounding of ethical systems, it is a website about design in nature. People boast about how ID is science, write whole books about how ID is science, and how it is not religion and how the Dover verdict was horribly unjust. But then, here on the main ID website (after Discovery), we get tens of thousands of words annually of Christian apologetics. So why should the world believe us when we say that all we are interested in as IDers is good science, and that ID is religiously neutral? That said, once a thread is introduced that is clearly motivated by Christian concerns -- the concern that Dawkins is ducking Craig -- I think that attacks on the Christian position are fair game. If ID people stick to the science, they have a right to insist that their critics stick to the science, but if they keep dragging religion in, their critics have the right to shoot back on the subject of religion. This is why I'm defending Elizabeth's question here. UD led from the chin by raising Dawkins/Craig in the first place. As for your last couple of sentences, I entirely agree with you about Dawkins's probable motivation for avoiding Craig, and I said as much to Elizabeth. T.Timaeus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

10:37 PM

10

10

37

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The situation is as follows: A UN team of doctors had been called into the village in Laos and discovers that all the men, women and children have contracted a virus which is 1) highly contagious, and 2) always deadly. As the medical team comes down with the virus, they realize that the survival of the human race may depend on complete and immediate eradication of the virus and thus of the entire village. Knowing that they're ordering their own deaths, they quickly arrange and coordinate the napalm attacks which the general carries out. What can we learn from the above hypothetical: 1) It is possible that a circumstance which seems completely morally inexcusable is actually morally justified when all of the facts are in. 2) In the absence of key information, it might not be possible to tell if an act is a moral atrocity or not. 3) When an act is committed which appears to run contrary to well established character, it may be appropriate to hold judgement in abeyance. Related to the Canaanite situation: 1) It may be the case that what appears to be morally inexcusable is actually justified--and would be recognized as such if all the relevant information were known. 2) We likely do not have all the relevant information and therefore may not be in a position to judge rightly. 3) If the character of God is best revealed (as Christian theology asserts) by the person and work of Jesus, God's character is predominated by love, mercy, grace and care directed toward the entire world. Assuming the above, and given an incident which appears on the surface to be inconsistent with the revealed character of God, we who hold to the above can reasonably consider the Canaanite conquest narrative as an anomaly which remains unexplained, but which could, if we knew all of the relevant information, be entirely justified. Christians such as WLC (and myself, I should add) recognize that the text in question is problematic in light of God's nature as revealed in Jesus. The Canaanite narrative doesn't sound like the God we know and love. Although we are not able to fully understand or explain the Canaanite narrative, it is important to recognize that it is the seeming incongruity which draws our attention to it. (No one finds the infant sacrifice commanded by Baal incongruous with the character of Baal--that's just Baal doing what Baal does.) Given the above, I'm content to consider God's commands within the episode in question an anomaly which I can't explain in light of God's established character and given the limits of my knowledge, but I also suspect that if I could know the mind of God, his actions would be revealed to be entirely just and justified.Waynekent00

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

10:05 PM

10

10

05

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

steveO: For a good layman's historical account of the Platonic tradition in Christianity, have a look at *Platonic Tradition in English Religious Thought* by W. R. Inge. It's available in a cheap facsimile reprint from Kessinger. Inge also wrote a number of works on Christian mysticism which have a Platonic bent. Another great 20th-century exponent of Christian Platonism (though of a quite different personal temperament from Inge) was Simone Weil, whose powerful long essay, *The Iliad: Poem of Force*, should give you an idea of why a Christian Platonist would reject the story of the Canaanites. T.Timaeus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

09:59 PM

9

09

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

T, I agree with you that the question whether atheist regimes have carried out horrible brutalities is completely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the slaughter of the Canaanites. The fact that atheists have done wrong could never justify the wrongdoing of Israelites, Jews, Christians, etc. But I don't think anyone here is saying that the slaughter that atheist regimes have engaged in "justifies" any wrongdoing of Israelites, Jews, Christians, etc. I think what's being rejected is the idea that atheist morality either historically has a great track record, that atheist and materialist metaphysics are consistent with the idea of moral evil (while there's the usual huffing and insisting that atheists can create these or those ethics, just what those ethics reduce to is legitimate to point out - along with just what it would mean to condemn others on moral grounds given those assumptions), or that - really - Dawkins' claim on this front is given honestly. You say that Craig's God is not worthy of worship. But you also come from a Platonist viewpoint, where 'worthy of worship' presumably is a thing of objective justification - in other words, it's not just a statement about your personal preferences. But for someone coming from an atheist materialist viewpoint, "worthy of worship" IS a thing of personal preference. And I think those responses which have called the that metaphysical bluff are legitimate - Dawkins' grandstanding about moral revulsion loses all of its superficial impressiveness the moment we start to account for what these words mean given his metaphysics. That said, I can absolutely understand how other Christians, other theists, other non-materialists could more easily talk about the moral qualms they have with Craig's views - though in this specific context (Dawkins is an admirer of Peter Singer, keep in mind) it doesn't carry much weight. But more than that, I say this: I defy anyone to say that they believe Dawkins is ducking out of a debate with Craig for any of the reasons he has so far given. I think it's very obvious that Dawkins is avoiding Craig because he wants to avoid getting stomped in debate again, and with such high stakes.nullasalus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

07:23 PM

7

07

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus, I've looked up Christian Platonism but am still far from understanding it. Could you expand a bit on your view of the Canaanite slaughter in particular and the Old Testament in general? Thanks, Steve.steveO

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

07:09 PM

7

07

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Cf my updated remarks here.kairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

06:59 PM

6

06

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka Deny away all you want, sorry, the facts here speak for themselves. You have -- in the teeth of easily accessible corrective information above [cf. e.g. 7.3 above] -- and in light of the context of drumbeat false accusations in the above, tried to further insinuate that Christians support genocide; supporting a rising tide of -- let's be frank -- hatred against Christians in our civilisation. A responsible position would instead have highlighted just where Craig began: our civilisation, historically, has had a strong respect for life, for justice and for protecting innocent life shaped by a moral climate deeply influenced by its Judaeo-Christian, biblical foundations. In that light, many people, Christians and otherwise, struggle with the apparent meanings of instructions given to the Israelites during the Canaanite conquest, presented as a divine judgement of seven nations that -- after 400 years of warnings dating to Abraham and the exemplary judgement from heaven against Sodom and Gomorrah -- had defiantly filled up the cup of divine wrath [and as foreshadowing a similar fate hovering over Israel (and by extension other nations) if it too would forget and utterly rebel against God], and similar cases. There are different final views taken, but none are without fairly serious difficulties of one form or another. However we may conclude, it seems well established in the theology of the Bible that God is judge of the nations, which are its tenants, and that the ultimate fate of nations is hinged to the question of national righteousness. So, historically, those who have been influenced by this tradition -- e.g. the US founders when they looked at how they had come to the sad pass of oppression by England and war in the calls to prayer of Mar 16 1776 and Nov 1 1777, Tho Jefferson in his well known "tremble" remark, and similarly Abraham Lincoln in his 2nd inaugural address -- have been deeply concerned that the nations reform themselves from injustice and ungodliness. A balanced, responsible view would simply not have sounded like you did just above. It is as simple as that. Please, do better than that next time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

06:29 PM

6

06

29

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I not slandering anyone. I'm just expressing amazement that anyone would try to justify genocide. If you don't think genocide is morally justifiable, then my comments are not directed at you. It's that simple.Petrushka

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

04:34 PM

4

04

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Elizabeth Atheism is the belief there is no god, Not a lack of belief.mrchristo

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

04:21 PM

4

04

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka said:

"Almost any basis for morality is superior to one that allows someone to claim that genocide can be justified by appeal to morality "

Please note that WLC and most Christians will never claim that a mere mortal can make moral judgements that encompass the ultimate good. If, however there is good reason to belief that a being with the ability to judge and affect the ultimate good then it has to be clear that pain and suffering can ONLY be part of that beings' moral judgements. What would qualify any human to make this type of judgement? What qualify humans to know or even be able to find the "greater good". I am sorry, but the "golden rule" cannot be entrusted to humans because we have no idea of what the greater good really is.mullerpr

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

04:09 PM

4

04

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

---Petrushka: "Almost any basis for morality is superior to one that allows someone to claim that genocide can be justified by appeal to morality." How can you discern which moraltiy is superior to any other morality including your own, if you have no objective standard by which you can measure them all?StephenB

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

04:01 PM

4

04

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"So why do people think that the end of a pregnancy is the death of a human being? It’s the end of the possibility of a human being. But the process of becoming a human being is not an instantaneous one. There is no moment at which there was a human being now, that wasn’t there an instant ago, or at least there is no biological reason to think so. A human being develops over a life time, and certainly over a pregnancy, from an avolitional cluster of cells to a baby capable of deciding which thumb to suck, learning what feels good, and what feels bad, and looking forward to the next good part." The terms "embryo", "fetus", "newborn", "child", "teenager" all describe stages of human development. A teenager is not more human than a newborn and a fetus is not more human than a conceptus. The human life is maturing, but it isn't becoming more human.Waynekent00

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:54 PM

3

03

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ms. Liddle, You really make these conversations lively. Thanks for posting even though you get a lot of abuse. I agree with Timaeus to a point. I also find Craig's defense problematic and troubling. But he is forced to make it because he has accepted the inerrancy of the bible. I believe in the bible and that it contains the word of God. Some parts of it though are merely inspired and others are false (imho: Sampson). It seems to me that the slaughter of the Canaanites were justified after the fact. BUT! I will attempt to put some things in context, not to justify what the Israelites did, but perhaps to show what they may have been thinking. 1. They knew (and possibly God knew) that if Israel did not wipe away the Canaanite culture that Israel would eventually adopt it and take part in the Canaanite practices of sacrificing children. It turns out that they eventually did that. 2. In pre-industrial societies, children were seen as economic assets. God (supposedly) did not want the Israelites to think that they were profiting from the destruction of the Canaanites. That is also why their goods were to be destroyed, not used by the Israelites. Please remember that I'm not saying these are justifications, but important cultural context.Collin

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:54 PM

3

03

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Coo!Sonfaro

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:54 PM

3

03

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sonfaro, Thanks for your two cents. I have in mind a bit of information which, once learned, would completely exonerate the general and whereby the entire world would salute him in gratitude. Not only that, but if he had failed to act as he did, knowing what he knew, he would be guilty of grave evil. I'll hold onto this a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to chime in.Waynekent00

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:40 PM

3

03

40

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Petrushka: You are slandering and willfully misrepresenting people [in the teeth of easily accessible corrective information; just scroll up], to foment hostility to and rage against them. In so following Dawkins' footsteps, guess what -- you are taking the sort of first rhetorical steps that in Russia, in Cuba and elsewhere led to the mass murder of Christians. (And BTW, more Christians were murdered for their faith in the past 100 years than the previous 20 centuries together. It is NOT a coincidence that this was the century of atheistical and other militantly antichristian regimes and ideologies.) Think again, before further falsely accusing people like that. If you have a shred of decency left. Good night. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:33 PM

3

03

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Theres a Samuel L. Jackson movie based on this premise I think. There were people taking potshots at his men from a crowd of civilians and they had started doing real damage. Sams team was unable to discern who was the civillian and who wasn't, and they were running out of time. Sam reluctantly ordered his men to fire into the crowd in retaliation, basicly telling them to 'shoot anything that moves' (it's a Samuel L Jackson movie... there was more colorful language involved). A lot of civilians died in the crossfire, and the whole thing got caught on tape, which set up the movie. Can't remember the name. Think a terrible 'a few good men' mixed with 'a time to kill'. Sam was good though. To your hypothetical, I don't think anyone would praise the general for it. However, there are circumstances where I'd understand the order. If, say, the villiage in question was housing a cell of the enemy, and that enemy posed a serious threat to both the generals men and the war effort at large, and the enemy had been using both women and children as distractions, decoys, suicide bombers and what not to the point where the General can no longer discern who is a civilian and who is not, then I can understand it. I wouldn't pin a medal on him but I wouldn't strip him of rank either. The men he leads have to take priority in that case, because, while he'd knows that there were civilians, he wouldn't be able to know who was and wasn't one. This, coupled with an understanding that said General typically is humanitarian, would lead me to believe that the general thought he had no alternative. I mean, I suppose he could have surrendered or retreated but I don't think for a general during wartime that those are viable options. My two cents. - SonfaroSonfaro

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:28 PM

3

03

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Dr Liddle: In light of the history of our civilisation and the world, and especially contributions of men who paid dearly for serving God for the betterment of man [just research Wilberforce if you need a name to start with . . . ], think about the implications of an ever so revealing phrase just above:

a minor middle eastern deity

Sadly, tellingly revealing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:23 PM

3

03

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OK. It would be helpful if you would tell me where that might be.StephenB

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:14 PM

3

03

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since no one has said anything nice about God for a while, I will take up his defense: I think the first order of business is to establish the proper priorities. If God were to send a child to an eternal death (Hell) without allowing the child a choice in the matter, then it would be impossible to reconcile a good God with such evil actions. A good God, then, would settle this matter first and make sure that no eternal injustice is visited on the child, or anyone for that matter. So, we can logically begin with the principle that God will send no one to hell unless they volunteer to go there in some way. If the innocent person (the child) ends up with a positive eternal destiny, God has not been unjust to that person, even if that person’s life is cut dramatically short. From a temporal perspective, it is important to understand that there are no spiritual planes, either for people or for nations. Individually, for example, we are getting progressively better or progressively more corrupt. One can argue whether or not individuals reach a point of no return, but it is clear that nations or groups do. There was a time that the Canaanite culture had not reached this point, and God warned them many times that this could happen. Even today, God warns nations and individuals the same way, though usually through other people and institutions. With respect to the Canaanites, God knew that the time would come that they would reach that point of return, so apparently He held back until they did, indeed, reach it, and, as a result, they finally exempted themselves from his protection. Up until that time, God made every effort to pull them back from the brink, just as, even now, God is trying pull the United States and some other countries, back from the brink. When a nation or people are hell bent on destroying themselves, God eventually lets them have their way. Even so, the Bible teaches that God finds a way to turn these tragic events into something good. Apparently, in order to make it possible for billions of people to learn about and experience the Christian God, it was necessary for him to eliminate some nations and start over. Even God must clean house sometimes. True, innocent people suffer with the guilty, but what else is new. Millions of babies suffer abortion every year because the so-called adults insist on making up their own morality as they go along, even as they blaspheme God as an immoral tyrant. Still, from a Biblical perspective, history has a point. We know that God wanted to create for Himself a distinct people that would transmit his message to the world. If God allows these kinds of disasters to occur, it can only be because there is no other way to establish a culture that would be willing to advance his message. When society is organized by tribes, war is about the only way of changing the equation. Also, if God allowed elements of the Canaanite culture to survive, then God’s people might well have been tempted to polytheism and end their capacity to convey God’s truth. Further, keep in mind that life is a gift from God. No one is entitled to even one moment on this earth. What God gives, he has every right to take away because it is His to give or take away. It is not ours to keep. For me, the key question is this: Can God compensate the Canannite children who were destroyed? In many ways, it is related to another question: Can God make it up to all those aborted babies in the contemporary culture? If, indeed, heaven exists, the answer in both cases is yes. According to St Paul, the joys of heaven are so great, that the tragedies of this world are not worthy to be compared to it. So, if God sends all these destroyed babies to heaven, he has made up for everything. Thus, God is just if heaven exists and God is unjust is heaven doesn’t exist. I think heaven exists.StephenB

October 21, 2011

October

10

Oct

21

21

2011

03:12 PM

3

03

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link