New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 4, 2012

Atheism, Education, Intelligent Design, News}

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

TBS: You have just returned from a very successful tour of the U.K., where you participated in nearly a dozen lectures and debates. Even so, the most famous atheist you were to debate—evolutionary biologist and bestselling author, Richard Dawkins—was a no-show. In a public statement that got a lot of web play, Dawkins claimed he did not want to debate with you because you refuse to distance yourself from God, who in the Book of Deuteronomy orders the destruction of the Canaanites, which Dawkins termed “genocide.” In hindsight, what do you make of this episode?

WLC: Well, in hindsight I have to say that Dawkins’ attacks in The Guardian and elsewhere turned out to be the best publicity for the event at the Sheldonian Theatre [at Oxford University—ed.] that we could have possibly made up! [vid] His reaction was so counterproductive, from his point of view. Other atheists in the blogosphere and also in The Guardian roundly condemned him for what were clearly manufactured pseudo-reasons for not participating in the debate with me. So the whole fiasco just proved to be a boon to the public profile of the lecture that I gave in the Sheldonian Theatre, which was responded to by three other Oxford faculty, who apparently didn’t share Richard Dawkins’ reservations about being on the platform with me. So it really was very helpful to our outreach!

(Wouldn’t debate? It wasn’t about the elevator. Yes, he said it was about this. More likely, some say, about this. More coffee, please.)

Comments

Appreciated.kairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

No, indeed, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that they flew those jets into buildings because they thought it was “God’s will”.
Nope, that is just western propagana and you are just gullible. THAT is the point...Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth because of time constraints and getting distracted in making large posts as well as using my own words I will just reprint what others in reply have said because it saves time, Just like there was no need for me to repeat what Gem said in his post about the Golden rule. This is Dawkins own words. "Let's all stop beating Basil's car by Richard Dawkins Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'. Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes? Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me). But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car? Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment." Reply To Dawkins words "1)Dawkins claims that according to science human brains "are as surely governed by the laws of physics" and hence the concept of "retribution" is unscientific. Therefore, "punishment" makes no sense at all (Dawkins: "When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it.") Such a view implies DETERMINISM (i.e. the view that human thinking and actions are wholly determined by physical laws, not freedom of the will is allowed). True, naturalism implies such view on determinism, but wait a minute. Think about it: If determinism is true, then Dawkins' belief in determinism is ALSO determined by physical laws, not by reason or logic (which are no physical laws). Dawkins is a determinist because physical laws impose on him such a belief, not because such a belief is rationally justified over other non-jusitified beliefs. So, as we never say that a computer is irrational when it malfunctions (because such computer is not guilty of the malfunctioning due to the deterministic physical laws which controls it), we cannot say that human beings (e.g. religious fundamentalists) are irrational when they have false beliefs or do dangerous actions. After all, like the computer, human beings are fully determined (by physical laws) in their functioning (reason and logic, not being physical laws, don't determine anything), and the concepts of rational or irrational makes no sense. Moreover, on what grounds are you going to criticize religious people who believe in God, free will, the afterlife, spirits and indeterminism, if their beliefs are ALSO determined by the same physical laws which impose on Dawkins his deterministic view? The same physical laws which makes Dawkins an automata without free will will be efficacious to make all the other people automata too. And the difference of beliefs of each person will be caused by physical laws, not by the person' fault, and hence you cannot complain that such people are irrational or guilty, since they have not responsability at all regarding the beliefs they hold. 2)Dawkins claims that "evil and good" are MENTAL CONSTRUCTS and USEFUL FICTIONS (i.e. they exist in our minds alone), and don't have any objective, mind-independent existence. In Dawkins word's: "Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it" Note that Dawkins constrast such a mental constructs and fictions with the "truer analysis of what is going on in the world", which implies that such mental constructs and fictions are probably FALSE. Again, this view is entailed by metaphysical naturalism and atheism, so Dawkins is (at least in this point) being consistent. Now, if the "evil" is a mental construct which a scientific atheist should deny (on behalf of a more rational and true scientific analysis), then WHY THE HELL DID DAWKINS SAY THAT WLLIAM LANE CRAIG'S THEOLOGY IS EVIL? On that objective moral grounds is Dawkins going to criticize Craig if such a moral ground is a pure mental construct without any objective validity? Moreover, is Craig guilty of something "evil" when, according to Dawkins' beliefs, the evil doesn't exist and Craig is fully determined in his beliefs and actions by the same deterministic physical laws which determine Dawkins' beliefs and actions? This is evidence which Dawkins doesn't take his worldview seriously. He denies the objective existence of the "evil", but then accusses others (specially religious believers) of being evil or of doing evil things. He denies the justification of the concept of "retribution and punishment", but then castigates Craig when the latter defends a religious view that Dawkins finds unpalatable. He criticizes (and uses as an excuse to refuse debating) Craig by his (alleged) justification of biblical genocide, but Dawkins himself claims that he is open to the persuasion that "killing people is right under certain circunstances" (so, supporting genocide). Do you think the evidence mentioned here support the conclusion that Dawkins is a rational, logical and intellectually honest scholar? I think the answer is obvious. As I said, in my opinion, people like Dawkins deserve to receive a public exposing and evidence-based intellectual punishment (=solid refutations of his views), and in this blog I'll contribute to this purpose. I entirely agree with atheist Oxford philosopher Daniel Came who says that Dawkins's refusal to debate Craig is cynical and anti-intellectualist, and that people like Dawkins "seek to replace one form of irrationality with another."mrchristo_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

You don’t have any evidence that they flew those jets into buildings because it was “God’s will”.
No, indeed, but there's a fair bit of evidence that they flew those jets into buildings because they thought it was "God's will". That's the point.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

What does faith have to do with flying airliners into buildings? You don't have any evidence that they flew those jets into buildings because it was "God's will". It can be easily said that they did that because they were desperate-> desperation born of ignorance and loathing.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

No, I'm not assuming that. I think one problem here confusion between what I call morality (the concept that there are things we ought to do) and ethics (the issue as to which thing we ought to do). I think it often difficult to know which thing we ought to do, which is why we talk about "ethical dilemmas" - too often we are faced with a choice between two harmful outcomes - or between two hard-to-quantify-risks of harmful outcomes. So I don't think it is "always wrong" to do one thing rather than another. That is the sense in which I am a "relativist" and I expect, tbh, most people here are. However, I do think that there is a fairly clear universal definition of "morality" - the concept that there are things to do - whereby what we "ought" to do is the thing that we would do if it we did were not prioritising our own immediate desires and autonomy over that of others. I think that is almost definitional (the only other sense in which we use the word "ought" is when we use it to denote what we would do if we were not prioritising our own immediate desires and autonomy over our future desires and autonomy, but we don't usually call that kind of ought "morality" - it's usually referred to as "self-discipline") So I think we can substitute something like "altruism" for morality quite easily, in which case, I'd say that altruism is an "absolute" virtue (it's what we mean by moral behaviour), but I'd say that what the most altruistic course of action is in any given context may be often far from clear. On the other hand, in some contexts it's as clear as day.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Great Posts Gem, I always Enjoy reading your posts.mrchristo_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: I think Tom Morris finds an instructive balance, as I noted in my old JTS course unit on ethics, summed up in F/N 10:
[10] Cf. discussion, Morris [i.e. Morris, Thomas, Philosophy for Dummies, (NY, NY: Hungry Minds, 1999)], pp. 95 – 100, of various ethical theories, leading to the conclusion that virtue-based ethics captures and renders coherent the insights of the various Consequence-focused [teleological], Natural Law, Divine Command, Duty-based [deontological], Social Contract, Utilitarian etc. approaches, whilst avoiding their fatal flaws. In sum, the sociobioloogists are looking at commonalities of human nature in the context of the natural and human environment [natural law and/or sociobiological approaches], which in turn promote social consensus on what is right [social contract], and would lead to a favourable overall balance of benefits as against costs and harm – at the society-wide level [utilitarian]. In turn this arguably reflects the nature we have been endowed with by our Creator, whose commands are “for our own good” [Cf. Deut. 10:12 – 13] – i.e. Divine Command ethics. Virtue based ethics, as briefly discussed above, seeks to build the settled habit/character of thinking, valuing, deciding and acting in ways that are well-aligned to sound insight into the realities of the world in which we live.
Morris goes on to argue:
Why should we treat others as we would want to be treated, rather than . . . as they themselves actually want to be treated? . . . . First, if I were in the other person’s place, I would want to be treated in accord with all my own legitimate desires and felt needs. So the Golden Rule enjoins me to treat him in accordance with all his legitimate desires and felt needs. Consequently, it does not . . . require of me, or even suggest, the imposition of any of my more distinctive likes or dislikes on others at all. Secondly, what if the other guy actually wants to be given unfairly preferential treatment? No moral rule should demand that I comply. But, the critic could retort, this objection can be easily avoided by saying that we ought to treat others in accordance with all their legitimate desires and felt needs. Why should we bring any consideration of what we ourselves would want into the mix at all? The Golden Rule is stated as it is in its classic formulation in order to give us not only guidance but also motivation . . . [for it] directs us into a mental exercise of imaginative projection . . . That draws on all the emotions tied up with self-interest and used them to move us in the direction of other-interest . . . . But even the Golden Rule has its limitations. Like every other rule, it needs interpretation. And it can’t turn a bad person into a good one. [pp. 114 - 15]
So, Morris goes on to counsel that the proper use of rules is in moral training, with the aim being to build a life that is marked by character, wisdom and virtue in proper alignment: our habits of thought, feeling and behaviour should habitually line up with a correct understanding of how we ought to live in light of the ultimate reality of the world. In short the matters here are anything but simplistic and the relevant facets can arguably be synthesised into a rich whole. It is strawmannish to set up and knock over caricatures of facets of a common whole. That's different from saying that no one view captures the whole. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

I said "Elizabeth you agreed with Dawkins views about the universe, You said that you had used reason but if you had been reasoning correctly then you would have realized that you had 0 grounding to say what is evil at all." You said "Well, no. I don’t think you are correct." If you think about your own position properly then you will know I am correct. "Dawkins did not say there was no such thing as good or evil. He said, rightly, in my view, that they are not properties of the universe we observe. He did not say that they are not properties of people, or of actions. Clearly people are not pitiless. But the universe appears to be." Of Course Dawkins has said that evil does not exist, To say that something is evil is to suggest that there is a correct way to behave, But if there is no objective standard that exists independent of man then all you have is personal preference, You cannot have left with out right, up without down, and you cannot have evil if there is no objective standard of how one should or should not behave, Saying he did not say that they are not a property of people does not help your case, That shows that good and evil are nothing more than the property of ones thinking, That means that good and evil do not exist for the atheist just thinking makes it so. That's why you cannot say how Stalin's actions violate atheism, Because moral nihilism is perfectly compatible with atheism. "So the entire rebuttal is based on a faulty premise," No Elizabeth your rebuttal is based on faulty reasoning, That you do not seem to know that evil does not exist objectively for You, Michael Ruse calls it an illusion foisted on us by our genes, If you were consistent and understood your own worldview then you would never say such nonsense that the rebuttal is faulty, If evil does not objectively exist then it is nothing more than an illusion a product of your thinking, But you have 0 grounding to say anyones behaviour is evil, When you say how stalins behaviour violates atheism then you might have some grounding, You have none. . "Of course they are wrong." How can they be wrong if there is no objective standard of how one should behave? To say that a person is wrong in their behaviour assumes that there is a correct way to behave, You have not shown how objective right and wrong exist in an Atheistic Universe, Your feet are planted firmly in the air. "Well, ethical questions are certainly thorny, so yes, we do need to thrash them out between ourselves if we want to live in a harmonious society." If someobody does not want to live in a harmonious society then the most you can say is that they are antisocial, But as you have not established that objective right and wrong exist in an Atheistic Universe then you have no grounding to say that they are morally wrong, A person in an Atheistic universe can tell you to take a run and jump and that just because you want to live in a harmonious society that does not mean that he should care for your welfare or the fact that he has stole from you or damaged your property, As others have pointed out, You and your evolutionary just so stories are descriptive, Morality is more than descriptive it is prescriptive, Saying what one should or should not do, it also informs of us what we should do in the future. You are first assuming that which you need to prove, You have to show how evil exists objectively for the Atheist and is nothing more than personal opinion, if there is no objective standard of how one should behave then there can be no wrong way to behave only personal preference, All you have is personal preference so it is quite rich to see you making moral judgements of others. In fact Dawkins realizes it In an Interview with Dawkins the questioner asked “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?” Dawkins Reply. “Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. Dawkins seems to realize the consequences of his worldview, btw Elizabeth if you are still in doubt about Dawkins views, I have more that show that you are totally out of sync with him, Dawkins only feigns moral outrage when it suits him, His writings show some disturbing views on morailty. "No, not necessarily. We should be constantly trying to figure out how to make the world a more harmonious place." There is the operative words " We Should be" Why should people do what you say they should do when all you have is your personal preference, You keep assuming that which you need to prove, You would probably say about consequences, But again you would be using moral judgements to prove moral judgements without first establishing that you have any grounding to make moral judgements, In other words you are arguing in a circle. "If religions are making it worse, then we should probably try to fix them." Christianity has been of Great benefit to society I believe that Dawkins admitted that he would rather live in a Christian Society than one based on Darwinism, However people of any religion can sin and do bad things, The reason we condemn them if because we first assume sin exists and there is a correct way to behave, That is why the Christian or the muslim or any religion that believe that they are more than accidents in an accidental universe and that morality exists because there is a moral law giver are consistent, You yourself need to have some conception of a moral law giver in order to make moral judgements, You have to assume a theistic worldveiw in order to condem theists, In other words you are being hypocritical, if you are consistent and there is no design behind the evolution that you believe in then religion as you know it is the product of evolution, You have no groundings to say that you have evolved correctly and others have evolved incorrectly, Their actions would not be the result of religion but of Evolution, world. If nature is non-normative then a person is not intrinsically possessed with a set of rights. Humans would be just another natural phenomenon; The result of the blind and uncaring forces of evolution which had no goal of how people should or should not behave. Thus a natural phenomenon cannot be vested with rights when nature is non-normative "I’m not a US citizen, but it it is my impression that there is a substantial set of values shared by the majority of US citizens, atheist and theist alike, and that they include the Golden Rule: do as you would be done by" A person of a certain religion might decide that it is ok to kill another man for apostasy because if he left his religion then it would be ok to do the same to him. Furthemore you are assuming morality to prove morality, why should one care about you elizabeth? if they don't then you might say they are antisocial but you have no grounding to say they are immoral, if they are convinced that Atheism is true and that there is only one life then why should they empathize with other people, why waste their time when they can enjoy the fruits of exploiting others, A logically consisent Atheist who recognizes that Moral nihilism is consistent with atheism is not going to care for your idealism Elizabeth,They might care if you showed how objective right and wrong exist but for you Elizabeth if you are being logically consistent, they dont. What amazing foundation for morality is offered by Dawkins’ atheistic worldview! . "Yes, I do think that killing is sometimes right. Or at least the lesser of a choice of evils. It’s not that moral values are relative, it’s that ethical choices are often a matter of weighing up relative evils, and there is no course of action that does not cause harm." You have yet to establish that evil and atheism are incompatible, You haven't. "That’s why, of course, that some people argue for capital punishment, and why your country still has it, at least in parts. " I am not American Elizabeth, However I find it funny that you have no problem with a mother killing a child in a womb and you would probably get into a long debate on what is life or what is not life but you would have a problem with the execution of serial killers. "Again assuming that one should not harm others, Making moral judgements without first showing that objective right and wrong exist in an an atheistic universe." Yes you are assuming that which you have to prove which is cheating. "In other words, secularists have moral values, just as you do, but because they lack belief in souls and gods, do not have rules about how you must behave in order to please some deity, but rather ground their rules in our reason" Lack of belief is not anything Elizabeth, Atheism is the belief there is no god. so you don't want to talk about Atheism but want to use the term Secularism?, Don't be embarrased by it. No Elizabeth Atheism provides you with 0 grounding for morality, And reason tells you that moral nihilism is compatible with Atheism the reason that you don't recognize that is because you have not been reasoning correctly. "I certainly can not. It seems highly rational to me, and much more honest, for example, than pretending genocide is fine as long as some alleged deity commands it." You think the genocide of babies in the womb is ok because of arguments about babies not being human, It is that kind of argument that the nazis used against the jews, that they are not human. "Our rules are not all about forbidding things, but rather about how to maximise joy and harmonious living." And that is why it is about emotion for you not reason,the atheist does not want to be judged for their actions, that is why they have such a liberal attitude to drug use and abortion and causal sex etc . "Look at the intolerance shown to gays, for example." Why shouldn't people be intolerant to gays? You haven't shown me that you have any grounds to make moral judgements, You are intolerant of people with 0 grounding from Atheism and you are condemning people who do have grounding, it is funny to see. In this point, it becomes very similar to the most irrational and intolerant forms of religious fundamentalism. "Well, no. I certainly think that torturing anyone, for fun or otherwise, is bad and wrong, but I would argue that that flows directly from reason and empathy" not from theism. Theism, on the other hand, may well flow from reason and empathy. I have no problem with it as long as it’s that way round." Reason tells you that moral values do not objectively exist if Atheism is true so appealing to reason does not help you it undermines you, You are appealing to emotion Elizabeth not reason. "But I certainly don’t see why I should reject something that doesn’t prevent me concluding that causing another person harm and distress is wrong. And I certainly don’t see why instead I should adopt a religion that has an allegedly sacred text in which the putative deity appears to command the killing of children and the murder of unbelievers – and certainly not on the grounds that it is wrong to kill children and murder unbelievers!" Whether you adopt a specific religion or not is moot, You have to assume a theistic worldview of some sort in order to make moral judgements of others, if you had any consistencey then you would not be getting on your moral high horse against anyone because for you morality is an illusion if you actually used reason and undersood the moral implications of Atheism. "Well, yes, there is a case, but I think he’s missing a very important point, which is that just that because there is no absolute set of moral values doesn’t mean that objective human observers can’t collectively figure out the values that enable us to live in a harmonious society" Therefore, if moral objetivism is true, scientific naturalism is plausibly false. "Well, no." Well yes Elizabeth, Sorry if you don't understand it. "Well, you forgot reason and I wouldn’t call it social “indoctrination” but societal systems of justice, and I’m not sure what you mean by “biological pressure” but certainly I think we are biologically capable of developing the kinds of moral values we need to live in harmonious societies. So if that’s rejecting moral objectivism, then I reject moral objectivism. But I don’t see that theism gives us any either, so it’s no loss. I think reason and empathy give us as objective an approach as is possible." Reason tells you that on Atheism morality is man made and is nothing more than personal opinion, Saying that one should care for the harmony of others is begging the question, the most you can say is that you think a persons action is illegal or antisocial but you have still failed to show how their actions can be deemed immoral on Atheism because objective right and wrong do not exist. you have a powerful reason and argument to reject metaphysical naturalism.” "Well, looks like I don’t." Looks like you do, it is just that contrary to your assertions about using reason, You have rejected reason and appealed to emotion, You do not understand the moral implications of Atheism.mrchristo_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

I suggest you take the time to read and reflect on SB and VJT as well as onward links from my own remarks, before further responding. There's more than one side to the matter.kairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Is this some sort of Jedi trick, KF?Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, was it good that we fought against the Germans in the last World War? It seems like you have assumed something that you need to make an argument for, namely that it is always wrong to make war on other peoples. If a loved one stood by while you were assaulted, would you call it love? It seems like your idea of good and love are not very comprehensive and, therefore, make problems for a coherent worldview. If one believed they were hearing from the all good and omnibenevolent Almighty God, they would be forced to conclude that whatever He said was good, whether it appeared to their natural senses to be the case or not. My answer is that wisdom is proved right by her children.Brent_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

hi Steve: Good to see you commenting. Here are my recent thoughts on the topic. I hope this may be helpful. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Thank you Stephen. I absolutely agree that Divine Command Theory is illogical and morally inconsistent. And that we derive morality from Natural Law not from Divine Command. We might disagree about where that "Natural Law" comes from but at least we are on the same page on this.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

But your straight answer deserves one from me: Assuming that God is good, I'd say the way to know whether a command is from God if it commands us to do something good. If it commands us to do something evil then we know that it cannot be a command from a good God. That means, of course, that we first have to figure out what "good" means. But at least that way, if it turns out that a good God doesn't exist, or that God is evil, we've still tried to behave well. The problem with assuming that anything commanded by a miracle-working god must be good, is that if it turns out that the god is fictional, or evil, we've been actually trying to behave badly.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

OK, thanks, that's a nice straight answer. However, it raises a second problem: If miracles are proof that a god is talking, how do you know that that god is good?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

They believed it was their god(s) will. Were they correct? Were their god(s) powerful enough to stop the Israelites from invading and taking possession of their lands? No? Maybe they were worshipping the wrong god(s).
I thought it was the Israelites land? Anyway, if we use your own logic then clearly the Christian God wasn't strong enough to stop the 9/11 terrorists so maybe you are worshipping the wrong God. Were Saladins victories against the crusaders due to him believing in the right God? When you say that God promised the land to the Israelites, that God justified the slaughter etc, how do you know this - you know it from the history as written by the victorious - the Israelites. Perhaps the Canaanites would have told a different story if they survived.
What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham?
Faith that your act of barbarism is by divine command.GCUGreyArea_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Finally for record, dated and time stamped, you have had admitted that atheism, and it’s central dogma metaphysical naturalism, when followed to it’s logical conclusion, can only lead to moral relativism.
If defined in what I consider that way, yes.
From here on out, understand that all your moral statements and wishes are simply the product of your current status at the apex of a specific evolutionary pathway, and they are no more or less valid than any other moral statements put forth by a self aware being at the apex of their specific evolutionary pathway.
As I made specifically clear, no. That's why I said to mrchristo: "you forgot reason". junkdnaforlife, I really don't think there's any point in conversing with you, if you are going to take a smattering of my words, out of context, and apply them willy nilly to anything else I say. You clearly are not interested in what I think, only in finding some little set of my words with which you can excuse yourself from trying to find out. If I don't respond to you again, that is why.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Okay! I did consider that you weren't actually endorsing the Quran. And I'm glad you're not, because what little I said is about all I got! :)Brent_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Scott, Yes, it comes down to individual judgment. We have a book in which God commands his people to commit genocide, wipes out the entire population of the earth in a flood, tells people to cut off the hands of women who defend their husbands, and on and on and on. I look at that book and see no way it could have been written by an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God. Nothing about it seems divine. It's obviously the work of fallible people who were projecting their own moral shortcomings onto their deity. You look at the same book, rationalize away all the evil, and see the morally perfect word of God. Amazing.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Brent, I'm not actually pushing the Quran. I'm just pointing out Barb's chronic double standard. When Elizabeth sees a problem with the Bible, Barb says things like this:
Also consider that the Bible states, “The wisdom from above is reasonable.” The fact that you don’t understand portions of the Bible does not make this statement untrue. It just means that you don’t understand portions of the Bible. That’s all.
Barb's argument boomerangs on her:
Also consider that the Quran states, “The revelation of this scripture is from GOD, the Almighty, Most Wise.” The fact that Barb doesn’t understand portions of the Quran does not make this statement untrue. It just means that Barb don’t understand portions of the Quran. That’s all.
Heh.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

In my judgment, William Lane Craig is almost right, but not quite. He is right to justify all of God’s actions in the Old Testament, but he is wrong to do it in the name of Divine Command Theory, which is illogical and morally inconsistent. First, lets’ make the critical point: If, after repeated warnings, the Canaanites simply refused to repent, and IF they were compromising God’s plan of salvation, and IF they were forming their children so that the perversions were destined to continue on to future generations, then it would seem that God, reluctantly and even painfully, would have had to wipe the slate clean, just as he did with generation of Noah. In other words, while God arranged for the killings, he did not do it because he hated the victims or wanted to kill them, much less did he consider them to be sub-human, motives that are always present when humans commit genocide. On the contrary, God was sorry that He had to do it and wished that it had not been necessary. Granted, the dictionary definition of “genocide” does not make provisions for good motives, but I think it should be a factor in our analysis of God’s actions. Put another way, these Old Testament killings are not good because God commanded them (Divine Command theory); God commanded them because they were good (Natural Law theory). At this point, we are now in a better position understand where William Lane Craig, for all his other virtues, goes wrong. Divine Command Theory reduces God’s morality to a whim: Today, we should not commit adultery, but tomorrow God might change his mind. Adultery, from this point of view, is not wrong because it violates any objective standard of morality but only because God says so—at least for now. Under those circumstances, the formation of an informed conscience would be impossible. How can I learn to be good today and grow in moral knowledge if God may come along tomorrow and change the rules? This is also where Islam goes wrong with its teaching on “abrogation,” the notion that God can change the moral code at his pleasure. How can we say that we live in a moral universe if there is no such thing as a natural moral law that reflects God’s inner nature? How can we say that God is rational if He cannot make up his mind about what is good or what is bad? To me, this is the only reasonable way to approach Old Testament theology.StephenB_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

I only know a little of the Quran myself, but from that little, the reason I don't accept it, is because I DO understand it. It is almost the complete opposite of the Bible. First part is peace, second is war and aggression. But there is no way to reconcile them, unlike the Bible. The Bible has it this way: Peace, mutiny, war, peace. The Quran, again, has it backwards from what I can tell.Brent_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

This is really the point that it comes down to, isn't it?
Each of us has to depend on his or her own judgment.
I have my reasons for trusting God. They aren't scientific, but they aren't irrational either. And that is my judgment. We all make decisions at times to trust the judgment of someone else who we believe knows more than us. If I reject that in favor of your wisdom, then I'm depending on your judgment rather than mine.
You can’t pass the buck by saying “I get my morality from the Bible,” because it is still your responsibility to decide whether the Bible is morally reliable.
Pass the buck for what? I've never done a bad thing in my entire life because I listened to the Bible, only when I didn't. No exceptions. The chance that you or anyone you love or anyone else will be killed by me or any man who believes as I do on any side of any war or in any bombing, fanatical or otherwise, is zero. I have no problem taking responsibility for that. I haven't flown a plane into anything.ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Scott,
There is no logical rebuttal to a comparison between deliberately arranged symbols and the fragments of an exploding bomb. I can’t find any polite words to say what I think of that.
Translation: "I can't come up with a good counterargument, so I'm going to pretend that you're being ridiculous and hope that the onlookers buy it."
If natural laws explain the mapping or recognition of symbols, then use a natural law to explain the mapping or recognition of a symbol. How simple and reasonable.
If natural law explains why shrapnel is scattered in all directions when a bomb explodes, then use natural law to explain how one particular shard ends up in its final resting place. How simple and reasonable. Are explosions explained by natural law, Scott?champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Scott,
The foundation upon which your logic sits is the assumption that your moral judgments are the standard by which all others are measured.
Each of us has to depend on his or her own judgment. You can't pass the buck by saying "I get my morality from the Bible," because it is still your responsibility to decide whether the Bible is morally reliable. The same goes for any other external authority.
As far as I can tell you don’t believe in God...
That's right, I no longer do.
...but in the hypothetical sense you are certain that if there were an omnipotent being who created everyone, you’d be qualified to judge its actions.
I have no choice. Each of us has to depend on his or her own judgment. I see Hitler committing genocide and I judge him to be evil. Could I be wrong? Could Hitler have had some benign purpose in mind such that the Holocaust was a necessary evil in the service of a greater good? It's possible, but I doubt it. I see the God of the OT commanding genocide and I judge him to be evil (or more accurately, I judge him to be the fictitious creation of a bloodthirsty people). Could I be wrong? Could God have had some benign purpose in mind such that the Canaanite genocide was a necessary evil in the service of a greater good? It's possible, but I doubt it.
Even if I were an atheist, if I were to imagine a hypothetical omnipotent being who created all things, it would still be smarter than me and exercise greater moral authority over its creation.
Why would you grant it moral authority without knowing whether it was good or evil?
But an understanding of the Bible can be likened to food. All you can do is offer it. If someone isn’t hungry, you don’t argue with them. You just offer it to someone else. That’s all I have to say about that.
And if you offer old, moldy bread to someone who knows what good food is, don't be surprised when he declines.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

kuartus,
God NEVER intended for the innocents to die, rather for them to leave.
That must be why he said "do not leave alive anything that breathes" instead of "don't kill the innocent children."
We have no reason to believe that anyone other than die hard cananite child sacrificers would have opposed israel.
Because after all, whenever a country is invaded, no one but the die hard child sacrificers bothers to defend it. Cockroaches.
As to their innocent children, there is no one else to blame other than the cananites.
Absolutely. It surely wasn't God's fault for ordering their murder.
But the israelites had no means of supporting these extra children.
And we all know that when you encounter innocent children, the virtuous thing to do is to kill them rather than sharing your food with them.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Liz: "So if that’s rejecting moral objectivism, then I reject moral objectivism." Finally for record, dated and time stamped, you have had admitted that atheism, and it's central dogma metaphysical naturalism, when followed to it's logical conclusion, can only lead to moral relativism. From here on out, understand that all your moral statements and wishes are simply the product of your current status at the apex of a specific evolutionary pathway, and they are no more or less valid than any other moral statements put forth by a self aware being at the apex of their specific evolutionary pathway.junkdnaforlife_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, "Cockaroaches!" Yep, pretty much. Or do you thinks there is nothing wrong with them burning their kids alive in order to have a good day?kuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, Since when does combat count as genocide? Is what the U.S.A doing to the taliban genocide? The israelites were at war with some midian tribes, and not all midian tribes. God commanded israel to retaliate against the midian tribes that had attacked them before and had devises and carried out a plan to destroy israel. God never commanded that they kill all midianites, including the ones that had no hostilities towards israel. The hostile midianites were killed because of their unprovoked hostilities not because they were midianites or any other inclusive group. This was not genocidekuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply