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

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 20, 2011

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here (The Guardian, October 20, 2011). Craig, he says, advocates genocide. Referencing the Hebrew wars recounted in the Old Testament, he quotes Craig,

You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

[See also: Historian: Fool or coward? For Dawkins, that is not an easy choice]

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

Hey, wait a minute. If Dawkins did not want to debate Craig because he purportedly advocates genocide, why didn’t he say that up front many months ago?Are we to believe that Dawkins kept this serious accusation under his hat until now?

Surely, it is more likely that he never intended to debate Craig, because he is more used to receiving adulation than critical analysis. And then conveniently someone forwarded him a useful excuse.

Let’s hope Craig’s team offers to debate him on the points he raises, as long as Craig is allowed to raise others later, like the widely doubted plausibility of ultra-Darwinism.

Comments

'Course you don't have 'reason to thing God ordered the genocide'. You don't believe in God. :-) But we're opperating on the assumption that he exists in this discussion right? Asking "why would we serve a God that does this". Retaining your position while engaging in a hypothetical seems a bit weird to me. I mean if it did happen it would be tragic. I don't think anyone, christian or otherwise, is denying that. What some of us are saying though is that it wouldn't be wrong: which is what you're saying, right? It sucks, and makes folks uncomfortable. But then so does watching a mom pop her kid in the grocery store. Not on the level of mass bloodletting, no. But the same basic principle. If this culture was, as the bible says, filled with child burning deviants with a taste for warfare, why would it be wrong to remove them from the earth? Wouldn't they fit the definition of evil? As I've already stated that this wasn't an act of racism: Caananites and Israelites were both semetic peoples. This was a case of several cultures doing things that were actually wrong for long periods of time and, after recieving their warning, getting destroyed utterly, so they could never rise again.Sonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Almost any basis for morality is superior to one that allows someone to claim that genocide can be justified by appeal to morality.Petrushka_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Also, Elizabeth, you have not answered the problem that, if we can all make up our own morality, then God can also make up his morality, which means that you should not be criticizing Him for exercising the option that you claim everyone should have. Your position falls apart at every level.StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

"Is it anything more than obedience to an authority for the sake of being rewarded or to avoid punishment?" There are three kinds of people who want to save their souls by doing what God tells them, for three different reasons. Those who do it for fear of being punished if they don't, are in the state of a slave. Those who do it for a reward are in the state of a mercenary. But those who do it purely out of love for God, are in the state of a son and heir. I do not care how one would call it, objective or otherwise. The most important thing is that God is the source of law, i.e. it is up to Him to determine for his creation what is right or wrong. Humans are not autonomous. We are not entitled to decide for ourselves what is good or bad. The desire to be independent of God was the fall of man. The commandments are in fact safety precautions. God is not a policeman but a Father. If He says that we shall not do this or that, it is for our own sakes, not for the sake of forbidding. If we do contrary to His will, we will deeply suffer because we bear His image within us. The greater our sin is, the greater the suffering becomes, which may, in the worst case, be eternal. And on the other hand, if we do what He wants us to do, we get a spiritual reward, a clear conscience and joy, which in the best case scenario, may be eternal.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

You are appealing to objective morality -- "the morality I am advocating has the virtue of being based on universal principles and can be derived by anyone, regardless of their beliefs", in a context where you have no grounds for it on your acknowledged worldview. Does that not tell you that something has gone very wrong indeed in the foundations of evolutionary materialism?kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Your position is logically flawed. There are only three options. 1 [A just God exists and created man in his image, therefore, morality is objective] 2 [A just God doesn't exist, therefore, morality is subjective] 3 [Man invented God and conceived Him in man's image, therefore, morality is subjective] Your position is #2, which means that you cannot escape the charge that your morals are subjective and based on your feelings. My position is #1, which means that, if I am correct, morality if objective. In order to distract attention from the fact that your morality is subjective, you seek to change the subject by arguing that my position is really #3 because you can't conceive that position #2 could be true. Logically, your morality MUST be subjective. Mine need not be.StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

GUN: FYI, morality is grounded long before we get to the specifically Christian tradition. As was linked long ago now above. The issue here is not whether or how to ground morality in a worldview anchored on the Necessary Being who is the good God, it is to ground morality on evolutionary materialist premises. And it is that issue that is the point where it becomes absolutely clear that such materialism has no objective grounds for moral judgements. In short, it reduces to might and/or manipulaiton make right, which is patently absurd. In that context, when we see a Dawkins playing on perceptions of morality to try to distract from his irresponsibility and decades of slanderous vituperation by slandering a responsible Christian leader for supporting genocide, that sort of cynical strawman-slander tactic is utterly revealing on Dawkins' underlying attitudes and power-centred amorality. (Remember, the first thing Craig does in discussing the matter is to speak -- in the first person plural --about the moral struggle Christians routinely have with destructive judgements of nations.) Then, when we see others asking questions of the order of "have you stopped beating your wife . . . ," that simply underscores how deep the rot is. Saul Alinsky has done his fell work very effectively. And, before we can do the amputation that just possibly might save the patient (I am using metaphors here), the blood poisoning may prove fatal. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Okay, so let me suggest a scenario and we’ll see where it gets us: Imagine a general who had, in addition to an exemplary military record, a well deserved reputation as a humanitarian. At several points during his career he put his own life on the line in order to protect civilians, even going so far at one point as to disobey orders which would have resulted in innocent people being put in harms way. Some years after his death, a story surfaces, the known facts of which are indisputable: as a young commander, the officer participated in an incident which took place around a village in Laos during which U.S. troops encircled the village and watched from a distance while the commander repeatedly ordered napalm strikes, after which he ordered his troops, still at a distance, to open fire on anything that moved. It was known at the time that many women and children were in the village. The operation continued until the commander was satisfied that nothing had been left alive. Some questions for those inclined to engage: Is there any circumstance which would justify the above? Is there any information about the event which, once known, would rightly result in the general’s actions being lauded? Assume that the general’s reputation for humanitarian decency is based in truth: should what is known of the general’s character keep us from rushing to judgement in regard to this incident?Waynekent00_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Atheism and subjective morality go together like the proverbial horse and carriage.
From where I'm standing, the "subjective morality" is that claimed by those who have made subjective decision to nominate a specific deity as the arbiter of that morality, not that that solves anything, as the details seem far from clear. At least the morality I am advocating has the virtue of being based on universal principles and can be derived by anyone, regardless of their beliefs, and thus considerably more claim to objectivity than the special pleading for a minor middle eastern deity I'm reading here.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

No, I'm not upset at God, or the Israelites. I have no reason to think that God ordred the genocide of the Canaanites, nor much that it was actually carried out. What astonishes me is the special pleading on behalf of both by those who seem to think it actually happened.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I'd be grateful if you'd read, and perhaps respond, to my post about objective and subjective morality.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

"I’ll accept it for the sake of argument. My challenge would be: if the above is true, why should we consider that God worthy of worship?"
If the above is true, then God is worthy of worship because He is our creator -- the creator of our bodies, minds, spirits, and the source of our sense of morality and justice. That answer is simple, stipulating those attributes of God, because we can't avoid the implication that he is the source of all things, and we can't escape the fact that those attributes establish Him above His creation, which separately do not possess that divinity. If one accepts God's divinity, expressed in the omni-attributes, then one must also accept His holiness, which is an expression of all that is good. God's holiness denotes his righteousness, that right what is right and good is a direct reflection of his nature, and not capriciously established. The reason God is justified in making life and death decisions for each and every one of us is because He is responsible for His creation. We however are not divine. We do not possess the omni-attributes, and thereby, lack the moral authority to make life and death decisions regarding the innocent. This has to be self-evidently true, if God's holiness is taken for granted. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. -- Isaiah 46:10 In order to make known the end from the beginning, one must know the end, in the beginning. This means that God can judge righteously at any point along the way -- and that the things He does, as well as the things He doesn't do, all satisfy His purpose in conformity with His holiness. That should make us uncomfortable, but not because it allows God to judge capriciously (He does not) but because we have no such capacity, and hence lack the authority to do all that God can do, Him knowing the end in the beginning. We should certainly be uncomfortable with wholesale slaughter, even if God commanded it, because it should remind us of both our separation from God's holiness, and the cost of our sin as expressed in God's judgment. It's not my intention to make anyone feel better about the Canaanite slaughter, there's nothing to feel better about. It's awful and terrible, and we should find no comfort in the act itself. This doesn't mean that if God commanded it, He was wrong to do so. Such is impossible, for he cannot violate his nature. Again, if the omni-attributes are taken for granted, then it follows that God's actions are righteous, even if we don't understand or have difficulty reconciling them. This is in part because we have no such authority to make these judgments, because we do not possess holiness, because we do not possess the omni-attributes. I'd like to point out that the Canaanite slaughter is an event buried in the sands of time. No Christian worth his salt would claim that because God commanded a slaughter of an entire human line, that he issues these commands today, and that we can enact such "justice" in His name. However if we're going to fault God for a judgment which satisfied his omniscience, we should also take note of something, as outlined, is arguably yet to come. I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”a He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.” -- Revelation 19:11-18 Here I'm suggesting that we go big or go home. According to the book of Revelation, half the world's population will be swallowed up in judgement. That's nearly 3.5 billion people if it were to happen today. Should we spend our time with the Canaanite slaughter, which pales in comparison, or cut to the chase and determine if God is justified in judging the entire earth in wrath? Ask and see: Can a man bear children? Then why do I see every strong man with his hands on his stomach like a woman in labor, every face turned deathly pale? How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it. -- Jeremiah 30:6-7 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’b spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. -- Matthew 24:15-22 It is not my goal here to present Christianity as inoffensive. Even the name of Jesus Christ is offensive to many, if not most. Anyone will be offended by Christianity who cannot reconcile history and prophecy with God's right -- even responsibility -- to judge mankind for its inherent wickedness. You say that you accept the reality of sin. Whose definition of sin are you using? I'm not asking what definition, I'm asking whose. As a rhetorical point, I'd like to call attention to the fact that your morality endows women with the right to terminate their own pregnancy -- that is, endows them with the moral authority to end the life of their unborn child. My challenge to you is, how do you reconcile your willingness to endow women with the moral authority to kill the unborn, each knowing nothing about what kind of life that child might have had, but yet cannot extend to God the moral authority to exercise his purpose over his own creation, Him seeing the end of things from the beginning, given any contingency?material.infantacy_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

---Elizabeth: "Because ascribing a pair of positions to an entire group of people who share only a lack of belief in God or gods is completely unjustified." That is incorrect. Atheism = subjective moralilty. I cannot be otherwise. You are an atheist; your morality is subjective. Hence, you support abortion rights because you have made up your own code to satisfy your own personal feelings. In like fashion, you cannot provide any good reason for criticizing the God of the Old Testament who, by your philosophy, is justified in embracing any morality that hje might choose. You cannot make your case.StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, please look again at what is going on. This whole deal is precisely a smear job based on a distraction led out to an ad hominem laced strawman set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise. A cynical manipulation on the part of the leading new atheists who KNOW where the sort of willful misrepresentations they have pushed for many years now predictably lead. For instance, they KNOW that neither Craig nor any other responsible Christian thinker or leader promotes genocide, and they KNOW that biblical morality is not the caricature they are painting. But, they know that polarised people do not usually think straight when they have been stoked to see those being attacked as demons or dummies. Alinsky's polarisation technique works, until we wake up and realise the horror that has been done. Usually, too late. And, that is why I have spoken so strongly today. Let no man come to me after and say, but we were not warned. (As, I once warned a country on the eve of a volcano crisis. Ironically, I just had to remind an official who was trying to tell me nothing really happened -- but, where is the former Capital? [Under up to 40 ft of ash.]) Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

“The issue is whether they are just feelings” --I would say that morality is feelings, but I wouldn’t say “just” feelings. Love, hate, fairness, empathy etc are “just feelings” but what would we be without them? I would hope that everyone’s morality is grounded (at least partially) on such things as empathy and reason. What is morality according to Christianity? Is it anything more than obedience to an authority for the sake of being rewarded or to avoid punishment? How is morality any more objective with Christianity than it is with atheism? Even if God objectively exists, and even if God objectively said “Don’t do X”, how is it then “objectively” true that doing X is immoral? How is objective morality grounded within Christianity?goodusername_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

---Elizabeth: "In other words, I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term, and advocate that the longer the pregnancy lasts, the more weighty she should consider any decision to terminate to be." Well, of course you do. Atheism and subjective morality go together like the proverbial horse and carriage. This brings me back to the salient point. If morality if subjective, as you believe it to be, then God has His legitimate moraltiy, you have your legitimate morality, and I have my legitimate morality. Under those circumstances, you have no grounds for criticzing God's behavior in the Old Testament. I am amazed that you do not grasp this.StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Hi Mrs. Liddle, For most of this argument you've been really upset at God and the Israelites for killing Caananite kids. But when some of us brought up that the Caananites were doing it before Israel even got there (killing kids) and had been doing so for a long time, ritualistically, and in a far more gruesome way, you didn't respond. Can I ask the reason? Sorry to bother you. - SonfaroSonfaro_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Given your moral revulsion to the taking of innocent human life I would guess that you're "pro-life", but your silence on the matter makes me suspect that you believe that the taking of innocent human life is justified under certain circumstances. You find Craig's defense of God commanding the slaughter of innocent human life appalling. If you are pro-choice, as I suspect you are, I'd like to hear you defend the position. When is it acceptable to take innocent human life? As to your questions, I'm working on a response which I'll post as a new comment. Thank you for your time.Waynekent00_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Thanks Timaeus. My theology, such as it was, was along those lines too.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Homo jerkian evilitusJoseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: You wrote: "Eugene so far is the only Christian here even to recognise the problem." I recognize the problem. And I certainly would like to distance myself from many of the moral arguments (and also the tone) of some of the Christians who have posted here. I personally find Craig's argument repulsive, both morally and theologically. 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. If the question is which societies win the prize for the most inhumanity, atheist or Christian ones, then, on the historical evidence we have so far, the atheist societies win handily. But that is not the question of this thread, and it irritates me that some Christians would be so evasive as to try to change the question from the one that is being asked to the one they would rather answer. The first question of this thread is whether Dawkins is right to refuse to debate Craig. The secondary question, which has come up in debating the first one, is whether Craig's conception of God is worthy of worship. I'll answer the second question first. No, Craig's conception of God -- at least that part of his conception of God which is set forth in the quotation in question -- is not one of a God who is worthy of worship. As a Christian Platonist I absolutely repudiate the "command morality" that is implicit in the typical modern Christian defenses of the Canaanite slaughter. As for the first question: It is my understanding that Dawkins has refused to debate Craig from the beginning, since a time long before he knew Craig's views on the slaughter of the Canaanites. If that is true, then his motivation, at least originally, was not because he found Craig's moral views repugnant. So what was Dawkins's motivation for his original refusal? I have read and listened to Dawkins's thoughts on religion, which are shallow and trite, and I have heard Craig debate many times, and, while I dislike Craig as a Christian apologist and don't think he is even a very good philosopher (despite his degrees), he certainly knows far more philosophy and theology than Dawkins and would have no problem crushing Dawkins on any debate (over anything but the slaughter of the Canaanites) concerning religion. Dawkins's arguments are poor and unscholarly, historically uninformed, vulgar and demagogic, and academically dishonest, as prominent non-Christian philosophers have pointed out. (E.g., Ruse, Flew, Berlinski) I would guess that Dawkins knows that he is uneducated in philosophy and theology and doesn't really want to take on anyone who really knows those fields, lest he embarrass himself. It is one thing for someone like Dawkins to take on some half-educated Anglican clergyman or zealous Christian lay leader who doesn't really know the Christian tradition, or any philosophy; it is another thing to take on someone who studied philsophical theology in Germany under Pannenberg. I therefore think that Dawkins' original motivation for ducking Craig was to avoid taking a drubbing. A subsidiary question arises whether Dawkins would be morally justified in first accepting an invitation to debate with Craig, but then withdrawing it when he discovered Craig's view on the Canaanites. I admit that a moral case could be made for Dawkins's pulling out in such an eventuality. But as far as I understand the chronology, that is not what happened. T.Timaeus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Because ascribing a pair of positions to an entire group of people who share only a lack of belief in God or gods is completely unjustified. Moreoever, your quote from Darwin is a quotemine. The full passage shows something quite different:
A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives ; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive ; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.--As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better Line of conduct.
And I suggest you read another prominent atheist, Dennett, on the perils of "creeping exculpability".Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth please, I am summing up their position and the irony inherent in it. I am not quoting them. However, if you want quotes, try this one from Darwin: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” This comes from Will Provine: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. No gods worth having exist; no life after death exists; no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; no ultimate meaning in life exists; and human free will is nonexistent” “The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them” Why are you asking me to document that which is obvious? It isn't fair for you to waste my time like this.StephenB_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Pardon, but this is again a strawman. The first Christian to acknowledge that there are difficulties is Craig. He does so in the opening words of his response to the challenge, from which Dawkins et al have taken a snippet out of context to smear and dismiss him instead of addressing the need to publicly explain some very vitriolic assertions and fallacious arguments to persuade others of these, over the course of decades. Dawkins, as cited, dismisses responsibility on his materialistic darwinian narrative, i.e he implies the exact amorality that disqualifies him from making ANY serious moral judgement that has been raised in this thread form the beginning. That leaves only a cold-blooded, cleverly calculated manipulativeness multiplied by the media power he commands. Which he is using to get some jumped up apes to turn on others in hostility, on his command and to his advantage. Utterly cynical and inexcusable. I notice, now, that you say you disagree with Dawkins' determinism on darwinian forces for mind and will. Now, then, as was raised form the beginning: kindly ground objective morality on your evo mat premises for us, as a basis for facing your own difficulties. (Otherwise, in the end, you are in the same basic problem as Dawkins, though I think you are not a cold blooded manipulative and deceptive cynic like he plainly is.) Yes -- as you said -- four year olds do feel moral intuitions, but that perception is not the issue; a 4 year old is hardly an authority on any subject beyond 1 + 2 = 3. The issue is whether they are just feelings, and whether those who hold worldviews that entail that are playing emotional manipulation games while refusing to attend to the import of the fact that they too find themselves morally obligated in their more lucid moments. The Judaeo-Christian, Biblical view, is that the 4 year old, and for that matter the 40 or 80 year old, are here reflecting the real authority on morality: the innate voice of implanted conscience that comes form our Creator. That, BTW, is just the context in which we are troubled by some passages in the Bible and the seeming cutting across our sense of justice or fairness or entitlement to rights. Yes, there are some troubling Biblical texts, esp some of the OT ones. That is a commonplace, it is not something that some few Christians acknowledge. (That suggestion just above on your part is unworthy.) As to the notion promoted by Dawkins that any significant number of Christians or Mr Craig support genocide, that is cynical slander. The evidence is just the opposite. Slick talking points like "he has lost his struggle" do not do him or a great many Christians I know, justice. Please, stop. If you doubt me, kindly go back to 7.3 above. (And, where there ARE those who do in significant numbers support genocide of Jews in the name of deity, we are talking about Hamas [not even most Muslims], not "The First Church of God in Christ, Blood washed and triumphant" or the like. To suggest differently in the teeth of abundant and easily accessible evidence is to propagate a willful and cynical mischaracterisation, i.e. it is a poisonous false accusation or snide insinuation, a slander and a lie. [And yes, we come to those strong words again. Sadly, in too many cases on this matter, they are deserved. And those who have unthinkingly taken up the rhetoric of false accusations, snide insinuations, slander and lies need to think about what they are enabling and stop. NOW.]) Onwards, the point is that moral obligation, so soon as it is seen to be real points to our being under moral government, hence obligated under moral law. Which raises the very serious issue of our being under a moral lawgiver. If worldviews are to be seriously discussed -- Mr Dawkins' rhetoric is precisely not serious in this sense -- difficulties have to be compared. And that is where I began above and it is where I remain. GEM of TKI PS: The logic with a swivel by which those who want to play the Dawkins bash game then pivot to justify the slaughter of millions of innocents in the womb, is saddening. As is the failure to make the connexion that the same Christians who oppose slaughter of innocents in the womb obviously also oppose slaughter of children outside the womb, or innocent people in general. If anything, the problem Christians really have is that the tendency is to undermine the principle that government properly bears the sword in defence of the civil peace of justice from enemies foreign and domestic. That leads to a situation where the hesitation to act vigorously in good time can have perverse effects, e.g. had Britain France and the US acted in good time in the mid 1930's WW II with the slaughter of 60 millions would have been averted. And, today, we need to think very hard about what is happening now that Iran's regime seems to be 6 months development time away from a nuke bomb if recent expert reports are even nearly true.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

But forcing an 11 year old, for instance, to carry to term a pregnancy incurred by rape, is, I think, clearly unjustified morally. And how do you feel about a 24 year old who engages in casual unprotected sex with some random guy she met at a bar and decides to abort the baby because she doesn't want to be obligated?wgbutler_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, It is extremly clear to me that Dawkins is simply grasping on to this latest excuse in an attempt to distract everyone from his cowardice. He is clearly an intellectual bully, and is trying to divert away from the real issue (he is afraid to defend his views where they can be critically evaluated by an intelligent and informed adversary). He doesn't fool anyone, and its extremely obvious what he's doing. That being said, I have no issues with the commands God gave the Israelites regarding the Canaanites, so I'll happily defend that issue if you wish. Hit me with your best shot. wgbutlerwgbutler_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Who was killed off? Give a name.Petrushka_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Any race that lived by darwinian rules...Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

They have all been killed off. :)Joseph_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Thank you UBP. Can you tell me what it is from? (I profoundly disagree with it, btw).Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply