• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

William Craig on the absurdity of life without God

arg-fallbackName="metricdragon"/>
monitoradiation said:
I certainly wasn't implying that you're using celestial events to validate your religion. I was saying to Anon1986sing that some people have chosen to use celestial events in such a fashion.

I no longer have a religion.
 
arg-fallbackName="monitoradiation"/>
metricdragon said:
I no longer have a religion.

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

Neither anon1986sing nor myself were making references to your person. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were pertinent to what we were talking about, but feel free to contribute if you have a point to make about what we were discussing.
 
arg-fallbackName="metricdragon"/>
monitoradiation said:
metricdragon said:
I no longer have a religion.

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

Neither anon1986sing nor myself were making references to your person. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you were pertinent to what we were talking about, but feel free to contribute if you have a point to make about what we were discussing.

I'm sorry, I'm prone to misinterpretation.

The only thing I'd have to add would be to say that ascribing meaning to any supernovae would mean that you'd have to ascribe meaning to the supernovae that happen about once every 50 years within our galaxy. (Ignoring the stellar explosions in the other galaxies and among those we can not see).
 
arg-fallbackName="RedYellow"/>
However, I don't understand how God gives life meaning. The biggest question in life for me is, 'why is there something rather than nothing' and this question can be quite disturbing.

I used to wrestle with this conundrum myself until I realized that the question itself is misleading, because it assume that there would more likely be nothing instead of something. I would think that absolute nothingness, by it's very definition, couldnt actually exist as anything other than a concept. This goes toward showing that perhaps the universe is itself necessary, it cannot 'not' exist, because actual non-existence literally does not exist. Why would it?
 
arg-fallbackName="bongorock"/>
RedYellow said:
However, I don't understand how God gives life meaning. The biggest question in life for me is, 'why is there something rather than nothing' and this question can be quite disturbing.

I used to wrestle with this conundrum myself until I realized that the question itself is misleading, because it assume that there would more likely be nothing instead of something. I would think that absolute nothingness, by it's very definition, couldnt actually exist as anything other than a concept. This goes toward showing that perhaps the universe is itself necessary, it cannot 'not' exist, because actual non-existence literally does not exist. Why would it?

Like I said, it's a difficult question!

My point was that most people will assume that there would more likely be nothing and this freaks them out a little bit. The religious seem to think that creating a God fills this hole when I don't see how it would. It would just become why is there a God rather than not a God, and why did he create the Universe, what's the point?
 
arg-fallbackName="RedYellow"/>
Exactly. At some point you have to accept that there isnt going to be an answer that is meant to satisfy human inquiry. It may be that there cannot be an ultimate reason for why everything exists, because if everything has to have a reason, you end up with infinite regress. So yes, even God's existence would have to be ultimately absurd as Craig would be reluctant to point out. I've come to terms with it: The universe simply does exist, and there's no point in worrying about why it does or what if it didnt. This is just the way reality turned out.
 
arg-fallbackName="metricdragon"/>
We all know though, that this is just another desperate attempt to hold onto a comforting delusion.
 
arg-fallbackName="JustBusiness17"/>
Rivius said:
I am thinking of perhaps writing up a blog entry on this when I get the time, although I really need to think about it, because his arguments seem pretty solid. Seem being the keyword.
Let me know if you end up writing a blog posting. Unexpected stupidity makes me laugh. I'd like to concentrate while I listen to his complex web of illogical apologetic theatrical rhetoric... Professional apologists are professional liars and Craig has enough confidence and charisma to pull it off... Provided he was dealing with an ignorant audience who have an intellectual self image...

2s0ofgy.jpg


Mental Edit: I just realized how redundant it was to call apologetics 'illogical'
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Stenger gave a answer a few years ago: Why is there something rather than nothing.

Sean Carroll gave another: here. The discussion which followed in the comments was interesting.

Personally, I think the question is unanswerable - or lies "in the eye of the beholder": why does observable reality exist?

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="RedYellow"/>
Again, how could 'nothing' exist? How could nothing "be?" I dont see what's so hard about this question.
 
arg-fallbackName="sgrunterundt"/>
monitoradiation said:
metricdragon said:
Well, I'm not sure... but isn't that how special relativity works? Sort of?

Not that I'm aware of. I thought the speed of light appears to be equal in all inertial frames; which means if an event occurred 6500 lightyears away (in reference to earth time) then we will see the event in 6500 years.

Well simultaneity is relative too.

It makes some sense to describe events that happened on "nows" past lightcone as happening "now". So we say that SN1987 happened in 1987, rather than 168000 years ago.

Strictly speaking it is only true in the reference frame of the light we receive from the event and not in the frame of the earth, of course.
 
arg-fallbackName="Kaliren"/>
The entire speech is a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.

It is brilliantly presented, but it is still bullshit. He uses the tone of his voice masterfully. When he speaks of god and faith, his tones are subtly exalted and reverent. When he harangues atheism and secularism, his tone is subtly condescending and dismissive. (It made me want to reach through the monitor and smack him. I am a veteran substitute teacher, and my 'who can I trust?' meter is finely tuned. He set off my 'this person is a sneaky dishonest backstabbing git' alarm.)

First, he employs an old salesman's trick of making his intended audience, the theists, feel good about themselves. He does this by appealing to a primary drive, the ego. He knows that humans have a need to feel important and valuable, and he uses this shamelessly and repeatedly. His point boils down to the childish 'you're special just because god made you that way' concept. Like a used car salesman, he's gotten his audience to relax, trust him, and not examine his points critically.

Not wanting his audience to think is why he begs the question 'how does religion make life meaningful'. He wants his audience to blindly assume that faith is the only good. He never supports that point with specific details of how religion gives life value and meaning. If he did support his point, the audience would think about religion, instead of feeling smugly superior to atheists. He does not want them to think about religion at all. If the audience started thinking, they might recall the myriad ways religion is used to excuse and justify most 'sinful', evil, destructive behavior throughout history. It is a masterful example of Craig's shouting through his silence. His subtext - 'the magic sky daddy is good because he is!'

Now that he's got his audience primed, he plays on the human tribal drive to see people outside the tribe as at best, unimportant, and at worst, as an immediate threat. (A brilliant examination of human tribalism, at, of all places, Cracked.com) He does this by painting atheists as 'the other'. According to Craig, atheists are inhuman, immoral, unethical, delusional, babykilling monsters. Again, he keeps it at the level of emotion, never rising to rational thought, by invoking the horrors of the Holocaust. He never attempts to intelligently refute any atheist points, because he does not want his audience to think.

He indulges in a huge contradiction/projection when he claims that atheists find meaning by making something up that is comforting but ultimately meaningless. Since this is in the middle of his speech and the audience is hanging on his every word, he gets away with it because he won't allow his drones to think that religion is a comforting yet meaningless human construct.

He straight up bald-faced LIED when he claimed that faith is necessary for women's rights to exist. So many mainstream faiths are fundamentally mysogynistic. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - they all treat women like shit.
grrr :evil:

Finally, he closed with Pascal's Wager - a very cheap shot. He also Godwin'ed himself by mentioning the Holocaust.

~~~~

While I was typing this, I referred to Rationalwiki's logical fallacy page. I found more fallacies he employed -
# Appeal to tradition - Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it's the right way.
# Argument by assertion - The belief that if you say something enough times, it eventually becomes true and therefore you win the argument.
#Argumentum ex culo -- Making things up.
# Argument from adverse consequences -- Arguing against a point based on expected negative outcome.
# Argument from authority -- Because someone famous/powerful/respected believes it, it must be true.
# Association fallacy -- Associating the values of one group with the values of another due to superficial or coincidental similarities.
# Begging the question -- Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning).
# Bullshit -- deceit through obfuscation.
#False dilemma -- Portraying two options as the only possibilities, with no middle ground (see Pascal's wager for an example).
#Non sequitur -- Giving an evasive or nonsensical answer to a challenge.
#Presupposition -- Making an implicit assumption as part of a phrase.
# Spotlight fallacy -- Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group
# Style over substance fallacy -- Using language or rhetoric to enhance the appeal of an argument, but not its validity.

Phew! All that baloney dished up in 35 minutes! I've heard of Craig before now. However, this was the first time I'd heard him speak. He has a reputation of being theism's 'big gun' - he's supposed to be some sort of unbeatable debating juggernaut. He pulls this off by being an extremely skilled liar. He rarely states his fallacies outright. He implies them. That makes it difficult for his debating opponents to call him out on them within the rules of a debate. He is one slippery bastard!

People with his 'talent' are usually seen in three places - in Sales, in politics, or in religion. He specializes in being irrational. (That is another reason why it is difficult for rational debate opponents to counter him.)

~~~
To the OP, Rivius - crafting this post was the most interesting challenge I've had in a while. It took me several hours, but I enjoyed every bit of it. Thank you for posting and posing the question, and steal whatever you like for your blog post. :D

Edit:
My answer 'does human life have meaning?' I think life is its own meaning. All life exists to strive for genetic immortality through reproduction. We humans are far more likely to pass on our genes successfully if we live in groups instead of alone. We are herd/pack animals, much like wolves, lions, elephants, orcas, etc. - it takes a lot of resources to raise our young to reproductive age, and we are far more likely to pass on our genes successfully if we cooperate with the herd or pack or pod. (Our brain chemistry strongly reinforces cooperative/reproductive behavior by giving us a shot of a happy hormone - oxytocin - when we connect with other people. The biggest doses are directly involved with reproduction - orgasm, childbirth, breastfeeding - but we also get a smaller oxytocin hit when we spend time with people we like.)

It is in the self-interest of our genes to obey the rules of the group. To behave cooperatively is ultimately selfish. (Yeah, Ayn Rand is full of crap.) If we start breaking the rules - murder, rape, violent theft - we go against the reproductive drive and make it less likely that our genes will be passed on. The group will perceive the rule breaker as a threat and will exile or kill them. (Of course, religion short-circuits this group-survival impulse, by excusing anti-group behavior or requiring acceptance and forgiveness of the 'sinner',)

I know that is not as emotionally satisfying as Craig's argument, but it's far more honest. To insist that faith is the only source of morality and ethics, as he does, is absurd on its face.
 
arg-fallbackName="makula"/>
I have just wasted ten minutes of my life watching a pompous manic depressive telling me that my whole existence is meaningless and without the control of a 'supreme being' I am but as dust blowing through the cosmos. Absolute piffle. The meaning of Life is irrelevant, if we knew the answer would we have the power to change the outcome? No, ....the meaning of MY life is what is relevant. Every human being has the ability to change the future with every small decision we make, we all are driven by dreams which in turn are driven by memories. If there is a God then it exists in our minds, makng us all God. The ability to transfer our thoughts of this existence onto paper brought the birth of religion and if your thoughts were weaker than the Author then you became a follower ; stronger than the author...you became an Atheist.
As for the question 'why are we here'......who cares? Live every moment as if it was your last,...you live and then you die...after that WHO knows? no one that I have ever met.
 
arg-fallbackName="Rivius"/>
Now, I may have misconstrued his argument but to me it seems as if perhaps Craig believes that because God is eternal, this automatically gives him purpose and meaning.

Now an example comes to mind, and this is the one of Deism, which states that God creates the universe then disappears. Let's pretend he doesn't exist anymore but once did. Does this mean his existence held no purpose or meaning?

How about an eternal being that spends eternity doing nothing? What if I lived forever and did nothing but sit at home and watch cartoons and eat potato chips on my couch? Would my life be inherently meaningful?

What exactly gives the Christian god anymore meaning than us, and the right to assign that meaning?


He seems to think we're deluding ourselves, but I find it unfair to say that because we don't have "cosmic validation" of our purpose, our own sentimental reasons for doing what we do are somehow less valid and worthwhile.
 
arg-fallbackName="Yfelsung"/>
The self created meaning one would impose on reality is not delusion as long as one continues to remember that the universe is truly meaningless.

Does he think that an atheist puts as much certainty in their purpose as a believer? We generally understand there's no inherent meaning and we're okay with the meaning we invent being nothing of any real importance.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nautyskin"/>
Kaliren said:
The entire speech is a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.

It is brilliantly presented, but it is still bullshit. He uses the tone of his voice masterfully. When he speaks of god and faith, his tones are subtly exalted and reverent. When he harangues atheism and secularism, his tone is subtly condescending and dismissive. (It made me want to reach through the monitor and smack him. I am a veteran substitute teacher, and my 'who can I trust?' meter is finely tuned. He set off my 'this person is a sneaky dishonest backstabbing git' alarm.)
<snip>

I know that is not as emotionally satisfying as Craig's argument, but it's far more honest. To insist that faith is the only source of morality and ethics, as he does, is absurd on its face.
Thanks for writing this. I really enjoyed reading it and could not fault you on a single thing (and I'm a part-time professional fault-finder!)

Great post!

EDIT: Did the kind thing and brought the size down a bit ;)
 
arg-fallbackName="Nautyskin"/>
The absurdity of a certain group of apes being unwilling to say the words "I don't know".
 
Back
Top