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

Directed to MF, who is taking the venom to the next step.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

LIAR!!!! SLANDERER!!!!kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Please, please, please. Dr ES is one who grew up in the USSR, under one of the major attempts to institutionalise atheism. He knows where such things begin, and where they end. As did that great Russian writer who in effect prophesied what happened at the cost of 60 million lives. You would do well to heed the caution that ES gives. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

And you don't find Craig's apparent approval of god-commanded genocide "irresponsible and venomous rhetoric"? Seriously, kairosfocus, I am astonished. Your only response to Craig's piece has been to accuse atheists of venom and amorality. No-one has "smeared" Craig. I have simply read Craig's own words, and all Dawkins did was quote them and link to the piece they were quoted from. Do you honestly agree with it?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

ES is of course too modest to highlight that he grew up in part under the USSR, and knows the living memory track record of atheistical regimes all too directly.kairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Overnight. Dr Liddle, I have of course been quite specific above, up to and including a substantial citation from Hawthorne that has (unsurprisingly) been passed over in silence -- evo mat is inherently, inescapably amoral thus reducing morality to manipulation of subjective feelings and perceptions, and so the just above is evasive. You know better, and should do better. Until and unless evo mat advocates can ground morality objectively in their worldviews, appeals to outrage from such are tainted by that subjectivism. And, I contend that a serious examination of the grounds for why we find ourselves inescapably under moral government, in light of wider worldview warrant issues, will dramatically shift the estimates on the degree of warrant attaching to materialism and theism. In that context, and on the general warranting grounds of Judaeo-Christian theism, we can then address acknowledged points of difficulty on an even keel in the light of knowing the balance of warrant at worldview level. (A first point of departure for that assessment will address the issue that we, individuals and nations, are under moral government, and are accountable to our Creator for our behaviour and response to the truth and the right we know or should know. A responsible exegesis of the texts -- and a responsible evaluation of attempts to come to grips with such -- will then reckon with the genre of calls to battle in that context, and with the features of the text that should tell us that they are not meant literally: slaughter all but then address how to deal with the defeated, language of displacement of power systems and of populations, records that show individual and mas conversions, a wider context that shows Israel under God's similar judgement at the hands of pagans, the classic case of Jonah and the potter's house parable in Jeremiah. None of these will be seen in the poisonous rhetoric of Dawkins et al. Whilst the same are ever so eager to manipulate our perceptions of morality while refusing to address frankly the inherent amorality of their own system and its far more recent track record of democides. Incendiary rhetoric that tries to reframe such serious issues simplistically in terms of "genocide" -- and we can see the Nazism smear subtext -- is irresponsible and venomous. Indeed, it reeks of SLANDER by irresponsible or willful misrepresentation in the teeth of accessible corrective information.) All of this will first require acknowledge that the fundamental issue put on the table by Dawkins et al is an atmosphere poisoning dismissal to duck having to account publicly for some very irresponsible and toxic things he has said for decades now. I also suggest that we all need to pause and listen to a key remark by Paul on the subject of God's judgement, our degree of responsibility and the source of our inescapable sense of right and wrong:
Rom 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger . . . . 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Rom 13: 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. [NIV 84]
It is time to return to a wholesome approach to morality, and to the issue of the implications of our being under moral government as an undeniable fact of experience, with core morality written on the tablets of our hearts. The time for red herrings, led away to ad hominem-soaked strawman caricatures ignited to cloud, choke, polarise and poison the atmosphere is over, professor Dawkins and co. And, it is high time that you and ilk had to seriously explain some astonishingly irresponsible and venomous rhetoric sustained over decades now. The current attempt to smear and dismiss Dr Craig is simply out of order. Shame on you! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Actually, on closer reading I do not see a list of things you wish me to respond to. So I will respond in more detail to the above post instead:
Pardon, but behind the projection of moral outrage, you are ducking a very important issue that was put to you specifically as a challenge: before you can appeal to objective morality, you have to first ground it on the foundations of your evolutionary materialistic worldview.
I am ducking nothing, kf. I asked people how they could possibly defend the alleged command of God to commit genocide. Perhaps I should have asked how it squares with the teachings of Jesus.
Otherwise, it becomes little more than a divide and rule tactic, rhetorical manipulation of moral feelings in pursuit of the agendas of the cynically powerful manipulators who willfully play on our moral feelings even while they themselves are rooted in a system of thought that is utterly and irretrievably amoral.
There is no "tactic" here, kf. I simply do not understand how anyone can reconcile this story with a good God. I am not "play[ing] on [your] moral feelings", I am, I guess, challenging you to confront a challenge to the coherence of biblical inerrancy when it comes to moral precepts.
In that context, please note that in the above (and in what I just posted), I took time to link a fairly extensive discussion of the relevant issues with onward links to quite serious discussions of the ostensible issues being raised. NONE of these were responded to by you.
If you want me to respond to a specific point, or take me up on a specific point, then please make it explicitly in the thread. Simply linking to lengthy essays elsewhere is not a practical way to conduct an internet conversation.
How must I then understand the sort of tone and assertions being made again and again above? Especially, in the context of the underlying context of Mr Dawkins’ behaviour and that of his fellow New Atheists?
I am not talking about Dawkins. I am talking about Craig's own words on his own site. He seems to think that the alleged divine commandments to genocide are compatible with a good God. I am relieved that at least one Christian here finds that problematic. This atheist does too.
Do we not see where such poison will end if it is left to fester in our civilisation?
I think there is something very poisonous in the view that evil deeds cease to be evil if commanded by God. It's exactly the view that drove the planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and Christian history is littered with examples to. This is the view that Craig is justifying. My view is that is both wrong and dangerous.
Let us stop now, and do better than this.
Yes indeed.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

An evil act is one that violates the principle that we should treat others as we would want to be treated.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

I haven’t read Craig’s piece. I’d be more interested in discussing my own views than his in this regard, for the most part.
OK, I'd be interested too.
However it doesn’t make any sense to debate possible rationale for the Canaanite slaughter with someone who will accept for the sake of argument that it took place, but who won’t accept for the sake of the same argument that: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, that the Bible is His inspired word, and that He created the universe and everything in it, from atom to acorn, and from mathematics to morality; and that concepts like heaven and hell, eternal life, etc., are real, again, even for the sake of argument.
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?
It’s pointless to argue God’s judgment with someone who cannot accept God as judge, and the reality of sin.
I accept the reality of sin. I'm prepared to accept God as judge for the sake of argument.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

"I agree that great crimes in the New Testament times were in fact committed in the name of God. " Thank you Eugene. You have restored my faith in Christians.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Children easily grasp that commanding genocide is evil. My son saw that aged four.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

What is "atheism proper"? Atheism is simply a-theism. Lack of belief in a god or gods. It is nothing to do with morality at all. "Treat others as you would be treated" is not "borrowed from religious contexts". It's a rule that is found in many cultures theist and a-theist. It is very simply derived. And nothing to do with the oxymoron of of an evil act allegedly commanded by a good God. And evil act is not rendered good because a deity commands it, and the principle is extremely dangerous - how many evil acts are perpetrated by those who think they are commanded by some deity? That's a subjective standard, not an objective one.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Even children can easily grasp the fact that morality cannot exist without God;
Does God Exist? - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708/
bornagain77_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

Morality is non-existent in atheism proper. What you, Elizabeth, and other good atheist advocate is not atheism per se. Your norm, 'Treat others as you would be treated' has been borrowed from religious contexts. Atheism per se is, 'everyone for himself' and 'homo homini lupus est'.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

You are right in pointing to hypocrisy. That is a great evil, perhaps the greatest of all because hypocrisy and envy can lead to God being crusified. But I think that you are mistaken in that you judge what was done in the Old Testament with the New Testament norm. The old norm was 'an eye for an eye'. Another point is that it was wartime. If I remember rightly, there were other small Palestinian nations at that time, which God commanded Moses not to touch. Anyway, when humanity was prepared to accept full truth, the same God commanded us to love our enemies. Irrespective of that particular issue of the Canaanites, I agree that great crimes in the New Testament times were in fact committed in the name of God. But we will all be judged at some point. The question is, what would have happened had there been no religious "constraints"? I think humanity have experienced in practice by now the consequence of renouncing them. We know what happened during the French and Russian revolutions, in Nazi Germany, in Korea.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

And BTW, this precept that crops up over and over again does in fact crop up in religious societies. We have experienced how it worked in atheistic societies in the XX century.Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

Well, it only seems obvious to you, whereas in fact it's not at all obvious. This is why I encouraged you to read Dostoevsky, Elizabeth. Who says I should treat others the way they treat me? Well, I understand that this can serve a pragmatic purpose for a society up to a point, for example to keep the middle class at bay. But if I have money and power why bother? Who can stop me from doing what I want. In atheism there is no notion of conscience. Because conscience is a religious concept. What is a scruple in social Darwinism? Positively, a weakness. What is conscience? A code of behaviour? What a trifle when I have the right to define it for myself!Eugene S_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

I did not judge him "on the strength of a snippet taken out of context by his enemies". I navigated to the original piece and read that. However, I now see the post you reference below. I will attempt to address it later.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Was eliminating the Nazis immoral? Why or why not? Were the Nazis eliminated because they were German, and therefore evil, or were the Nazis German, that happened to be doing evil?
The blanket incendiary bombing of civilians was of dubious morality IMO. But even that does not compare with the selective slaughter of women and children that God allegedly commanded - selective because the female virgins were to be spared. You think this is morally comparable to the Allied defeat of Germany? You think the Allies were attempting German genocide? And the Nazis were tried in a court of justice. Not "eliminated".
Were the Canaanites destroyed because they were Canaanites and thus evil, or were the Canaanites destroyed because they were Canaanites engaging in evil?
The idea that an entire population is "evil" is pernicious and racist, junkdnaforlife, as you would readily recognise were it not for the extraordinary special pleading that is mounted when the tyrant is (allegedly) Jehovah.
Do we look at WWII as the genocide of Germans and Japanese? Or the genocide of Jews? Was the destruction of the Jews moral or immoral? Was the destruction of the German Nazis moral or immoral?
We look at WWII as the genocide of the Jews. And we rightly condemn it. As we should condemn all attempts to wipe out a population because of its perceived "evil". The defeat of the Germany was not an attempt to "wipe out" the German people. There is no moral equivalence here, though much to regret.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

You have again tried to appeal to what you have no right to appeal to on your worldview without grounding it.
Ground it in what way, kf? In a fundamental principle of justice? I do. On the basis of what a subjectively selected collection of ancient texts suggests? Not so much.
In addition, in the teeth of repeated pointing out of the issues and serious responses that you need to engage before making the sorts of declamations you have been doing all evening, you have been utterly unresponsive.
What "issues and serious responses" do I need to engage before pointing out that genocide is wrong? Please be specific.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Treat others as you would be treated. Seems pretty obvious to me. And to most cultures in history, because the precept crops up over and over again.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, you have not demonstrated that the Judeo-Christian God has done something that requires a defense. You on the other hand, have at some point in your life probably lied at one time or another, stolen something at one time or another, or used God’s name in vain at some time or another.
Well, I've certainly done things that I think were wrong. I don't think they "require a defense". I think I owe the wronged people an apology, and reparation.
If there is anyone guilty and in need of a defense, it is you.
As I said, I don't attempt to defend myself against the indefensible. I would certainly like a defense if I was wrongly accused.
Additionally, who did something that requires moral correction? A Canaanite people who were sacrificing children in cultic, ritual fire sacrifices, or a completely holy and just God who is the locus of objective moral goodness and who has a right to expect moral laws to be observed?
Bantay, God allegedly ordered the murder of those children. In what sense was that "moral correction"? What is more he ordered the Israelites to slaughter them. Was that supposed to demonstrate to the Israelites that slaughtering children to appease your god is wrong? In what sense were those Israelites not sacrificing children to their god? What else do you call it when a god demands you kill children? And I take it you know what God allegedly ordered the Israelites to do to the Midianites? Bantay, the story of the Israelites and Canaan is a story of brutal tribal warfare and genocide, given a post hoc justification on the grounds that the deity of the winners commanded it. If the story wasn't supposed to be about the God you happen to worship, you would have no difficulty in seeing it for what is. Fortunately there is no archaeological evidence that the story is true at all. But the attempt to defend it by someone who thinks it is true seems to me prima facie evidence of the warping effect of certain theistic belief systems (including "biblical inerrancy") on basic principles of fairness and humanity.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Who "claims no basis for morality"? Not me. Not any atheists I know. And if the "basis of Christian morality" includes attempting to justifiy genocide on the grounds tht God ordered it, then, I'll stick with the basis I've got, thanks. The bizarre thing is that Craig seems to assume that we all will share the view that genocide is appalling. His article is written from the point of view that every right-minded-person would find God's alleged behaviour over this, "difficult". Yes indeed. However, rather than base morality on the self-evident principle of fairness, namely that you should treat others as you would want to be treated, he insists that a dreadful act is not a sin if ordered by God. What kind of "morality" is that? What kind of morality justified atrocities if ordered by a higher authority? This was the defence rightly rejected at Nuremberg.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, You find God's order to take innocent human life indefensible, yet you defend the taking of over a million innocent human lives per year (in the U.S. alone). You find WLC's defense of God appalling. What is your defense? Is God free to choose or do you only grant the right to choose to those who participate in slaughter with which you personally approve? Is it God's method that disturbs you or must the taking of innocent human life be done with forceps and chemicals to be acceptable in your sight?Waynekent00_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

What I want to know is if the Christians on this forum think that killing the Caanite children was morally acceptable or praiseworthy. There seem to be a lot of responses on the lines of atheists do even worse things or how can anyone condemn things who have no real basis for morality. Neither of these are relevant to this question. This is a question about the morality of this act and about Christians, not atheists. Christians presumably believe they have real basis for morality. Does this basis approve of the killing of the Caananite children?markf_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Moral outrage from those who claim no real basis for morality, that believe the whole show is an accident, always tickle me. I guess Dawkins doesn't want to debate this topic either with Craig. Let's be honest, Dawkins is scared to debate Craig, that's obvious. If Dawkins thinks he has such a blatant moral high ground, why not debate Craig?Clive Hayden_{October 21, 2011
October
10
Oct
21
21
2011
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, within an atheistic worldview, how do you judge what is moral or immoral? What is morality based on?kuartus_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle I noticed you asked earlier, in reference to Craig's answer to a question at Reasonable Faith, "Is that a defense?" Dr Liddle, you have not demonstrated that the Judeo-Christian God has done something that requires a defense. You on the other hand, have at some point in your life probably lied at one time or another, stolen something at one time or another, or used God's name in vain at some time or another. If there is anyone guilty and in need of a defense, it is you. Additionally, who did something that requires moral correction? A Canaanite people who were sacrificing children in cultic, ritual fire sacrifices, or a completely holy and just God who is the locus of objective moral goodness and who has a right to expect moral laws to be observed? According to the narrative, God gives people sufficient opportunity to conform to a civil, moral and just set of laws, sends prophets and messengers to warn people of impending judgement if they do not repent of their sinful ways, and finally and repeatedly, spares the innocent during times of judgement. This sounds like a God who goes out of his way to allow the optimal number of freely made decisions to repent from sin as possible before enacting a judgement that inevitably, benefits future generations. Trying to make God out to be evil will not change the fact that it is you who are under indictment, not God. If not for the grace of God, what else can your defense be? Hebrews 2:3 "how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard"Bantay_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Timbo And I keep wondering, just where do you atheists ground morality? Cruel Logic - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnIbornagain77_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Timbo, apparently you have never served in the military!bornagain77_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply