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

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." So what can we make of this? That God in His foreknowledge knew that Abraham, given the opportunity, would have killed his own son in obedience to Him and sent the angel to prevent it...which shows God's providential mercy and care. Or did Abraham have so much faith as to believe God would not allow Him to kill his own son, and believed on God until the last moment when the angel prevented him from going through with it, which shows both God's providential mercy and care, as well as the faith of Abraham. In either case, Abraham demonstrated faith and obedience. Isaac was not killed, and God demonstrated mercy and care.Bantay_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Thanks, but I'm leaning toward editing myself out of the discussion, perhaps permanently. I wish I had the self control to comment selectively, but my tendency is more toward responding way too much. And there's no shortage of commentary from people who know a heck of a lot more than I do while being just as unfailingly right as I always am. I've recently received some really good (and often) repeated suggestions about not spending too much time on the internet. Some will know exactly what I'm talking about. For those of you who can juggle it, more power to you.ScottAndrews2_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Welcome back, Scott. Anyone who doubts my characterization is free to read the thread. That's the beauty of blogs: the comments are preserved for posterity. Fossilized, so to speak. Meanwhile, let's continue our discussion on the Feser thread. I'm curious to hear why you think natural law can't explain what brains do when they map symbols to referents.champignon_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
Moreover, In that passage you quoted, where does God say being willing to kill your kid is good?
As you like to say, "It's not hard, dude." God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham was willing to follow God's command. God was pleased:
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.
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
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Champignon, When you lose an argument you post comments like the one above, or beginning with something like 'Why can't you admit when you're wrong?' You put it at the beginning and use few enough words that it shows up in the excerpts on the home page. To anyone skimming over the posts it gives an apparently deliberate impression that you've just issued some compelling refutation or caught someone in an error. Did you think no one would notice? That's really lame.ScottAndrews2_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Bantay, You get angry when you lose an argument.champignon_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Champ, if you will look at the order of responses, I have answered your questions. I am entirely responsible for the fact that you cannot reply with reasonable argumentation. Bottom line is: You hate God. That's a personal problem. Making an emotional appeal to how bad God because He doesn't do what you think He should do and doesn't conform to your whacked, immoral framework only makes your style of argumentation appear sophomoric. You aren't even familiar with scholarly material pertaining to the Canaanite conquest, and you only post Scripture taken out of context when it suits you. This is extremely poor exegesis, and indicates an immaturity on your part, both personally and intellectually. You can do better. I suggest you read Paul Copan's book "Is God A Moral Monster?". He covers the Canaanite conquest in detail that is both accurate and accessible to a layperson. It will do you good to understand more before launching into petty, 2-bit flatulent outbursts about a topic you are not prepared to discuss civilly.Bantay_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

@Champ, While you're busy trying to spin my post, can you answer how the story of Abraham and Issac refutes my statement that: "[The caananite kids] parents [...] regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers on the alter." And if it doesn't, just say so.Sonfaro_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

@Champ Read my response again. Both of them if you need to. Where did I say Abraham failed? I mean I get that you think you know more than everybody but really, putting words in peoples mouths? 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. Moreover, In that passage you quoted, where does God say being willing to kill your kid is good? He doesn't? Oh okay. It was a test to see how far Abraham would go. When it was known, the test was stopped, an out was given, and a generation later when the laws were written up how God felt about it was spelled out for the nation to see. Which is that child sacrifice is evil. Meanwhile the Caananites did sacrifice their children, which we still don't need the bible for, seeing as we have their bones. And unless you're a moral relativist and anything goes, you know that such an action is evil. So again, it's nice you care so much. Their parents didn't seem to.Sonfaro_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

If God doesn’t exist then your question is merely “If the government/populus demanded it, would it be moral?” You say no, and I perhaps would agree with you.
Good. Although your "perhaps" worries me.
But if God does exist then your question is “Is it moral to do what you want with your own Legos?” In which case there’s no moral or immoral involved. It’s all just a kvetch about plastic bricks.
Whether or not God exists, what you do with your Legos is unlikely to present you with a moral dilemma.
But if there is no God, and this is your philosophic perspective, then your question is “Is it moral to do what you want with you own chemistry?” In which case there’s no moral or immoral involved. It’s all just a kvetch about wave functions.
Of course it isn't. If you kill yourself, then other people are affected, and distressed. That's why suicide presents a moral dilemma, even if it's what you wish. This is true whether you posit a god or not.
And this is where I need to understand your perspective before agreeing or disagreeing with you: Is chemistry a deontological issue?
Yes if it concerns the welfare of sentient beings. You seem to think that because some of us think that sentient beings are solely the result of physical interactions that that means that we are "just" physical interactions. Is water is "just" oxygen and hydrogen atoms? and are oxygen and hydrogen atoms "just" sub atomic particles? No, they are not. They may solely consist of the units at the level below, but the units at the levels below do not share the properties of the entity in question. Water has countless properties not possessed by "hydrogen" or "oxygen". Similarly people have countless properties, including sentience, agency, goal-setting and decision-making, not possessed by their cells or neurotransmitters or ions. And sentient beings impose upon us obligations that non-sentient objects (Legos for example) do not. You have made, in other words, a straw man of materialism, by ignoring the properties we, like you, ascribe to the assemblies of the parts of which we consist and which are not, clearly, the properties of the parts. I am not a neuron, I am nothing like a neuron, and my neurons are nothing like me.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Read any textbook on phylogenetic analysis. Do you know of any archaeological evidence for the conquering of the Canaanites by a tribe of Israelites migrating from Egypt? Or even for the Exodus itself? Because Israeli archaeologists looked pretty hard, and had a pretty strong vested interest in finding such evidence, and, to my knowledge, have found none. Thankfully, it seems likely that the whole story is fictional. But why anyone should want to believe it true, given what it implies about the nature of the deity referred to as Yahweh, defeats me.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Because the authorities of the day said so. Which is precisely the problem with the opinions of scientists in the modern day isn’t it?
No, it's precisely the opposite. Scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute. You have helped me make my exact point, so thank you.
It’s because of their breeding. Do you consider blaming Darwin a reasonable defence?
Of course not. And that's because there is no symmetry between our views. I hold a person responsible for their actions because it is the person who acts, not their ancestors, or their neurons. Only if the person is clearly damaged in some way, or "not in possession of their mind" do we absolve them of personal responsibility. That would include the delusion that they were being commanded directly by the voice of God.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 6, 2012
February
02
Feb
6
06
2012
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

No. What’s your point? Now suppose that all of the citizens of Germany were executed after WWII, along with the infirm, the elderly, the children, and the infants. Would that be genocide? Yes. Would it be moral? No. Would it be moral if God commanded it? No.
If God doesn't exist then your question is merely "If the government/populus demanded it, would it be moral?" You say no, and I perhaps would agree with you. But if God does exist then your question is "Is it moral to do what you want with your own Legos?" In which case there's no moral or immoral involved. It's all just a kvetch about plastic bricks. But if there is no God, and this is your philosophic perspective, then your question is "Is it moral to do what you want with you own chemistry?" In which case there's no moral or immoral involved. It's all just a kvetch about wave functions. And this is where I need to understand your perspective before agreeing or disagreeing with you: Is chemistry a deontological issue?Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

A location of those cities would also be cool. As would evidence that the Israelites wandered in the desert at all, apart from the scriptural account. Thanks.
As would be evident for the origin of species and all, apart from the sriptural account. Thanks.Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:16 PM
11
11
16
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 the authorities of the day said so. Which is precisely the problem with the opinions of scientists in the modern day isn't it?
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?
It's because of their breeding. Do you consider blaming Darwin a reasonable defence? What is true for Barb's response is precisely true for your response.Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
Where did I say Abraham being willing to kill his son as a sacrifice was a ‘good’ thing? Note also, that God didn’t think it was good either.
How long have you been a Christian, Sonfaro? I ask because I've never met a Christian who didn't understand that Abraham passed God's test by being willing to sacrifice Isaac:
11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Genesis 22:11-12, NIV
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

@Champ, Read my response again. Where did I say Abraham being willing to kill his son as a sacrifice was a 'good' thing? Note also, that God didn't think it was good either. Which is why it didn't happen. And why there were laws written out for the nation to prevent it from happening. Meanwhile, the caananites DID throw their kids in fire, alive, while maybe sleeping with hookers. You're not even denying it! ;DSonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
He was obediant though, which I think was what God wanted to see.
So were the Canaanites. They did the sacrifices for their God, just as Abraham was willing to do it for his God. Why was his obedience good if theirs was evil?champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Nope. He was obediant though, which I think was what God wanted to see. According to Genesis the whole thing was a test to see where Abrahams loyalties lay. As soon as it was evident God gave him a substitute so evil wasn't done, and made sure that Abraham and all his children (and their children) knew child sacrifice was a no-no. The same can't be said of the Caananites. Who threw their kids in fire. Alive. Apparently while sleeping with hookers. Which, outside that region, wasn't the norm... All for a image the people themselves made. And we don't need a holy book to know this. Because we have their bones. And if I remember rightly the statues they sacrificed to. So again. I doubt their parents cared as much as you... though its nice you care. ;)Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

kuartus,
The verse is right there for everyone to see!
Exactly.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

So Abraham was good because he was willing to kill his child when he thought his God wanted him to, and the Canaanites were evil because they were willing to kill their children when they thought their God wanted them to. Absolutely consistent. Makes perfect sense.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Oh... Wow... Hey, what happened after that? Did Abraham actually go through with... Oh wait, that's right. He didn't. 'Cause God wasn't into that sort of thing... but he did want to know how much ole Abe believed. :D Meanwhile, guess who DID go through with killing their kids? In a fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers. And we have their little bones to prove it. ;)Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Champ, "Yes, did you?" Umm, YES! I dont know whats going on here. I dont want to accuse you of having a reading comprehension problem but anyone who is not just trying to score rhetorical points will see that, "If the city was distant, they were to kill the men but keep the women, children and livestock. If the city was nearby they were to kill anything that breathes" Is a complete misapprehension of the quoted bible verses. Do you think we are blind Champ? The verse is right there for everyone to see! I explained to you the context of those verses and why they dont conflict with my explanation. But who cares about the evidence anyway, right Champ? Anyways, Im more than happy to leave it at that. Its obvious your hatred for the bible is clouding your judgement,or maybe your eyesight. Who knows?kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
I doubt their parents care as much as you do seeing as they regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive.
Yeah, imagine being willing to kill your child just because your God told you to. Abraham would never have done that, would he? Just them dirty Canaanites.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. Genesis 22:9-10, NIV
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

@Champ
Yes, I’m “exploiting” the Canaanite children by arguing against their murder. Their parents probably “exploited” them the same way. Good thing that the Israelites did the moral thing and killed them, as God commanded.
I doubt their parents care as much as you do seeing as they regularly killed their children themselves. By throwing them into fire. Alive. Apparently while having sex with hookers on the alter. -_-Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

@Champ, Sorry, let me rephrase: "Keeping a whole bunch of kids around to grow up and hate them in their own camp when they can barely take care of themselves is a terrible idea don’t you think?" Onto your response, isn't this for cities they go to war with OUTSIDE of land they are to inherit? Like, 'AFTER you settle, here's how you go to war'? Thus Israel would HAVE the supplies to take care of kids who hate them (as well as their mothers), as opposed to when they first enter caanan, when they barely have enough for themselves?
1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3 He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them. 4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.” 5 The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. 6 Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. 7 Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” 8 Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.” 9 When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it. 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby (emphasis me). -NIV
Standard ancient warfare really. However, before they can do all that, they need their land to settle on. Otherwise they'll have no way to supply the front line if they are trying to expand their empire, and no fortifications to defend their homes from someone doing the same and so caring for POW's would be nigh impossible. Remember this is a nomad people until the war on the Caananites begins and Israel takes down their first nation. Hence:
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. - NIV
Interestingly, the Israelites actually didn't erradicate everyone like they were told to. Once they'd gotten settled in a good bit they actually started having mercy on a few of the nations and made 'em serfs/slaves instead. And a generation or two later they did end up doing the same crap the Caananites were doing (just short of child murder if I remember right) just as predicted. And so begins the long flow of punishment and forgivness Israel goes through till Rome finally shows up.Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Bantay, Go back and read my comment again, either more carefully or more honestly, as needed. Then answer the question.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Champ....You said... "So God will intervene to protect children from being sacrificed, but not to prevent them from suffering for all of eternity?" Either children would be sacrificed in cultic ritual sacrifices and end up in heaven, or they would be spared a lifetime of rebellion against God and thereby spared from eternal judgment. Either way, God is saving them. Also, FYI, there is no suffering in heaven, so it would not be possible for Canaanite children to suffer for eternity. If what God did was "murder", then what would you call what the Canaanites did? And is what the Canaanites did any different than the modern day secularist genocide of aborting healthy, normal children for selfish reasons from the safest, healthiest place on earth, a woman's womb?Bantay_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

kuartus,
Champ, did you even read what you just quoted from the bible?
Yes. Did you? If the city was distant, they were to kill the men but keep the women, children and livestock. If the city was nearby, they were to kill "anything that breathes." Your rationalizations don't work.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Champ, did you even read what you just quoted from the bible? None of it contradicts what I just said. In the first part of the verse, God ia laying out general ground rules from when israel goes to war with its foes. They were to offer peace first, and if they rejected, all responsible parties that chose to wage war were to be killed. They chose war! What do you expect? They had the chance to give up but chose to do war. If you do war you will be engaged and killed. Thats war! It happens today also you know. An as for the innocent captives, they were not to treat them badly. The rest of the verse deals specifically with taking the land from the cananites. Again, they were to destroy the nations, not every individual. Those that resisted and stayed behind were the one that were in charge and the ones guilty of promoting and perpetrating the nazi crimes so to speak.kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply