Good time to plug a picture of me and Dawkins. Look, I'm taller!
The original text can be found here. I think he makes his case satisfactory with this one sentence, ”That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”. This is basically why I think that science shouldn’t engage pseudoscience or other bunk in formal debates. I think it is good and necessary to refute their claims so that they don’t have the impression of being unchallenged. However, engaging in a formal debate gives the woo proponent a status that makes their position look equal with established science. If the audience sees two people defending two positions on one stage, it looks like the two are on equal platforms.
In the article below, Dawkins explains why he wouldn’t debate the likes of Craig in any case. I have to admit, debating Craig sounds like it would be sort of like having a debate on 20th century history with a Holocaust denier or a geology debate with a young earther. I also feel like I should point out that I stopped watching most of the debates with religious people a couple of years ago. They all are about the same. The religious person makes all of the standard weak arguments about the “Evil Atheists” of the 20th century and then ignores the reply and they never even try to offer a good rebuttal to the problem of evil. Maybe because there aren’t any. Anyway, I think you’ll enjoy the following article.
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins. Thursday 20 October 2011 05.00 EDT
This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him
Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.
Craig’s latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I’m looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.
In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another’s name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.
But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God’s commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:
“But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them”
You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.
“But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.”
Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?
“So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing.”
Oh, the poor soldiers. Let’s hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:
“I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God’s command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair.”
So, apparently it was the Canaanites’ own fault for not running away. Right.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.
And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig’s words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
Hey Stevenator,
If you really want to “think that through” maybe you should listen to a William Lane Craig debate.
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com/
He never uses an arguments that bore you like ““Evil Atheists” of the 20th century”. And he always responds to the “problem of evil”. If all you know of Craig is from this Dawkins column, you’re really not getting a balanced perspective.
Good luck!
Thanks for the polite nudge! I’ll check it out!
Although I should add, given the monstrous crap that Craig has said, my hopes aren’t high. Anyone who can say and defend statements like that is a bad person.
I suppose that depends on your view of God.
If you knew the future and had the opportunity to save baby Adolf Hitler’s life, would you do it?
Sometimes permitting bad things to happen brings about a greater good.
No. If I was God I would build a world without Hitlers. And if I wasn’t all powerful enough to do that and my only alternative was to strike down Hitler with a lightening bolt (or spontaneously abort him as a zygote, which happens to most fertilized eggs) I’d do it. To say that the Holocaust was worth it because some people got a valuable lesson from it is an insult to every person who died in it. If God was all powerful and gave a shit, he could have created a world where it didn’t take a holocaust and a world war to teach us a lesson.
It is sometimes necessary to do bad things to make things better (like setting a broken bone) but that’s because our world was built with suffering built into it. If I was out there creating universes, my tiny human intellect can hugely surpass what we’ve got.
I know I came off kind of harsh. Don’t take that as typical of my responses. It’s just that one of my hot-buttons is when people try to justify things like holocausts for bad reasons. Thank you for your contributions.
I really think you captured the whole essence with the CV quote. Nice presentation.
Thanks!
Tune in for a funny one tomorrow.
“Although I should add, given the monstrous crap that Craig has said, my hopes aren’t high. Anyone who can say and defend statements like that is a bad person.”
I wonder Steven, whether you have actually read what Craig said, or only what Dawkins has quoted? I don’t agree with Craig, but your comment raises some questions:
1. If you haven’t read the article, how can you fairly call your blog “Think Things Through”? And if you have read it, and didn’t summarise what Craig said, the same question can be asked.
2. How is it that the author of “Think Things Through” does so little to examine the whole matter, looking at both sides and impartially identifying where each side has spoken badly? You are supposed to be the rationalist, looking at all the evidence, yet when I considered this in my blog (Is There a God?) I considered much more than you have – including some glaring weaknesses in Dawkins’ statements that you don’t seem to have noticed or even looked for. (In case you are wondering, I criticised both players.)
You know I try to be pleasant, but I think the so-called rationalist ‘side’ on this matter has shown a distinct lack of rationality and concern for evidence, and just all quoted each other. Hopefully you will rectify this.
Best wishes.
First off, I was talking about what Caig said in the article I was discussing. I didn’t mean to imply that I had read every word the man put down in his life.
1) I’m not sure which article you’re talking about, but I read the one I posted. In which, Craig defends the slaughter of children and women. Given his religion, it makes perfect sense. However, since this isn’t the stone age, I can safely call Craig a monster for defending the systematic butchering of non-combatants. Under what context would that be ok?
2) There is a reason that the supermajority scientists, philosophers, and rationalists are atheists. It’s because it is the impartial and best conclusion given the data. The tiny percentage of these groups are examples of people who can’t let their biases and preconceptions go when examining the evidence. Can you find me a list of scientists and philosophers who are theists? Yes. Can I find you a list of scientists who doubt global warming but not the existence of bigfoot? Yes. The people on those lists are not representative of the scientific and philosophical communities. They’re called cranks.
3) In my own position on this blog, I specifically have avoided going into the “Does god exist?” in depth for a number reasons. A) It’s been covered at length for centuries. There are better summaries of this history of thought than I could produce. B) I fear that diving into it would attract less friendly trolls and I would be forced to either spend the rest of my life refuting the same shitty three arguments or just ignore them. In the latter case, they’d run off believing they’d won and talk about how the “stumped the atheist” when they really just bored him. C) The fact that there are some very smart people who manage to squeeze the existence of god past their bullshit detectors proves that this is an issue in which many people simply can’t think clearly. I’d rather not waste my time banging my head on someone else’s wall of cognitive dissonance.
As far as the rest of the atheist community, I can’t speak for them all. I know I can say that I’ve never met someone who was raised in an atheist household who came across the bible one day in the library and was immediately struck with the thought that the god it talks about might actually exist. I’ve never seen someone doing that while reading The Odyssey either. If you’ve ever actually read the bible, you’d see that it contains more about how to built which types of alters to sacrifice which type of animal and rules about things like sex and where to defecate than it does about morality. It’s teachings on morality, when taken as a whole and not quote-mined, are inferior in every aspect to how we see morality today and even much worse than other teachings of it’s day.
In short, atheism is usually a conclusion, not a starting position. The proof of that is that atheists are the minority in this country, but it’s a growing demographic. I’ve met a lot more people who’ve gone from religion to atheism than the other way around (0, so far).
As for them just quoting each other, I can only speculate. It could be that many of them arrive at the same conclusion independently. It could be like when quoting Buddha or a famous scientist; they have the same thought, but those people articulated it better so they just quote them. I certainly know that if you gave each of us a paragraph, Stephen Hawking could summarize the history of physics better than I could.
Please continue commenting, but keep the veiled insults to a minimum and I’ll treat you with the same respect. Best wishes!
I should point out that when someone said I should check out Craig more, I didn’t say, “No thanks. I know all I need to after seeing this one quote.” I said I’d check it out, even though I suspect that the guy is an asshole who defends the genocide of babies. That is what being rational is partly about. Maybe I’m wrong about Craig. I don’t think the odds are high, but I’m willing to look into it a bit anyway. I didn’t cover my ears and say, “I only need one book!” or tell the commenter who politely suggested further reading to buzz off.
While I don’t think that it’s likely that someone who says that killing mothers and children was ok in any instance is going to win me over, I will give the guy a fair chance.
G’day Steven
“Please continue commenting, but keep the veiled insults to a minimum and I’ll treat you with the same respect. Best wishes!”
Thanks for the invitation, but before I respond let’s get this out of the way. Can you elaborate on what was my ‘veiled insult’ please?
If you think I am having a go at you for being one-sided and not looking at the evidence fairly, then you are right – it wasn’t a veiled insult, it was the main point of my post. It is not intended as a personal insult, and if i didn’t like and respect you as a person (as much as I can ‘know’ you on the internet), I wouldn’t bother responding.
But I find several of your recent posts to be taking up popular atheist arguments with enthusiasm without showing evidence of having ‘thought that through’ – which to me means looking at both sides of the question. As an example, if you read my post on Dawkins vs Craig, you will note i criticised both parties, because both deserve it in my opinion. Let’s take an example from my post.
Aussie ethicist Peter Singer (an admirable man in many other respects) definitely supports infanticide, and has toyed with supporting genocide, even ‘species-cide’! Yet Dawkins has ‘shared a platform’ with him, and they have discussed animal rights (key to Singer’s views on infanticide). Yet neither you nor other atheist commentators have even raised the matter, which throws considerable doubt on Dawkins’ consistency (how many babies must we kill before it becomes evil?????).
So, if you think calling your attention to what I regard as hypocrisy on Dawkins’ part and inconsistency on your part is an insult, then I will withdraw from the discussion. Depending on your response to this post, I will respond to your points, or not. I am truly sorry if I have offended you, but my attention was not to offend but to challenge. Best wishes.
I’ll discuss Singer’s ethics in a post soon. The one thing that can be said that puts him apart from the religious crowd is that his views in infanticide are the result of careful reasoning and he accepts that there may be some potential unfortunate consequences from the premises of his brand of utilitarianism. He’s not supporting indiscriminately killing babies because be believes the creator of the universe wants him to.
I find it ironic an ethicist supports infanticide.
But Steven, that doesn’t answer my question about why you have only presented one side of the case, then want us to “Think That Through”. I think there is a deep inconsistency here and I’m interested in discussing it.
Me too, but I’m pretty busy today and doing these short responses from my phone. I already covered the inconsistencies you pointed out earlier today. I’ll do a long discussion on the issue of how we take in and filter evidence and claims soon. If you have any other specific ones, I can try to get to them sooner.
One last quick thing, since Rachel commented on it too. If you’re opinion is that Singer advocates infanticide, then you’re almost certainly grossly misguided on his position. I would recommend actually reading what he says on the topic, not just what his critics say. I’m doing that with Craig. I’ll save you the trouble in this instance. He is not in favor of cutting your babies up because God told you to. He says that if a child is born with very severe debilitating disabilities, that the parents and doctors together should have the option of seriously considering and discussing the possibility of humanely ending that child’s life. He is not going around saying that he is the judge who can decide which child should live and die or that anyone is obligated to kill their disabled baby. If you’re serious about being able to change your mind and you haven’t updated your belief about Singer’s ethic, you’re being disingenuous.
It is interesting Steven. I chide you for being unfair in your presentation, and rather than defend yourself, you accuse me of the same. So let’s look at the facts. Do you disagree with any of these as statements of fact?
1. Peter Singer and WL Craig have both made statements that offer some apparent support for infanticide and/or genocide.
2. Both have also offered reasoned explanations for their statements.
3. Most people would regard both practices as evil.
4. Singer is an atheist and Craig is a christian.
5. I have said I disagree with both but I haven’t made any personal attack on either. In fact I have defended Craig’s right to a fair hearing, and I have called Singer “admirable”. I am aware of the explanation both have offered but I disagree with both.
6. You have said strongly that you disagree with Craig and have made personal attack on him by saying he is a “bad person” who believe “monstrous crap”, and you haven’t mentioned the context or explanation he prefaces his comments with. It isn’t clear to me whether you disagree with Singer or not, but you certainly haven’t made any personal attacks, and you have mentioned his reasoned justification.
Now on those facts, I have been even handed about both men, and you haven’t. So, my questions remain:
1. Why have you not been even-handed?
2. Why did you defend yourself with a false accusation against me?
Over to you.
Last one on this exchange. In short, I mentioned why I didn’t cover my position. It’s a long issue and I am typing from my phone. I can’t guarantee I’ll cover every possible angle to every single thing I post. I can guarantee that I’ll put thought into everything I write. We all have to reject evidence at the door a lot of the time. Being rational is not the same thing as carefully considering whether or not bigfoot exists every single time someone takes a fuzzy photograph. Being rational is (partly) about being able to admit you were wrong about bigfoot when good evidence comes in, or when it doesn’t. Can you admit that Singer and Craig have opinions about killing children that are so different that it almost evades comparison?
Equating Singer’s position on killing children to Craig’s is disingenuous and vacuous. Craig defends the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent persons. Singer defends the humane euthanizing of babies born without brains, if everyone involved wants that. One defends genocide while the other defends carefully considered euthanasia. Singer can not be read in any fair context to be endorsing the slaughter of other people’s children. Craig can. I don’t mean to belabor the point, but you seem to be missing the distinction.
Steven
Thanks for your reply. I don’t mean to press you into hasty responses, so please feel free to delay until you have time. Let me clarify several things.
1. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss and have encouraged me to make comments. I think you are basically a decent and thoughtful person, and in different circumstances we could perhaps be friends. If you weren’t like that, I wouldn’t force myself on you and I wouldn’t think it worth replying.
2. But I feel that your actual posts (not just your brief replies) do not live up to the rhetoric of rationalism, consideration of evidence and fair-mindedness, both originally re Dawkins and Craig, and now re Singer and Craig. So I have argued these through first, because unless we can get some understanding there, there is little point in discussing other issues.
3. I try to be fair and evidence-based in my comments, and on my own blog. Doubtless I am not perfect in that, and I don’t expect you to be either, but I try. I have shown how I was fair to both Craig & Singer, and you can do the same analysis of my comments on Dawkins & Craig – I criticised both for unhelpful comments and defended both’s right to a fair hearing.
4. Your last comment seems to admit a lack of even-handedness, and justifies it because of making short comments. But it doesn’t explain the same problem, or worse, in your posts, which I presume are more considered.
5. Re Craig and Singer, and your comment that I am <i”missing the distinction”, I think you are mistaken. I can see differences between the two but I think, on balance, Craig is less dangerous than Singer. Let’s consider:
Singer believes that infanticide and even genocide might be justified in the present day (see FAQ, because he believes that according to the definition he uses, babies are not ‘persons’. That means if his ideas were adopted, infanticide could happen today. I understand his reasons, and I judge him to be a compassionate man, but terribly terribly wrong on this point.
Craig, on the other hand, does not advocate or support infanticide. He was asked a question about practices 3000 years ago, and began his discussion be affirming: “These stories offend our moral sensibilities …. the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime.” He affirms that “The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring” because it is contrary to christian values. He then goes on to try to explain why such a command might be justified in the context of the time – I think unsuccessfully. And I think his ‘divine command’ theory of ethics could, in someone else’s hands, lead to terrible things. But he never suggests anything other than that these practices would be wrong today in fact he says: “I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder”.
So Craig is defending a more horrendous action that Singer defends, but it was 3000 years ago. On the other hand, Singer’s thought could result in infanticide today whereas Craig’s could not. Singer is more of a danger to human life today than Craig is. I think both are wrong. But I think all the defence of Singer and the attacks on Craig have ignored these facts.
So, again I suggest to you that I have tried to consider the situation of Craig, Dawkins and Singer fair-mindedly and have applied the same criteria in each case. I submit that you have not. So where do we go from here. I have tried to lay out the facts logically. Do you contest any of the facts I have presented? Have I interpreted your responses unfairly? Or am I right that you have slipped into unfair assessments?
May I finally suggest that it may be good not to reply immediately, but to consider, read back what each of us have said, and see if my summary of the facts is or isn’t fair. Best wishes.
I’ll have to check out more of Craig’s stuff before I make up my mind on him. At least we can both agree for the time being that he was unsuccessful in thinking of a justification to slaughter kids. Let’s both make an attempt to be more even handed. I am willing to admit that it is possible that Dawkins, and my endorsing of Dawkins’ opinion, might be overly harsh on Craig. It is also possible that you are wrong about the threat Singer poses to human life.
Read what Singer himself actually has to say on his position on infanticide. What he says on the issue does not, I think, pose a threat to society. It is a potential starting point for a slippery slope, but his position is not that it is ok to kill babies on a basis that many of us will likely encounter. I couldn’t find the word “genocide” on the page you linked to, but it is easy enough for me to imagine a scenario in which a possible genocide might be the best course of action – in a hypothetical universe. E.g., If a race of insects was poised to destroy the rest of life on earth, exterminating the species could be the only way to keep our planet populated with life and consciousness. I’m obviously against the killing of organisms, especially persons, but there are situations where it might be the best of many bad choices. For the record, I’m pretty positive I’ve read Singer say the exact same thing as Craig when it comes to killing people who don’t want to die, that it would be wrong to do so.
I think I tend to be seen as coming off a bit biased toward religious topics from the outside. For the most part, I think that is mainly where you and I disagree on things. I will make an effort to explain myself more thoroughly, as well as where I am coming from, so as to not scare people off and be interpreted as some idiot who just hates religious people. In the mean time, if you think I am coming off biased, it would help me out to point out exactly what I have come off biased about and why. Seriously, it helps. That’s why I encourage feedback.
I will also cover the topic of the sanctity of human life in a future post, since it is one that I think most people really don’t think through.
If you’re interested in writing one, I would be interested in reading a rebuttal to Singer’s position on infanticide. I would be careful to read what he actually says on the topic first. I have a link to it on today’s post. Go in with the mind of one who has never heard of his position and try to overcome your biases. If your rebuttal hinges on the idea of the sanctity of human life, please explain and defend what that is. You have my word that I am not being facetious or anything like that. I really would be interested in reading it.
Best Wishes!
Steven,
Allow me to begin by expressing my admiration and appreciation of your response. I hammered you a little, and you have responded by correcting and explaining your views in a most open-minded way. Thank you. I hope I could do the same in similar circumstances.
I generally agree with your latest comments. I don’t have a strong concern over Singer, I was just using him as an example. (The genocide thing was just based on a comment I saw on the web, hence I didn’t stress it much.) But I will accept your challenge to write a review of his ideas.
“I think I tend to be seen as coming off a bit biased toward religious topics from the outside. For the most part, I think that is mainly where you and I disagree on things. …. if you think I am coming off biased, it would help me out to point out exactly what I have come off biased about and why. Seriously, it helps.”
Thanks. We would find we disagree on quite a lot, but getting a good shared basis is necessary if these matters are to be discussed, so I think this is worth looking at first. Here is my view…..
There are people with strong religious views who seem unable to think any other way, and who present their views as if they are the only ones a sensible person could adopt. There are anti-religious people who do much the same, just opposite. There are authors and commentators, in print and on the web, who come from these two viewpoints, and we are wise to recognise this where we can, and interpret people’s comments accordingly.
If we want to remain within our chosen in-group, we can happily get by reading and listening to only those of like mind, and I think that most people on either side are in this category. But if we want to be open-minded and reasonable, and especially if we want to discuss thoughtfully with people of a different viewpoint, we need to find some neutral ground and some way of neutralising the biases (as much as we can – no-one can do it fully). We do this by looking at both viewpoints, being careful who we believe, and balancing the various claims to facts and the various conclusions. When I research a topic (such as Dawkins/Craig/Singer, I might typically look up via Google 30 or more websites. I reject many on both sides as being too biased, and where possible, I include quasi-neutral ones like Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, university researchers and even newspapers (selectively chosen to remove the more rabid ones).
I found in this case that much of the atheist commentary on this matter followed Dawkins uncritically, and I found none of them who showed any evidence of having read Craig to present fairly what he wrote (not saying no-one did, only that they didn’t give any indication of it).
So that is why I criticised you. You seemed to have fallen into the same traps of getting all your info from the one “side”, trusting Dawkins when it is clear he cannot be trusted to give factual and fair advice on this matter, and I would think any religious matter. You seemed to apply one rule for Craig and another for Singer. Now we have settled those matters, but you asked me to point out where you went “wrong”.
I think the problem comes because we too easily assume we are right and anyone who doesn’t see things our way must be wrong at best and evil at worst. So out there on the internet, atheists are righteously saying Craig must be evil, anyone who questions that judgment must also be evil, while Dawkins can do no wrong. The christians are doing the same in reverse. Your and my task is not to go with the flow but to question all that and see if we can at least understand all viewpoints before we comment. But you’ll find many people who see things in black and white and will condemn you for doing otherwise.
Thanks for the opportunity. Best wishes
Pingback: Meet Peter Singer | Think That Through
Pingback: Peter Singer and infanticide | is there a god?
Pingback: William Lane Craig Debates Peter Millican | Philosopher's Haze
dawkins wont debate craig simply because he is afraid he will be humiliated. everybody knows it. dawkins is a joke
Yeah, I’m sure that’s it. Maybe Craig will enlighten us all about the wonderful benefits of the mass indiscriminate genocide of babies.
Steven
I just re-read the comments section because it came up in my feed, and I am a little embarrassed at how strong I came on to you. I think I was right in what I said, but I think I said it in a pretty bad way. I didn’t mean to be aggressive, but I was and I want to apologise. I’m sorry. Your reaction was justified. I try to be polite and never insult, but I think I skated the border here a little too close. Again, I’m sorry. Best wishes.
Thanks a lot! I can’t easily re read it now because I’m on my iPhone, but I’m sure it was a rare departure from your usual cordial nature. You and I disagreed most of the time, but you were always good natured and polite about it, so don’t sweat it.
In other news, I do plan to make a return to blogging in the near(ish) future. It’s been a busy and odd year for me, but writing several times a week helped exercise my brain and I miss it.
Best wishes!
Thanks.
Being an atheist blog, people here, most importantly Dawkins, are looking at this issue from an atheistic perspective.
If God exists – and no one can prove He doesn’t, he has authority to order the demise of anyone who has turned their back on His teachings. And if He exists, it has only been by his grace that any humans are still alive today, even the supposed most righteous for they are not perfect.
Who knows why there are certain episodes in the Old Testament like the order against the Canaanites (who incidentally were Pagan like, practiced child sacrifices etc) – many believe it was God warning people not to turn their back on Him – but that’s another chapter in itself. There was a specific reason why the Canaanites needed to be driven from the land they occupied.
All Craig has tried to do is interpret God’s reason.
As for Dawkins stating no one knows of Craig – what nonsense. Most of the worlds leading Atheists have debated him and have lost.
Hitchens debated him in 2009. Prior to the debate Hitchens stated that Craig is taken very seriously amongst his fellow non-believers, very scholarly, a tough nut, etc etc. He also stated he doesn’t often get texts and emails before a debate saying ‘Good luck tonight’ – but with Crag he does.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230; Their call on the debate – “Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child”.
Whenever Sam Harris debates Craig he begins along the same line as Hitchens re the texts and emails, and states “I am delighted to be debating William Lane Craig – the one Christian Apologist who puts the fear of God amongst my fellow atheists”
THE REAL REASON DAWKINS WON’T DEBATE CRAIG – HE KNOWS HE WILL BE BEATEN!!!
End of story.
I always welcome and reply to comments, so I’ll only say 3 things since the thread is already so long.
One, thank you for commenting. Even dissenting, cached arguments are welcome.
Two, someone else already said that and I replied to it above.
Three, try rereading what you wrote and replace the word “God” with “Poseidon”. This is literally how it sounds to the ears of an unbeliever. The idea that someone could say things like that about Poseidon likely stymies your imagination. It is how everyone feels about most gods in human history, and how many of us feel about all of them.
Sorry to hear that mate.
One day you may meet “Poseidon” eye to eye. Good luck.
Even Dawkins (on youtube) when the question was put to him what would he say when he died and he met “Poseidon”. He didn’t rule it out as hypothetical or ridiculous – he actually paraphrased what Russell had said years earlier as his response.
Cheers.
I would paraphrase Russell as well. But I literally put it on a (likely smaller) similar probability estimate that you do. Do you lay awake at night worrying whatever it not you ought to repent and start worshipping Thor?
But in any case, let’s leave all of those infinitesimal probabilities aside and have all humans (indeed, all life in the cosmos) be friendly toward one another. Best wishes to you, Darren. I hope you have an awesome weekend.
Do you know what Russell said Steven? I’II let you know save trying to find it. ‘Sir, why were you at pains to hide yourself’.
Anyway we will beg to differ – that’s fine. I’m not going to change your mind.
Can I grab you onto another tangent regarding someone who has been mentioned on this article? Dawkins often states Peter Singer is the most moral and ethical person he knows.
Do you subscribe to:
Bestiality – of course only under the proviso the animal isn’t hurt and it’s a ‘mutually satisfying activity’. I actually do work in this area Steven and the terminology similar to ‘mutually satisfying activity’ is a phrase pedophiles use on their victims to trick them to thinking that what is being perpetrated upon them is normal.
Incest – only if contraception is used, but if you have same sex children no contraception would of course be required.
Necrophilia,
Infanticide – Down Syndrome is one example he has given. Think I have some authority on this one mate, we have a 22 year old with CP. I personally find his claims reprehensible and appalling and one typically associated with subjective moral values. (Not surprisingly regarding his thoughts on suicide, his mother who is suffering from dementia, he has removed himself from any caring responsibility and having a family member involved in a topical subject has thrown ‘new light’ on the subject).
It’s amazing most atheists write these taboo subjects off as incidental or the ‘Yuck’ factor, but the fact is Dawkins over and over again gives Singer the highest moral and ethical ground over anyone on this planet!!!
How say you Steven? For I have many planks to my faith, the first being science, one other important plank is the moral argument and here Dawkins and Singer play straight into my hands.
Dawkins states, “there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’, ‘DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music’.
Singer agrees that objective moral values do not exist.
But Steven, Bestiality, Incest, necrophilia and Infanticide and the like are abhorrent and are not acceptable in our society. Or do you subscribe to them?
If you agree that they are not acceptable then you have made an objective moral judgement.
And you know what question I’m going to ask you then.
Cheers. You have an awesome weekend to mate!!
It’s 2:15 here and I’m jet lagged. All I’ll say tonight is that you’re straw manning.
Singer doesn’t advocate those acts as things we ought to do, but rather uses them as illustrative examples to get us to actually examine our ethical systems.
One more quick thing. What’s wrong with all of those things? (Ignoring God’s many commands to kill babies in the bible)
Is it because God says they’re bad? If he changed his mind, would you start murdering babies?
Yes? Then you’re a mindless fool who will sheepishly listen to the commands of a tyrant.
No? Then you admit that there are other criteria for answering moral questions.
See my post on the Euthyphro. Plato addressed this issue thousands of years ago.