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

Bantay, You wrote:
In the case of the Canaanites children, it spared them from...a life of rebellion against the one true God, and the eternal consequences of such rebellion.
I responded:
So God was willing to do that ‘favor’ for the Canaanite children, but not for the children all over the world today who will grow up to be nonbelievers? How unfair! Why doesn’t he kill them too? Man, you have really drunk the Kool-Aid.
Now you say:
However, a possibility, I suppose, is that no society today is as characterized by such heinous evil as ritual child sacrifice like the Canaanite society was. As such, there is no need for God to enact supernatural justice when God-instituted human justice is sufficient to do the job.
So God will intervene to protect children from being sacrificed, but not to prevent them from suffering for all of eternity?
As for the rest of your little rant, you’re just exploiting the misery of Canaanite children to make your emotional appeal.
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.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

Champ... I wouldn't presume to know the answer to your question, as much as you presume God's existence in asking it. However, a possibility, I suppose, is that no society today is as characterized by such heinous evil as ritual child sacrifice like the Canaanite society was. As such, there is no need for God to enact supernatural justice when God-instituted human justice is sufficient to do the job. Also, I suspect you are ignorant of the fact that the Hebrews were the most civil, legal, ethical, equitable, fair, just society during that time period. As for the rest of your little rant, you're just exploiting the misery of Canaanite children to make your emotional appeal. In reality, you couldn't care less about Canaanite children. At least the Judeo-Christian God you rail against (and Christians) are openly and publicly against the murder of innocent, unborn children. That is more than most secularists can say for themselves.Bantay_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro,
Keeping a whole bunch of kids around to grow up and hate them in their own camp is a terrible idea don’t you think?
Not according to Yahweh:
13 When the LORD your God delivers [the city] 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. Deuteronomy 20:13-14, NIV
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

kuartus, Your rationalizations don't work:
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. 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. Deuteronomy 20:10-18, NIV
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

@champ 9.1.1.1.1 "Every single one of them?" No, not every single one of them. Just the evil bastards. I guess I should have been more clear. In any case, we have to ask who were the ones that were killed. The ones that stayed in the land. There is every indication that the cananites knew israel was coming, if not years, decades in advance. Most of what you would call the innocent people would have moved from the land and would not have been hunted down by israel. This was not genocide. BTW, migrating would NOT have been a big deal back in those days. In fact you could even say it was routine. But guess who stayed behind? The evil nazi cananites! Those were the ones that were to be executed. Which brings me to my last point. The israelites were commanded to destroy the cananite nations, not every single cananite individual. To destroy a nation no more would be necessary than to dissolve sovreignty. Removal from the land was indeed sufficient for that purpose. Of course the true nazi cananites werent going to leave without a fight. Seriously, they got what was coming to them.kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

@Champ
Every single one of them, including every woman, every child, and every infant, was an “evil bastard”?
The women apparently were (or are you suggesting women aren't capable of evil?). If all the adults were wicked and warrented death, what was Israel do with the kids? Israel could barely support it's own at the time. Keeping a whole bunch of kids around to grow up and hate them in their own camp is a terrible idea don't you think? Meh. Whatever. All this has been argued over already (here and elsewhere) and both positions will still fail to understand the other. Not sure what good dragging it back up will do.Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

kuartus,
I think Craig is missing the whole picture frankly.
To say the least. Take it up with him.
The canaanites were ancient nazis or worse. They werent killed because they were cananites, they were killed because they were evil bastards.
Every single one of them, including every woman, every child, and every infant, was an "evil bastard"?
Imagine all the WW2 nazi criminals had been captured and had to stand trial at the nuremberg trials(in reality only very few faced justice for what they had done, the majority escaped i believe). If they executed all guilty nazis because of what they had done, would you call that genocide against the nazis?
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.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

@champ 9.1.1 I think Craig is missing the whole picture frankly. This is how I see it. Where do governments get the authority to carry out capital punishment? The theist would say from God. God would say that capital punishment would fulfill justice in certain crimes. IOW, God gives actual governments the right to carry out justice. In the case of the israelites, it is clear that they are carrying out justice on the canaanites. The canaanites were ancient nazis or worse. They werent killed because they were cananites, they were killed because they were evil bastards. Imagine all the WW2 nazi criminals had been captured and had to stand trial at the nuremberg trials(in reality only very few faced justice for what they had done, the majority escaped i believe). If they executed all guilty nazis because of what they had done, would you call that genocide against the nazis? Would it be parallel to the holocaust commited by the nazis?kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

toady -> todaychampignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Bantay,
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 God was willing to do that 'favor' for the Canaanite children, but not for the children all over the world toady who will grow up to be nonbelievers? How unfair! Why doesn't he kill them too? Man, you have really drunk the Kool-Aid.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Kuartus, I can't see any other way of reading the essay that Champignon has just quoted from, and to which Dawkins linked in his Guardian article. tbh, I think Dawkins was an idiot to link his indictment of Craig's moral philosophy to his refusal to debate Craig, but then I think Dawkins is often an idiot. That, however, is irrelevant to what his link revealed about Craig. Those bolded words are his. What else could they mean? The command in question was a command to commit genocide, which Craig fully agrees would have been wrong/sin, were it not for the fact that God commanded it. i.e. "he believes its morally right to commit genocide if God would command it" which is what I said.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Barb, good job and that was a very brief, but well articulated post. Elizabeth, your question makes as much sense as a square circle. Why is that? 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. 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.Bantay_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

I'd like a cite for that quotation, and also a cite for the archaeologists who have dug in the ruins of those Canaanite cities. 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.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

No, kuartus, Dawkins is absolutely right about Craig. Read what Craig says about the slaughter of the Canaanites:
According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative. What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him. So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong. On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command. [Emphasis mine]
Pitiful, isn't it?champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, Im sure its a mischaracterization of Craigs belief to say he believes its morally right to commit genocide if God would command it. It would not be morally right to commit genocide under any circumstance(given the dictionary definition of genocide). In any case, the God of the bible is not guilty of genocide, and he would never command genocide given the evil nature of it. So to say"well what if he did?" Is an excercise in impossibility, like saying what if a square was a circle?kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Well, as far as I am concerned, Dawkins' article in the Guardian informed me of something I didn't know - that Craig was a believer in "Divine Command Theory", and apparently believes that genocide can be morally right, as long as it is commanded by God. That was pretty shocking, and if Dawkins hadn't provided an actual link to Craig's essay, I wouldn't have believed it. I had subscribed to Craig's site, because it was called "Reasonable Faith". A complete misnomer, as it turns out.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

I'm curious, Barb: how do you think the Israelites knew for sure that that's what God wanted them to do? 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?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

That's what I thought.Axel_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

That might be the case.Barb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

@Barb "Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.” I read on a general Christian forum that someone's father had remarked to the family, "It seems to me that if God doesn't destroy us (the US) soon, he'll have to apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah."Axel_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Actually, I'm surprised at just how dim Dawkins is. 'Butterly on a wheel' or not. I was under the impression he was a materialist, so he, above all kites and crows, would focus on the issue of God's existence or otherwise, and not side-track himself(!) onto the issue of the ethical merits or otherwise of the God he holds to be hypothetical! It's all about religion with him, as with most atheists, and zero interest in empirical truths of established science. I don't believe he was ever very bright as a kid. He, himslef, once admitted that he got where he did through a lot of application and hard work. A conceptual thinker, he is not, nor ever was. I suspect he saw a niche in the market for peddling atheism to disaffected, angst-filled adolescents and went for it. Or perhaps he just feels a particular affinity with them. In any case, a shrewd move, in its own way, since his requirements of his fan-base are evidently not too demanding.Axel_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Honestly, Dawkins' excuses for not wanting to debate WLC have gotten more and more outrageous as each excuse is found out. Instead of debating the man in a professional setting he prefers to hide behind child-like excuses, throwing stones from the sidelines while his own colleagues take the stage in his place, with many shaking their heads at the cowardice of "the world's greatest atheist".Stu7_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

I confess my ignorance about these issues, but could the Biblical verses be the way "unconditional surrender" was expressed at the time?krtgdl_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

I do, and thanks.Barb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Well Barb, though others are unreasonable, uncharitable with your posts, I appreciate your insights.bornagain77_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Barb, Im tempted to tell you not to cast your pearls among swine. Im sure you know what I refer to.kuartus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

I pointed this out in another thread, but there are several reasons for the biblical injunction to destroy the nation of Canaan. Note in particular that some people survived because they turned to God; this is not genocide by any means. Here are the reasons: 1. The Canaanites were, in a sense, squatters in a land that did not belong to them. How so? Some 400 years earlier, God had promised the faithful man Abraham that his descendants would possess the land of Canaan. (Genesis 15:18) God kept that promise when he caused the nation of Israel, which descended from Abraham, to occupy the region. Of course, some might protest that the Canaanites already lived there and therefore had a right to the land. But surely, as the Sovereign of the universe, God has the ultimate right to determine who will live where.—Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 10:26. 2. "They should not dwell in your land,” God warned regarding the Canaanites, “that they may not cause you to sin against me. In case you should serve their gods, it would become a snare to you.” (Exodus 23:33) The prophet Moses later told Israel: “It is for the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them away.” (Deuteronomy 9:5) Just how wicked were those nations? Immorality, pagan worship, and child sacrifice were widespread in Canaan. Bible historian Henry H. Halley notes that archaeologists excavating the area “found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal [a prominent god of the Canaanites].” He adds: “The whole area proved to be a cemetery for new-born babes. . . . Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.” 3. One might ask, why single out the Canaanites? God has selectively executed sinners on many occasions. When “the earth became filled with violence” in Noah’s day, God caused a deluge that wiped out all but one family—Noah’s family. (Genesis 6:11; 2 Peter 2:5) God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when the sin of their inhabitants became “very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20; 2 Peter 2:6) And he pronounced judgment against the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, “the city of bloodshed,” although he spared that city when its inhabitants repented from their bad ways. (Nahum 3:1; Jonah 1:1, 2; 3:2, 5-10) As for the Canaanites, God destroyed them in order to protect Israel, the nation that would eventually produce the Messiah.—Psalm 132:11, 12. 4. On the surface, God’s exterminating the Canaanites might seem inconsistent with his love. (1 John 4:8) However, that love becomes quite apparent when we take a closer look. God knew long beforehand that Canaan’s inhabitants were headed in the wrong direction. Yet, instead of immediately wiping them out, he patiently allowed 400 years to pass until their error had “come to completion.”—Genesis 15:16. When the sin of the Canaanites reached the point where all hope of improvement was gone, Jehovah brought their end. Even so, he did not blindly execute all Canaanites. Why? Because not all were beyond reform. Those willing to change, such as Rahab and the Gibeonites, were shown mercy.—Joshua 9:3-11, 16-27; Hebrews 11:31. 5. Really, though, it was God’s love that impelled him to take such drastic measures against the wicked. To illustrate: When a patient develops gangrene, doctors often have little choice but to amputate the infected limb. Few would enjoy performing such a procedure, but a good doctor knows that the alternative—the spread of infection—is worse. Because he cares, he carries out this unpleasant task for the good of his patient. Similarly, Jehovah did not enjoy destroying the Canaanites. He himself says: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” (Ezekiel 33:11, Darby) At the same time, he purposed for the nation of Israel to produce the Messiah, the one who would open the way to salvation for all those exercising faith. (John 3:16) Thus, God simply could not allow Israel to become infected by the disgusting practices of the Canaanites. He therefore ordered the Canaanites to be cut off, or evicted, from the land. In so doing, God demonstrated outstanding love—love that moved him to perform an unpleasant task for the benefit of his faithful worshippers. God mercifully spared Rahab and the Gibeonites when they turned to him in faith. This reminds us that anyone who truly wants to please God can do so, regardless of his background or past sins.—Acts 17:30.Barb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

YouTube user Birdieupon has a series of videos that completely demolish every flimsy excuse Dawkins concocted for avoiding Dr. Craig. Dawkins knew his views would be exposed by Craig's superior intellect and arguments. It's quite telling when the world's most prominent atheist runs scared from one of the world's most formidable theists.Jammer_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

More likely the reason Dawkins doesnt want to debate Craig is because he knows his arguments would get stomped by Bill.kuartus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

OT: This article with video, despite the emotional theme, is actually very good: Obama challenged on abortion at prayer event http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37107bornagain77_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply