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

natural law doesn’t explain why the shrapnel ends up where it does when a bomb explodes
Didn't I say no lame examples? That's exactly what I was talking about. I did not say that to paint a bulls-eye. 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.ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

The only ones too blame here are the evil cananites.
Cockroaches!Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

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.
Well, no. I don't think you are correct.
This following argument is made by a Guy named Jime on another blog who destroys Dawkins and the Atheist position and seeing as you agree with Dawkins remarks about the nature of the universe then this will be used as a rebuttal to you. “1)If, at the bottom, there is not such thing as the “good” or the “evil”, then the title of Dawkins’ work “The root of all evil” is contradictory with Dawkins’ worldview, in addition of being misleading and false; since there is not evil at all. 2)The above implies too that objective moral values don’t exist. There can’t be objective moral values in an universe that objectively lack (in the bottom) of such values (remember that for Dawkins, the universe shows nothing but blind, pitiless indifference) 3)The above implies moral subjetctivism and relativism, that view that moral values are relative to persons, society or other contingent (not absolute) thing or phenomenon. Dawkins has explicitly defended this view: “Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society” (A Devil’s Chaplain, p.34) Dawkins is correct that science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. But it doesn’t follow that “that is a matter for individuals and for society”, unless that objective values don’t exist. In the latter case, then only individuals (who have different beliefs) and societies (which have different cultures and values) can “decide” what’s ethical or not. On the other hand, if what’s ethical is just a matter of individuals and societies, then individuals and societies promoting bigotry and persecution against atheists should be accepted too (because they’re deciding, arbitrarily, what’s ethical for them). 4)If objective moral values don’t exist, and the ethical questions are a matter of individuals and society, then how does Dawkins know that religion is bad or the “root of all evil”? If it’s only a matter of individuals, then the religious individuals’ belief than religion is good is morally equivalent to Dawkins’ rejection of it (because religious individuals have the same right to decide what’s ethical or not). Dawkins can not defend rationally his own moral position, because it depends in his personal opinion alone (not on an absolute and objective standard). In fact, Dawkins has conceded it too in this interview: “Now, if you then ask me where I get my ‘ought’ statements from, that’s a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don’t find that nearly such a defensible statement as ‘I am a distant cousin of an orangutan” Note that if Dawkins’s atheism is right, and moral relativism and subjectivism implied by atheism is correct, then saying that “killing people is wrong” is not a defensible statement (at least, no one such a defensible one as a factual one. The reason is that for Dawkins, moral statements are NOT factual, because they don’t refer to anything objective).
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. So the entire rebuttal is based on a faulty premise, AFAICT, namely a misreading of Dawkins' perfectly clear sentence.
The implication of Dawkins’ view is astonishing. Consider the following moral claims: -Killing atheists for fun is good -Raping atheists just for fun and entertaiment is good -Promotion and active persecution, discrimination and bigotry against atheists and secular humanists is good. -Destrying science and promoting ignorance is good. Do you agree with the above moral claims? If you’re sane, probably your answer is NO (you probably will say that the above moral claims are objectively false and wrong, not just a matter of fashion, cultural indoctrination or subjective opinion).
Of course they are wrong.
But if Dawkins’ atheism is right, then the above moral claims are not objectively false nor wrong because, remember, at the bottom the “evil and the good” don’t exist at all;
No, Dawkins did not say that evil and good did not exist. He said they weren't properties of the universe. Clearly, as I said, they are properties of people's actions.
at most, they’re ethical questions which are just a matter of opinion of individuals and societies)
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.
Also, if ethical questions are a matter of society, then the religious values of society (like in U.S.) should rule and be respected as correct (since that society has chosen these values as the correct ones).
No, not necessarily. We should be constantly trying to figure out how to make the world a more harmonious place. If religions are making it worse, then we should probably try to fix them.
So, why to substitute society’s religious values with the (anti) values of secular humanism, the latter shared only by a very small minority, distrusted by most members of U.S. society?
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. Obviously some people don't share it, and some people don't apply it in the same way - by objecting to gay marriage, for example, but that's something your country has to figure out for itself. Democracy is messy, but it's probably the soundest approach to figuring out how to promote Peace and Good Government (as the Canadians have it).
Dawkins is EXPLICIT in his moral relativism and his intellectual unability to offer a rational justification for moral decisions and beliefs: “I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police” What amazing foundation for morality is offered by Dawkins’ atheistic worldview!
It seems reasonable to me. I don't think there are any easy answers to finding moral standards that we can all agree on, although there are moral philosophers who make a better stab at it than Dawkins. It's always going to be a collective effort though.
5)If moral values are relative, then “life” is not an absolute value. It implies that murder people may be ethically “right” in certain circunstances (according to the contingent, subjetive and arbitrary criteria of “individuals” and “society”).
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. That's why, of course, that some people argue for capital punishment, and why your country still has it, at least in parts. Thankfully, in the UK we don't, nor in the rest of Europe.
Dawkins has conceded it too in the same interview: “The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it’s true, I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement ‘killing people is wrong’, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances”
Yes, and I agree with him. I think it is sometimes the most merciful thing to do, and that sometimes it is the inevitable consequence of an action intended to save more lives.
Note that Dawkins’ moral theory explicitly justify, potentially and according to purely arbitrary criteria (because not objective and absolute standards of value exist), cases of murder.
Well, "arbitrary" in the literal sense of requiring judgement. Yes indeed. That's always the case when deciding on a course of action where all options are going to do some harm. That's why we need to "arbitrate" - make a judgement as to which course of action is likely to cause the least harm. So often, though, we do not know, and have to weigh up not only harm, but risk.
6)If moral values are relative, then pornography, paedophilia, infanticide, abortion, zoophilia and other sexual pervertions aren’t intrinsically wrong or bad.
Well, as I said, it's not moral values that are relative, but that context matters in coming to an ethical judgement. Moral values, it seems to me, are those values that lead us to take the long, or the altruistic, view over our current desires. What we "ought" to do rather than what we "want" to do. Clearly, paedophilia is pretty patently non-altruistic, and if people ever thought it was harmless, the evidence is now clear that it isn't. The others, I'd say, were arguable in certain circumstances, for example, infanticide in the case of extreme painful disability. Abortion is clearly a much more disputed case, as while most people agree that infanticide is rarely, if ever, altruistic, that is not the case in abortion, where there are powerful arguments on both sides as to when an unborn conceptus/embryo/foetus becomes and "other". You will disagree of course, but I think there is room for reasonable argument. And so on.
It explains why secular humanists are receptive and tolerant (and in many cases endorse) these behaviours or practiques (but at the same time, they’re extremely intolerant and hostile of religion, spirituality and scientific research into parapsychological phenomena, suppressin and discrediting serious efforts of research through the so-called “organized skepticism”).
Yes, it probably does. Secular humanists are, in my experience, much more likely to apply a fundamental moral principle (like the Golden Rule) to each case on its merits, than invoke a set of specific rules regardless of context, which religious organisations often, but not always, tend to do. So secularists tend to see no problem in gay marriage, but may see a very great problem in, for example, cruel religious or cultural practices like genital mutilation. Because they don't think that we are "ensouled" at conception they are more likely to consider abortion from the point of view of the mother than of a foetus who has yet, in their view, to have the capacity for a sense of the future of which termination would deprive it. 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 and knowledge and understanding of human joy and suffering, and in our lives as social animals.
You can see the intrinsic irrationality, negativity and dishonesty of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism.
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. And also far less negative. Our rules are not all about forbidding things, but rather about how to maximise joy and harmonious living.
It’s a purely negative, anti-religious philosophy; but it’s intrinsically immoral and potentially dangerous for society and the sanity of individuals.
I completely disagree.
It’s essentially totalitarian in nature; in his most extreme forms, it can’t tolerate disidence or critical questioning of their dogmas and beliefs, and its disidents are defamed and morally attacked;
Well, there are certainly some intolerant atheists, I agree. I also know of some intolerant theists. I'm not going to generalise from either example to the rest of the people who wear those labels.
(see for example the case of Antony Flew and the speculations about him becoming old, delusional and fearful of death, as “explanations” of his convertion to deism;
Well, it's perfectly possible. Are you intolerant of that possiblity?
see also the bigotry manifested by atheists to low the rating in Amazon of a book defending the belief in the Christian God.).
Why is that "bigotry"? Perhaps they read it and thought it was a bad book? Isn't that what the Amazon customer ratings are supposed to do? But I guess it could be bigotry. Certainly bigotry is widespread in human beings. Look at the intolerance shown to gays, for example.
In this point, it becomes very similar to the most irrational and intolerant forms of religious fundamentalism.
Well, I'm sure there are a few rather irrational and intolerant and "fundamentalist" atheists knocking around, just as, as you point out, there are irrational and intolerant religious fundamentalist. But I'm sure you would agree that you can't generalise from the extremists to everyone else in the big tent.
Given the ethical implications of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, if you have independent good reasons to think that moral values are objective and agree that certain actions (like torturing children for fun, or raping atheists for fun) are intrinsically and objectively bad and wrong, then you have a powerful ethical reason to reject metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism.
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. 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!
After all, as atheist and naturalist Keith Augustine has persuasively argued: “I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws… It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made,
Yes.
and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them… given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values”
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, nor that human beings living in a culture in which we have honed those values over millenia can't use their reason, capacity for empathy and goal-directed decision-making to figure out that doing the right thing by others matters. It's never going to be totally objective, but a lot more objective than everyone making up their own subjective rules, and certainly a lot more objective than everyone subjectively choosing (or worse, simply adopting by birth and culture) one of a large number of holy books, and, from those, one of a large number of possible sets of supposedly moral precepts, and regarding them as "objective morality".
Therefore, if moral objetivism is true, scientific naturalism is plausibly false.
Well, no.
So, if you agree with moral objectivism (e.g. if you agree that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, not purely a matter of social indoctrination, consensus, invention or biological pressure),
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.
you have a powerful reason and argument to reject metaphysical naturalism.”
Well, looks like I don't. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

No champ, what is truly pitiful is you comprehension level. You should really look into getting some help for that. God NEVER intended for the innocents to die, rather for them to leave. Thats why as I explained to you before there was ample warning that israel was coming and ample time for them to leave. No ordinary cananite in his right mind would have chosen to stay and confront the israelites given what they had done to the greatest superpower in the world at the time. We have no reason to believe that anyone other than die hard cananite child sacrificers would have opposed israel. As to their innocent children, there is no one else to blame other than the cananites. When a thieving parent gets thrown in jail, his children suffer. Their suffering isnt the courts fault. The blame lies squarely with the criminal parent. The child suffers not because he deserves it or because is is being punished by the judge, but because the actions of the parents have consequences for the family, whether for good or bad. Thats how the world works champ The children of the evil cananites suffered in direct consequence of the choice of their parents, but what happened to them was not punishment on them. They didnt deserve it. But the israelites had no means of supporting these extra children. They could barely get by themselves Do you prefer the israelites were to just leave then all by themselves to starve and dehydrate and be victims to wild predators? How is that more humane? That to me is not obviously preferable. The only ones too blame here are the evil cananites.kuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

The foundation upon which your logic sits is the assumption that your moral judgments are the standard by which all others are measured. As far as I can tell you don't believe in God (I don't know) 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. 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. It's one thing if you don't believe in one, another if you can't imagine one. Whatever you do for work, you should quit and take over the UN, and quickly. 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.ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Scott, By your logic, natural law doesn't explain why the shrapnel ends up where it does when a bomb explodes, because nobody can apply natural law and show you why the metal sheared exactly where it did, why the pieces tumbled in precisely the way they did, and how the air resistance modified their trajectories so that they landed in those very spots. So? Do you believe in IE (intelligent explosions)?champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Champignon,
The mapping of symbol to referent doesn’t inhere in the card. It’s done by the brain, evolving through a series of states according to natural law. The fact that a particular brain moves through these states and assigns meaning to the symbols, rather than causing its owner to whistle Beethoven, is explained by natural law. Why do you think it isn’t?
I'll rephrase in response to your rephrasing. As far as I know, the act of recognizing or mapping a symbol is a series of chemical reactions within one's neurons. It's all physical. Shakespeare was one guy's neurons, then ink on paper, then other people's neurons. You say that natural law explains it. It does not. To repeat my example, that is like saying that books are explained by the chemical binding of ink and paper. After all, that's all books are, right? But you use the word "explain," and more than once. If you found a naughty word keyed into the side of your car, would you consider the physics of how a key interacts with your paint job to be an explanation? I'm certain you would look for a better one, and it wouldn't involve the discussion of any natural laws. 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. Sound familiar? And please don't respond with some lame example of something that is explainable by natural law and tell me that if I don't accept your explanationless assertion of what natural law can explain that I must deny that, too. Just do what you've said a dozen times can be done. Someone else's explanation will do fine. Anyone's. Anything. You've said it over and over, so I don't see how that can be an unfair request. Let me just say that you cannot. And then you respond with a bunch of reasons why no one can use natural law to explain what you keep saying natural law does explain. And then I repeat myself. Etc.ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

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. This following argument is made by a Guy named Jime on another blog who destroys Dawkins and the Atheist position and seeing as you agree with Dawkins remarks about the nature of the universe then this will be used as a rebuttal to you. "1)If, at the bottom, there is not such thing as the "good" or the "evil", then the title of Dawkins' work "The root of all evil" is contradictory with Dawkins' worldview, in addition of being misleading and false; since there is not evil at all. 2)The above implies too that objective moral values don't exist. There can't be objective moral values in an universe that objectively lack (in the bottom) of such values (remember that for Dawkins, the universe shows nothing but blind, pitiless indifference) 3)The above implies moral subjetctivism and relativism, that view that moral values are relative to persons, society or other contingent (not absolute) thing or phenomenon. Dawkins has explicitly defended this view: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society" (A Devil’s Chaplain, p.34) Dawkins is correct that science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. But it doesn't follow that "that is a matter for individuals and for society", unless that objective values don't exist. In the latter case, then only individuals (who have different beliefs) and societies (which have different cultures and values) can "decide" what's ethical or not. On the other hand, if what's ethical is just a matter of individuals and societies, then individuals and societies promoting bigotry and persecution against atheists should be accepted too (because they're deciding, arbitrarily, what's ethical for them). 4)If objective moral values don't exist, and the ethical questions are a matter of individuals and society, then how does Dawkins know that religion is bad or the "root of all evil"? If it's only a matter of individuals, then the religious individuals' belief than religion is good is morally equivalent to Dawkins' rejection of it (because religious individuals have the same right to decide what's ethical or not). Dawkins can not defend rationally his own moral position, because it depends in his personal opinion alone (not on an absolute and objective standard). In fact, Dawkins has conceded it too in this interview: "Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan" Note that if Dawkins's atheism is right, and moral relativism and subjectivism implied by atheism is correct, then saying that "killing people is wrong" is not a defensible statement (at least, no one such a defensible one as a factual one. The reason is that for Dawkins, moral statements are NOT factual, because they don't refer to anything objective). The implication of Dawkins' view is astonishing. Consider the following moral claims: -Killing atheists for fun is good -Raping atheists just for fun and entertaiment is good -Promotion and active persecution, discrimination and bigotry against atheists and secular humanists is good. -Destrying science and promoting ignorance is good. Do you agree with the above moral claims? If you're sane, probably your answer is NO (you probably will say that the above moral claims are objectively false and wrong, not just a matter of fashion, cultural indoctrination or subjective opinion). But if Dawkins' atheism is right, then the above moral claims are not objectively false nor wrong (because, remember, at the bottom the "evil and the good" don't exist at all; at most, they're ethical questions which are just a matter of opinion of individuals and societies) Also, if ethical questions are a matter of society, then the religious values of society (like in U.S.) should rule and be respected as correct (since that society has chosen these values as the correct ones). So, why to substitute society's religious values with the (anti) values of secular humanism, the latter shared only by a very small minority, distrusted by most members of U.S. society? Dawkins is EXPLICIT in his moral relativism and his intellectual unability to offer a rational justification for moral decisions and beliefs: "I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police" What amazing foundation for morality is offered by Dawkins' atheistic worldview! 5)If moral values are relative, then "life" is not an absolute value. It implies that murder people may be ethically "right" in certain circunstances (according to the contingent, subjetive and arbitrary criteria of "individuals" and "society"). Dawkins has conceded it too in the same interview: "The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it's true, I can bore you to death telling you why it's true. It's definitely true. The statement 'killing people is wrong', to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances" Note that Dawkins' moral theory explicitly justify, potentially and according to purely arbitrary criteria (because not objective and absolute standards of value exist), cases of murder. 6)If moral values are relative, then pornography, paedophilia, infanticide, abortion, zoophilia and other sexual pervertions aren't intrinsically wrong or bad. It explains why secular humanists are receptive and tolerant (and in many cases endorse) these behaviours or practiques (but at the same time, they're extremely intolerant and hostile of religion, spirituality and scientific research into parapsychological phenomena, suppressin and discrediting serious efforts of research through the so-called "organized skepticism"). You can see the intrinsic irrationality, negativity and dishonesty of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism. It's a purely negative, anti-religious philosophy; but it's intrinsically immoral and potentially dangerous for society and the sanity of individuals. It's essentially totalitarian in nature; in his most extreme forms, it can't tolerate disidence or critical questioning of their dogmas and beliefs, and its disidents are defamed and morally attacked; (see for example the case of Antony Flew and the speculations about him becoming old, delusional and fearful of death, as "explanations" of his convertion to deism; see also the bigotry manifested by atheists to low the rating in Amazon of a book defending the belief in the Christian God.). In this point, it becomes very similar to the most irrational and intolerant forms of religious fundamentalism. Given the ethical implications of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, if you have independent good reasons to think that moral values are objective and agree that certain actions (like torturing children for fun, or raping atheists for fun) are intrinsically and objectively bad and wrong, then you have a powerful ethical reason to reject metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism. After all, as atheist and naturalist Keith Augustine has persuasively argued: "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws... It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values" Therefore, if moral objetivism is true, scientific naturalism is plausibly false. So, if you agree with moral objectivism (e.g. if you agree that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, not purely a matter of social indoctrination, consensus, invention or biological pressure), you have a powerful reason and argument to reject metaphysical naturalism."mrchristo_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

I'm not the one alleging that God commanded genocide, or that the Israelites even committed it. I'm sure the first is false, and the second may well be. Genocide is defined by the Resolution 260(III), Article 2, of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What the Israelites were allegedly commanded to do, and allegedly did was, by that definition, genocide. For example: Numbers 31: 7:18
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
If that's what they did, it was genocide.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

That article is pitiful. Here's how the author rationalizes the Canaanite genocide:
What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people. Far from being the "genocide of an innocent people for land-hungry Israelites", it was instead the "firm, yet just--and even a little merciful to the masses--removal of a people from a tract of land, mostly through migration."
And:
There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf.
Oh, so God only commanded the murder of some innocent people. Well, that's much better.
Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite.
And their innocent children definitely deserved to die.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

There is quite a lot of evidence for contemporaneous authorship: www.christianthinktank.com/aecy.html. As for the rabbis thoughts, nothing that hasnt been refuted before. Visit the biblearchaeology website for details.kuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

kuartus, Your link is broken. Here's the correct one: http://www.christianthinktank.com/qamorite.htmlchampignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Barb, to Elizabeth:
You seem to be stating that the Bible is wrong primarily because there are statements and/or events recorded there that you don’t understand.
Barb, You seem to be rejecting the Quran primarily because there are statements and/or events recorded there that you don’t understand. Perhaps you should give it another chance.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Scott,
How does that answer my argument that the natural laws it acts within do not explain it?
I'm trying my best to understand your argument and respond to it, but I'm having trouble coming up with an interpretation of it that makes any sense. Here's my best stab at it: When you introduced the card sorting example, you seemed to be making the point that the meaning of the symbols on the cards doesn't emerge from the physical properties of the cards themselves. This is true, of course, but beside the point. The mapping of symbol to referent doesn't inhere in the card. It's done by the brain, evolving through a series of states according to natural law. The fact that a particular brain moves through these states and assigns meaning to the symbols, rather than causing its owner to whistle Beethoven, is explained by natural law. Why do you think it isn't?champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

And the charge of genocide is false. It doesnt matter how many times atheists repeat this slander against the God of the bible, it wont make it true. Either you contend with the evidence or you should think about retracting your accusation. As it stands your accusation amounta to little more than defamation against the God of the bible: www.christianthinktank.com/quamorite.htmlkuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Well, you may be right. As I said, I wouldn't conclude the Exodus didn't happen from lack of archaeological evidence, but not would I be rushing to assume it did, solely from a non-contemporaneous set of stories. Here are a rabbi's thoughts on the archaeological evidence: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspxElizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle
“And the Middle East is a good example of a secular society, coming to reasonable conclusions from collective experience? That looks like an own goal to me, Barb.”
Actually, when I referenced the Middle East I was speaking about your comment of living in harmony. You misunderstood.
“I didn’t say that God doesn’t direct the activity of humans. I didn’t say that the perception that one is directed by God is a delusion. I’ve repeatedly tried to make that clear, yet your eyes seem to skate over my words. What I asked was: how do you know? In other words: by what means do you discern that the command is from God?”
The Israelites discerned this because God spoke to them, usually through a prophet or judge or high priest. The commandments came from a reliable source. Today, I would judge that reliable source to be God’s written word, the Bible.
“No, which is why I specifically used that word “collective”. Please try to read my posts in full Barb, this is getting very frustrating.”
I could say the same.
“That argument is completely circular. If you can’t understand that, then that may explain why we are having this problem.”
All I did was make a simple statement, not an argument. You seem to be stating that the Bible is wrong primarily because there are statements and/or events recorded there that you don’t understand.
“Please try to break out from the circle and address the simple question: how do you know that a command from God is from God?”
See above. GCUGrey Area:
“The people who committed those acts did so because they believed that it was Gods will – they had faith, just as Abraham did.”
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).
“You made a series of statements regarding Abraham and the Canaanites and used the idea of faith as something, from what I can see, that justified the events – that made them right.”
The events were justified by God himself. As the creator of the Earth, he certainly has the power to determine who lives where. And, as pointed out, this was in fulfillment of a promise made to Abraham.
“My point was to highlight the fact that your, or their personal faith that something is Gods will does not make it morally right or Gods will.”
So, then, we need a way of determining what is God’s will. Does he have standards, principles, by which we should live? Where can we find them? I believe that way is found in the Bible.
“From what I can see your position is that if you come to believe that the God you have faith in says it is OK, then it is OK. I don’t think that is in any way good, or morally grounded, indeed it is the root of much evil.”
The Bible speaks of ‘testing’ the inspired expressions. In other words, make sure of what is right, make sure of what you believe. That is my position. Abraham’s faith was proven when he obediently followed God’s commands. God told him that his descendants would be a great nation; note that this was before he was asked to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham may have wondered how this would be possible if Isaac were dead. However, he also reasoned that if God were all powerful and wise, surely he would find a way (perhaps through resurrecting Isaac) to ensure that his purpose would be fulfilled.
“So now you see the relevance we can re-phrase your question properly: “What does faith have to do with Faith?”
No, my question was phrase properly before. What does 9/11 have to do with Abraham?
Barb_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, if what you are saying is true then we should expect quite a lot of archeological evidence for the scythians since they shared common lifestyle with the israelites and inhabited the part near the black sea for several centuries, yet they didnt. All they left behind was a few burial mounds, and the only mention of them comes from herodotus. Yet you dont see any historian doubting they existed.kuartus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Scott,
But look at it this way: If the Bible is wrong when it says that everything God does is just, then it would probably be wrong about all those things that supposedly happened, too.
Being wrong on theological issues doesn't necessarily make the Bible wrong on historical issues, but it does mean that we can't assume that the Bible is correct on any particular point. We have to examine it critically, as we would any other book. This doesn't sit well with those Christians who say "the Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it." They realize that much of what the Bible says can't withstand independent scrutiny. By bundling everything together and declaring the whole to be inerrant, they shield the flimsier parts from questioning (at least by believers). As this thread illustrates, this can lead to bibliolatry, where people would rather accuse God of horrible behavior than admit that the Bible contains errors. The question I would like readers to ask themselves is this:
Which is more likely: 1) That a good, loving God commanded a horrible genocide, or 2) That the Israelites rationalized a horrible genocide by attributing it to their God?
The answer is obvious. The Israelites were a brutal Bronze Age nation, so it's not suprising that the God they created shared their brutal Bronze Age morality. But that means admitting that the Bible is wrong. Hence the fierce resistance from Christians in this thread.champignon_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Being invaded or attacked poses difficulties for pacifists, but the pacifists I know spend their time trying to defuse the causes. Of course one cause is bullies in charge of governments, but one can try to isolate them and diminish their appeal to ordinary people. I am not a Quaker. I think I am the only Vietnam vet to graduate from my college. But I have enormous respect for pacifists who actually work at bringing people together. Somewhat less respect for the shouters. You never hear about the quiet ones. :)Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

I think they would answer the self defense question by saying that a Christian has an obligation to take proactive steps to prevent war and violence. One cannot simply wait until one is attacked and then justify a violent response.
Absolutely. Another thought - what do Christians do if persecuted, even with violence? In the first century they avoided it when they could, and if not they suffered and/or died. They did not take up violent revolt to save themselves or even their families. They didn't want to die, but violent revolt was worse than death. What differentiates being invaded by a hostile army from that? If you're persecuted for Jesus, suffer it, but if they want to kill you and take your land, fight to the death? The answer is that a Christian dying for being a Christian likely had no way to prevent that violent death other than recanting. What would happen if an entire nation of Christians told an invading army, please don't invade, but if you do, we surrender? Odds are they wouldn't need to kill or be killed. (If both nations are Christian, the issue would never come up.) I understand that might not sit well with some people. But Jesus said to love our enemies, give our very garments to the one who demanded them, and carry the load they tell us to carry. Or we can fight them to the death. It's impossible to do both.ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

I do give a fig about whever you agree with his philosophy, I don’t see as an Atheist how you can be diamectrically opposed to Dawkins views if you are being a logically consistent Atheist.
I'm not "diametrically opposed" to Dawkins. I just said I wasn't a great fan. I do think he has written some good books, and I've been greatly moved by at least one of his articles, but, oddly, I don't think he's the greatest communicator on the subject of evolution. It was not, after all, his research subject.
In his book “River Out Of Eden”, Richard Dawkins wrote: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” 1.If you agree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then what grounding do you have to make moral judgements against Craig?
I agree with Dawkins about the universe. I don't think it was designed by any oneor thing with a purpose, for evil or for good. That doesn't mean that I don't think that people can do evil or good. I think they can. And I'm not making moral judgements against Craig. I don't tend to judge people, but I do judge their actions. I'm saying that what he is saying is wrong and dangerous. And the "moral grounding" I have is reason and common humanity. Reason, because I think it is a completely circular to define a deity as good, then justify what would (by his own free declaration) otherwise be evil acts by the fact that that deity commanded them, then announce the superiority of that deity over other deities because your deity is good. Common humanity, which tells me that causing deliberate pain and distress to other human beings is not wrong.
2. If you disagree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then why are you not condemning Dawkins just like you admitted he was an idiot for his idiotic excuses to duck debate with Craig.
Because I don't think there is anything wrong with his views about the moral status of the universe. I think he's right. And I do agree with him that views like Craig's are evil (I can only think that Craig lacks the imagination to notice) and dangerous.
3. If you do condemn Dawkins views about Good and Evil then on what basis do you do that? How specifically would Dawkins be Wrong?, what would make him a Bad Atheist and you a Good Atheist?
Well, I think that Stalin was a bad atheist, because he did evil things - massacred people. I don't know any evil that Dawkins has done, though I expect, like most people, he does things that he shouldn't. I think he's a bit conceited. But I don't think that's any more or less heinous than things that I do. The point being, mrchristo, that I simply do not accept this idea that we can only derive moral standards from some kind of theism. I think it's quite false. In fact I think that any theism worth having arises from our moral sense, not the other way round. I think as human beings we have the capacity, unlike any other animal - or at least to an extent way beyond any other animal - for what is sometimes called "mental time travel" - the capacity to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, or in our own at some future date. That means that we are faced with choices in which our immediate desires are pitted against the options in which others, or ourselves at some future date, benefit. Thus we are capable of posing to ourselves the decision between what we "want" to do and what we "ought" to do. So I'd say that morality is a direct consequence of our cognitive capacity to imagine the world from a view other than our own, now, as does our altruism. These, reified by symbolic language, form the basis our moral cognition. The universe as a whole may be pitiless, but the part of it that is human is not. I don't think that Dawkins would disagree.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

F/N: Those troubled by the new atheist "moral monster" talking points might try here for a different view. Having been over this and similar grounds several times recently, I only note for record to help those seeking help, having become convinced that there will not be any reasonable discussion on such topics that -- suitably strawmannised -- feed the rage that animates that movement. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Christians will never be asked to act violently so that they or anyone has to wonder if the command really came from God.
There are several sects of Christians who believe violence is absolutely prohibited by Jesus. Individuals differ on how this might apply to self defense. I graduated from a Quaker college. I think they would answer the self defense question by saying that a Christian has an obligation to take proactive steps to prevent war and violence. One cannot simply wait until one is attacked and then justify a violent response. It is not always clear what will prevent violence, but there is an obligation to use all of one's intelligence and imagination to try.Petrushka_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

I can't disagree more that the question makes no sense. It's a very good, very important question and line of questioning. What if the 9/11 attackers had asked themselves that question? "God says so" is great for some people. In some cases that's beneficial, but in others it can do harm. Why would God want the sort of blind, unreasoning obedience that leaves people unable to distinguish between right and wrong, between living in peace, flying into buildings, and paying someone money for permission to commit serious sins? The trouble is that the answer isn't drawn from the sort of evidence and logic we're used to. We reason that if we wanted to avoid confusion and make something known, we would say it this or that way, removing any room for doubt. Why doesn't the Bible do that? Some people will give the Hallmark "faith vs. evidence" fortune cookie answer. That's nonsense. As many have pointed out, the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted. Less noted is that it such plain-as-day evidence did most of them no good anyway in the long term. It did more good for others (such as the Gibeonites) who didn't see it but did believe it. Here's two ways of looking at it: One, the Bible absolutely does not command any form of violence or seemingly evil behavior for Christians. It makes it clear that Christians living in various countries should behave commendably, paying taxes, and maintaining good reputations. This doesn't fully answer the question about every act recorded in the Bible. But it does take violent acts performed by Christians completely off the table. (That statement may raise objections. "No true Scotsman" isn't always a fallacy.) Christians will never be asked to act violently so that they or anyone has to wonder if the command really came from God. Second - I understand the back-and-forth between the Bible saying that everything that God does is just, and by definition everything he ever commanded was righteous. I fully understand how circular that may sound. But look at it this way: If the Bible is wrong when it says that everything God does is just, then it would probably be wrong about all those things that supposedly happened, too. What is the point in examining a hypothetical case in which all the stuff the Bible says happened is true, but what it says about God is false?ScottAndrews2_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

I do give a fig about whever you agree with his philosophy, I don't see as an Atheist how you can be diamectrically opposed to Dawkins views if you are being a logically consistent Atheist. In his book “River Out Of Eden”, Richard Dawkins wrote: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” 1.If you agree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then what grounding do you have to make moral judgements against Craig? 2. If you disagree with Dawkins views about Good and Evil then why are you not condemning Dawkins just like you admitted he was an idiot for his idiotic excuses to duck debate with Craig. 3. If you do condemn Dawkins views about Good and Evil then on what basis do you do that? How specifically would Dawkins be Wrong?, what would make him a Bad Atheist and you a Good Atheist?mrchristo_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

And why should we conclude that israel didnt wander in the desert for forty years just because there is not archeological trace of them?
Because there are good reasons to expect archaeological traces. Migrating tribes usually leave artefacts and signs of habitation (cooking sites, for instance) behind. But I don't think we should conclude they didn't, any more than you guys should conclude from the gaps in the fossil record that there were no intervening populations. Although fossilisation is a much rarer event than the preservation of evidence of evidence of migration. Humans generally make a bit of a mess, especially when they are committing genocide.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I'm not defending Dawkins. I'm criticizing Craig.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I would suggest that the real answer is that one discerns the voice of God, from self, from delusion, by reason of long term growth in relationship, so that one has a rational intuition that this is the real deal. That is going to require a long term growth in virtue and building a confidence based on experience that shows this is not delusion but he real deal.
Right. We learn to discern what is virtuous and what is not, and that enables us to discern what is God's will and what is not. Thank you, kairosfocus. Exactly. Now, the only difference between an atheist and a theist, is the fact that atheists dispense with the second part, seeing it as a tautology. In other words, if what is good is God's will, and what is God is what is good, then we can economise with words and simply state: We learn to discern what is virtuous and what is not. And we learn in exactly the same way as you do - from our rational intuition and through our relationships with others.
If you are hearing a voice from your head, or on the radio, or a pulpit, or a lecturer’s podium or a political platform, or wherever, that is tickling you ear with what you want to hear as opposed to calling you to the difficult path of the right, that is NOT the voice of God.
Exactly. If we find ourselves torn between what we want, rather than a more difficult path that is less comfortable, but which benefits others, or has more long term benefits, then we know we "ought" to do the the second thing - that the second thing is "right". Some of us, if we believe in a good God, call it "doing God's will", and some of us just call it "doing good". But the point is that we require discernment to recognise both good and a good God. There aren't any shortcuts, and ethical arguments will go on for as long as there are humans, but we are equipped with empathy, abstract reasoning and our fellow humans, so we will probably do OK. Even better, I guess, if the holy spirit turns out to have a role. As long as we recognise the holy spirit by what is good, not what is good by what we think might be the holy spirit. Eugene, thanks also for your encouraging response.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, your question makes as much sense as a square circle. Why is that?
On the contrary, your own response, below, not only makes less sense than a square circle, but defines black as white.
The Christian God is, by Biblical definition, the locus of all moral goodness. He cannot “murder” because to do evil would be contrary to His nature. Rather, He executes righteous judgment upon evil, when necessary. In this case, against Canaanite murderers.
Right. So goodness, by your definition, is whatever God does, even if it's murdering Canaanites.
In the case of the Canaanites children, it spared them from a heinous suffering torturous fiery sacrifice and afforded them entrance to heaven instead of condemning them to a possible cultic sacrificial death, or worse, a life of rebellion against the one true God, and the eternal consequences of such rebellion.
So it's just fine to kill children if they might not have a decent upbringing by true-God worshipping parents? Are you serious? Do you read the words you write? Do you even read the words in the bible? What was, allegedly, commanded by their deity, over and over again, was genocide of all tribes who occupied the land the Israelites thought they'd been promised by their god. Genocide, very explicitly and old-fashionedly: murder of the men, sex slavery for virgins, slaughter or kidnapping of the infants. Tribal conquest, in other words, justified, post hoc, by appeal to the local deity whose commands are "by definition" regarded as "good". Well, if you don't see the problem you don't see it again. But, frankly, square circles are the least of your problems.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply