Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Flagellum

Here:

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
Scott,
This doesn’t count because I’m not saying anything new.
The first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. :-)
My first answer is found at 12.1.1.2.30 in that thread. An illustration which contrasts acting within natural laws with explanation via those laws (the car) is at 12.1.1.2.35, which I apparently posted in the wrong place (see, I freely admit a capacity for error) and you copied over.
I responded to the latter comment here. I think this excerpt sums up the problem:
Scott:
Similarly, the operation of natural laws upon the molecules of one’s brain does not explain why one person writes a novel and another whistles Beethoven in the men’s room.
Why not? You’ve agreed that the brain operates according to physical law without supernatural intervention:
I agree that all of it operates within natural law and that none of it violates any laws of physics. Otherwise I would have to think that something bizarre and supernatural occurs every time I imagine a shopping list, write it down, and then go to the store and retrieve the physical items corresponding to my abstraction.
If making a shopping list just involves a succession of physical brain states evolving according to the laws of physics, why do you believe that the same thing can’t be happening when someone writes a novel or whistles Beethoven?
champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
@Elizabeth Liddle,
It’s as objective as we’ve got, for the simple reason that we have no way of telling – or at least you have not provided one – whether an edict from an alleged “all powerful omnipotent god” is indeed and edict from an “all powerful omnipotent god”, and not a subjective delusion.
Yes, that's a problem. But even if you DO find grounds for such a conclusion, what to make of said edict? If, in some dystopic scenario we find an edict that demands the wholesale slaughter of the Midianites down the road a ways, every last man woman, child and infant run through with the sword, how would that provide a basis for moral obligation or deontological priority for me (or you)? I can see that it may be a matter of 'might makes right', and we would be obligated to slaughter everyone in another tribe, lest we be killed ourselves. But 'all powerful' doesn't entail goodness or evil in human terms, and in the case just described, that would be an over-the-top example of an evil god, by human measures. Maybe one could get super dark in one's imagination and contemplate some god who would snuff out -- say, drown with a global flood -- the entirety the human race, save a handful of chosen survivors, but the challenge would be the same: why would our human empathy and natural sense of justice and love not compel us to curse and resist such an evil god, if, per chance, that nightmare scenario were ever to be thrust upon us?eigenstate
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
And who are you or anyone else to define ‘good’? Based on what, exactly? You own limited human intelligence? Is that the objective standard by which you measure goodness–because an all powerful, omnipotent god would laugh at you if you tried.
Yes, based on my limited human intelligence, in combination with the accumulated wisdom of many other human beings who have, over the millenia, gradually learned the rules the best allow them to live in harmony. It's as objective as we've got, for the simple reason that we have no way of telling - or at least you have not provided one - whether an edict from an alleged "all powerful omnipotent god" is indeed and edict from an "all powerful omnipotent god", and not a subjective delusion. The fallible human collective at least has the advantage of being able to use reason and argument and experience.Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
“I’m curious, Barb: how do you think the Israelites knew for sure that that’s what God wanted them to do?” Because he told them. The nation of Israel was descended from Abraham’s family. The land was theirs by a covenant that Abraham had with God.
How did he tell them? Did they hear the voice of God? Did he appear to them in a vision? How did they know it was not a hallucination?
“And, as a follow up: if someone said in court, that they’d murdered a number of sex-workers because God had told them to, would you consider it a reasonable defence? If not, why not?” Your lack of intelligence stuns me, Elizabeth. Are you asking these questions rhetorically, or do you genuinely want a response?
I want a response, Barb, and I am not particularly lacking in intelligence. But let me put it slightly differently: How do you tell whether a voice that claims to be the voice of God is really God or a hallucination? Because the Israelites and Peter Sutcliffe both apparently believed that that God was telling them to murder people. We have no difficulty in concluding that Peter Sutcliffe was hallucinating, if only for the simple reason that we do not think that God tells people to murder other people. And yet you are happy to believe that God told the Israelites to murder other people. Why?
If you want to know why God waged war on the Canaanites, I explained it upthread
I'm not asking why he did. I don't even believe he did. I think it is extremely unlikely there even was an Exodus, as there is apparently absolutely no archaeological evidence for it at all. What I want to know is how you think the Israelites knew that it was God telling them to murder the Canaanites.
Does God tell us to wage war today? No, he does not. Christian warfare, as explained in the book of Ephesians, is spiritual and not literal. Why did the nation of Israel wage war? Because they were fighting for land that was rightfully theirs.
That is not what I asked. Not that I would have been exactly satisfied with your answer if it had been what I asked as it simply begs the question as to how the Israelites knew that the land was "rightfully theirs", seeing as all they had to go on was the belief that God had told them it was, and you have provided me with no criteria that they, or you, could use to check.
]You might also check the source of my quote, Henry Halley’s Bible Handbook. The land belonged to Israel because God, the creator of the universe, said it did. Who would you be to argue?
I'd be a rational person who normally doesn't assume that a voice in someone's head, or from some kind of vision, is the voice of God, especially as a) it is generally considered a hallucination and possibly the sign of potentially dangerous psychosis if the content of the hallucination is incitement to murder and b) if the document in question was written by a successfully invading force.Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
It is obvious from his posts here and elsewhere that Champignon hates God. And who are you or anyone else to define 'good'? Based on what, exactly? You own limited human intelligence? Is that the objective standard by which you measure goodness--because an all powerful, omnipotent god would laugh at you if you tried.Barb
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
You might look at James Hoffmeier's book "Israel in Egypt". There are a few others I found doing a simple Google search. Why would anyone want it to be true? Because of faith, Elizabeth, something you are sorely lacking. Sorry if you don't get the point after having it repeatedly explained to you.Barb
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
“I’m curious, Barb: how do you think the Israelites knew for sure that that’s what God wanted them to do?” Because he told them. The nation of Israel was descended from Abraham’s family. The land was theirs by a covenant that Abraham had with God. “And, as a follow up: if someone said in court, that they’d murdered a number of sex-workers because God had told them to, would you consider it a reasonable defence? If not, why not?” Your lack of intelligence stuns me, Elizabeth. Are you asking these questions rhetorically, or do you genuinely want a response? If you want to know why God waged war on the Canaanites, I explained it upthread. Does God tell us to wage war today? No, he does not. Christian warfare, as explained in the book of Ephesians, is spiritual and not literal. Why did the nation of Israel wage war? Because they were fighting for land that was rightfully theirs. You might also check the source of my quote, Henry Halley’s Bible Handbook. The land belonged to Israel because God, the creator of the universe, said it did. Who would you be to argue?Barb
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Elizabeth - thank you.ScottAndrews2
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
This doesn't count because I'm not saying anything new. My first answer is found at 12.1.1.2.30 in that thread. An illustration which contrasts acting within natural laws with explanation via those laws (the car) is at 12.1.1.2.35, which I apparently posted in the wrong place (see, I freely admit a capacity for error) and you copied over.ScottAndrews2
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
When are you guys going to realise that the existence of God (or not, for the incorrigible), which used to be solely a metaphysical question, now falls within the ambit of empirical science. And the ethical standing of God has no bearing on that, whatsoever – no matter how horrified we might be if we believe, he’s a wrong’un.
So you think there is evidence for a powerful creator being, who is empirically verifiable, and who may or may not be good? If so, can I ask you two questions: 1. Why would you call such a being a "god", rather than, for example, a super-powerful alien from a universe beyond our own? 2. Why would you worship such a being, especially if the empirical evidence suggested it was a "wrong'un"?Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Last post! I Swear! This one is easy.
Abraham’s faith made him willing to do what his God commanded. The Canaanites’ faith made them willing to do what their God commanded. Why is Abraham good if the Canaanites are evil?
Who said their faith was evil? You or me? What I said was: 1. Child Sacrifice is evil. 2. Believing that God can render evil null and void is good. Both Abe and the Caananites were prepared to do 1. Only Abe had 2. The caananites knew their kids weren't coming back, and went forward anyway. Even if their gods exist/ed, said evil wasn't being nulled. It was encouraged. You do believe child-sacrifice is evil. Right? Anyway, we've both gone wildly off topic. I can acknowledge that I believe Abraham was prepared to do something evil at Gods request (I've said it several times now, but whatever). And you can acknowledge that the caananites were killing their children by burning them alive to a god whose sole purpose apperes to be burning kids alive (seriously, the thing isn't even a fertility god or anything). Deal? ;)Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Axel,
Science has been left behind here.
LOL. Take a look at the title of the OP:
New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate
The reason Dawkins gave for refusing to debate Craig was Craig's approval of the Canaanite genocide. Thus the Canaanite genocide, and the fact that the OT God commanded it, is absolutely germane. Also, this is UD. Religion is a major topic here. Take a look at these post titles:
Engineering and Metaphysics 2012 Conference to feature Walter Bradley as speaker What Catholics didn’t like about Darwin – and still don’t Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs Indiana Senate passes bill to teach Christian, Hindu, and Scientology origin of life – among others … New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate As a cure for relativism, Darwinism is worse than the disease – Barham Best Schools blog: If moral relativism is a disease, Darwinism isn’t the cure Nature broadcaster David Attenborough definitely renounces atheism? Thinks Darwinism is only a theory? Study: Religion helps people gain self-control Where materialism fails: Grappling with the power of exceptional minds New atheist standard-bearer: Why it’s okay to be rude to religious people
champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
"If you wants it..." IF HE WANTS IT! Urgh, what a terrible writing day.Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Abraham’s obedience wasn’t what made God pleased. It was his faith.
Abraham's faith made him willing to do what his God commanded. The Canaanites' faith made them willing to do what their God commanded. Why is Abraham good if the Canaanites are evil?champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Thanks for the reminder Axel. Sorry for derailing the thread I'm done, honest. Champ'll be back up here to spin my post again so that he feels better about his faith/worldview/lifestyle choice. He can have the last word if you wants it. Won't change either scripture, his attitude, or mine. A waste of words on a close minded individual. Somebody talk science! :)Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
@Champ, 18.2 ...Really? Are you reading what you're posting? Or are 'faith' and 'obedience' now the same things? So you can see how silly this post is:
1 4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. 5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore…
Abraham's obedience wasn't what made God pleased. It was his faith. According to Hebrews his faith that -
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice [SON: Notice that this isn't what is praised in this passage]. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death…
If any good came from this, it was that Abraham's faith didn't falter, even as he was prepared to do something wicked, even EVIL, he believed it would all turn out for good and that no harm would truely befall his son. And it didn't. Low and behold. Which is basically one of the options Bantay just suggested, isn't it? And you laughed it off? Wow. So far we've had you: 1. Misrepresent my statements. 2. Misread the bible. 3. Mock someones post and then confirm it in the span of a few minutes and 4. Conflate faith and obedience. Wonderous. -_- Are you really that desperate to believe the bible is so evil that you'll post anything that seems to conflate it without giving it a thought over? And you say we drink the kool-aide. And again, for the third or fourth time: “[The caananite kids] parents [...] regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers on the alter.” True or false?Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Champ, yes it would have been a test. The test would be a test of Abraham's faith, not God's moral nature. Obviously, Abraham demonstrated great faith, and God demonstrated great mercy and care.Bantay
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Science has been left behind here. All I can remember about second-year Physics is that we were told something about thermos flasks - and I'm having to remind you. Crazy. When are you guys going to realise that the existence of God (or not, for the incorrigible), which used to be solely a metaphysical question, now falls within the ambit of empirical science. And the ethical standing of God has no bearing on that, whatsoever - no matter how horrified we might be if we believe, he's a wrong'un.Axel
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Scott, just in case I don't get the opportunity to say it, then, I've enjoyed your posts! And found quite a bit to agree with, as you know. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Bantay, Champignon isn't saying that s/he hates God or that God is evil. S/he is saying that the god to whom you are ascribing such appalling attributes would not be a good god. In other words your idea of God makes no sense if God is supposed to be good.Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
@Champ in 17! -_-Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Sonfaro, Does it make any difference to you that the Bible says you're wrong?
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for... 4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. 5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[b] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore... 17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death... [Hebrews 11, NIV]
The Bible says that Abraham's obedience was a good thing. You say it was neither good nor bad, just a test. I'll let you try to convince your fellow Christians that you're right and the Bible is wrong. Wear a helmet.champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
@champignon, ScottAndrews2,
Too bad. I was looking forward to seeing how you would argue on the Feser thread. Your position seems indefensible — agreeing on the one hand that brains operate strictly according to physical law, yet claiming that physical law can’t explain what brains do when they come up with new symbols.
Yeah, that was one pending exchange I have been waiting for, anticipating. Too bad.eigenstate
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
This bit was @Champ An edit function would be lovely :(Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
...Really Dude? This is why people accuse you of having comprehension issues. I said:
I’m suggesting that some tests are just tests. If I wanted to see how much liquid a container holds, does it fail if it holds 4L instead of 5L? It still holds liquid either way. I’m just testing how much.
How would a container "pass" such a test? How can it "fail"? If the test is to determine the length of Abrahams faith, how can he pass it? fail it? Think this way:
The Problem: How far is Abraham willing to go to please me? The Test: Tell Abraham do something evil. Results: Abraham was willing to do it. Conclusion: Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son - committing a horrible evil - in order to appease God. Test over
Seriously, do you read my posts, or just look through for snippets just to argue with? And again: “[The caananite kids] parents [...] regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers on the alter.” True or false?Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Bantay,
Interestingly, Abraham knew BOTH he and his son would return alive. (Gen 22:5) Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you.”
If that's true, then it wasn't a test at all. And what would you have expected Abraham to say to his servants? "You stay here with the donkey. I'm going to take the boy over there and kill him, and then I'll return?" Man, oh man -- the contortions you folks will put yourselves through to defend the Bible are amazing.champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Sonfaro,
Does this say he told Abraham “You have done a good thing?”
And earlier:
Where did I say Abraham failed?
Make up your mind. Did Abraham pass God's test, or fail it? And if you think he passed it, as your fellow Christians do, then answer my question:
If Abraham’s willingness to obey his God was a good thing, why was the Canaanites’ willingness to obey their God an evil thing?
champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Probably wise, especially if those suggestions are coming from your wife. Too bad. I was looking forward to seeing how you would argue on the Feser thread. Your position seems indefensible -- agreeing on the one hand that brains operate strictly according to physical law, yet claiming that physical law can't explain what brains do when they come up with new symbols.champignon
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Grrr, that second 4 was supposed to be a 5. Wish there was an edit function.Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Hey Champ,
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
Does the scripture say "And God was pleased?" (When something pleases him he/the bible usually says so) No? Does this say he told Abraham "You have done a good thing?" No? What does it say? "Now I know you fear me, being willing to sacrifice your son." Yes? Just After specifically saying "Do not do this?" Yes? Is that all he says about the subject? Up till he told Abrahams descendants NOT TO DO IT, yep. Oh, okay. No dice. You do have a lovely imagination though. ;) Just for gits and shiggles here's the bible on Child sacrifices, specifically to the Caananite deity Moloch:
‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 18:21 "Again, you shall say to the Sons of Israel: Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed l'Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed l'Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed l'Molech, and do not kill him, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, whoring l'Molech from among the people." - Leviticus 20:2-5
So what do we know? 1. The practice of sacrificing children is considered evil. 2. According to scripture, God wanted to test Abraham's faith by asking him to commit evil. 3. Abraham was willing to do it, and God put a stop to it after learning the extent of Abrahams faith. 4. After the incident, Abraham calls the land 'the lord provides'. 4. Years later, as they prepare to take the land promised, God told Abrahams kids not to do it [sacrifice kids]; and that if someone did and they weren't given a death sentence, he'd turn his back on the entire nation. BONUS. The Caananites kept doing it till their destruction. (Do you deny this?) Anything beyond this is pure speculation on your part and not married to the text. And if your opinion is that OT God is evil, that's how your minds gonna warp the words, isn't it? Try reading it neutral, with no preconcieved notions. Maybe that would help you. Anyway, no. It's not hard dude. Now, back to the main point: “[The caananite kids] parents [...] regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers on the alter.” True or false?Sonfaro
February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply