William Lane Craig and his nonsense ethics

[bluejatheist]

Philosophy as far as I can tell is a bit of a gray area, always room for debate, so maybe that's why WLC can get away with some things.

I mean it's not like science where you have a great degree of consensus and the scientific method to filter bad and good ideas. Why do you think issues in philosophy are constantly debated and re-debated over and over with no clear result?

Yup, that's what Philosophy is.

 

[Dean]

Philosophy as far as I can tell is a bit of a gray area, always room for debate, so maybe that's why WLC can get away with some things.

I mean it's not like science where you have a great degree of consensus and the scientific method to filter bad and good ideas. Why do you think issues in philosophy are constantly debated and re-debated over and over with no clear result?

While we're on the subject, it's worth noting that while they are now widely regarded to be distinct disciplines (science and philosophy), science is , as a subdivision of man's acquisition of knowledge , a branch of philosophy, the core foundation of modern science being a philosophical theory known as empiricism, and deals in a form of logic called induction, and which testable predictions are induced from general "laws" determined from past experiences. And yet, major branches of science are incomplete. And not only incomplete, but perhaps incompletable. That is to say, there are questions in disciplines as disparate as theoretical-physics and oceanography, that may well be debated for a considerable number of centuries, if they are found at all. It follows from your logic that science is not trustworthy as a disciple, because of its (in your words),"grey areas".

And the underlying tenets of scientific inquiry themselves can only be philosophically based, as I just mentioned in the case of empiricism, and of "empirical falsificationism" as it might be termed, which is in effect "science's philosophy". It's always been clear to me that the vision of philosophy that some have in their minds is far from what it actually is, or was ever intended to be. Philosophy has never simply been an outlet of ponderous, abstract musings (which are often unfounded, in Craig's case). A manner of philosophical thought that you can see echoed in many modern scientific writers (such as Krauss), is philosophy-in-the-service-of-science, e.g. philosophy should always properly concern itself with the process of scientific demarcation, of falsification. It might be an idea to read and ingest something like . . . the third edition of Alex Rosenberg's "Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction", for a genuinely thorough and exhaustive treatment of this topic, especially this third-edition version, which is substantially updated and expanded.

• "Every science is a child of philosophy. Each eventually moves out, but ends up leaving 'baggage' at home."
  
  (Rosenberg, Alex. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2012. p. 5)

Craig's tendency to "get away" with his nonsense is not simply due to a lack of critical scrutiny on behalf of the philosophical community. Craig is not a philosopher in any meaningful sense, as he's only been shown to be involved in a few organisations with religious affiliations, doesn't treat his critics' rebuttals in seriousness, and often misrepresents the truth. His classical way of arguing usually involves a syllogism consisting of premises and a convoluted conclusion based on those flawed premises, as has been pointed out many times. In the words of Lawrence Krauss, "Craig isn't a philosopher, he's an asshole.". His arguments are simply convoluted theological syllogisms that have been refined for centuries, and rebutted many times, by a vast number of individuals.

And I've caught him misrepresenting and inflaming with ad homenim abuse, valid criticism, such as that of Scott Clifton (most of you will know him as TheoreticalBullshit), among several others. There comes a point when something has been addressed so much that any semblance of "proof" that there once was has been destroyed, that you start to lose the presumption of honest disagreement, as Laurens has identified.

 

[nemesiss]

Thanks for the feedback and responses everyone. It's much appreciated.

And for the record, I am still rather baffled as to how Craig managed to get a Ph.D. in philosophy...

probably the same way Kent Hovind managed to get a Ph.D.

step 1: go to a crappy christian school who claims to be legit
step 2:
step 3: Ph.D.

 

[RedYellow]

Just throwing in my two cents on the glaring flaws in Craig's argument. It basically just boils down to, "The only valid reason there could possibly be for adjusting one's behavior, and regarding other individuals as being deserving of respect and dignity, is that there is a sufficiently effective authority instructing us to do so."

Ironically, in making the argument for objective morals Craig actually argues against them, since if morality were truly objective and immutable then the existence and validation of an external source(God) wouldn't factor into their 'existence.'

In any case, Craig cannot demonstrate the 'existence' of morality beyond what humans subjectively choose to do based on various factors in their lives, as would be expected in a world without objective morals. How does Craig propose we determine exactly what is moral? How do we know it's not just his personal interpretation? And even if you could, would it really matter? Whether or not something is objectively right and wrong actually seem to have little to do with why people behave certain ways, in other words there can be a myriad of interlocking reasons why the average person does not randomly murder their neighbors, as opposed to the solitary, self-validating reason Craig claims for not doing so. And certainly, if Craig believes in the necessity of free will, then of course the existence of objective morals shouldn't effect people's behavior, and a world where people are free to make personal judgments and disregard any moral standard at all, is necessary to Christian theology.

In the end, all one has to do is treat theistic morality the way theists treat secular morality: Any reason you can give for why certain morals should be adhered to will be met with scorn by the theist, who claims you are only appealing to personal preference. You can throw this right back at them when you ask them why it's important to adhere to God's moral framework. Is it moral to be moral? Is it immoral to go to hell? What folks like Craig fail to understand is that no moral framework cannot be deconstructed into absurdity as long as people are capable of, (and limited to) making personal judgements. Craig wants morality to do the job of mind control, while being able to claim we have free will.

And finally, Christian theology destroys it's own moral argument by claiming that God has a divine plan for how events will ultimately play out. If no man can challenge God's plan, then it follows that no action taken by men really matters in the end, because God will get his way no matter what. If you lead a good, decent life and go to heaven, it was all part of God's plan. If you strap a bomb to yourself and blow up an orphanage, it was all part of God's plan.

 

[sturmgewehr]

I think WLC got his ass handed to him in this debate:

 

[televator]

I think WLC got his ass handed to him in this debate:

That was just an astounding video. I've really learned stuff from watching it.

That is also the only time I've seen Craig actually being thrown off beat from his verbal dance routine. Heck, he actually tripped which induced some laughter from the audience at one point. Usually, debates with Craig entail a rational person trying to speak over Craig's traps and obscure fallacies.

That Kagan fellow did a great job of succinctly rejecting and exposing the flaws of Craig's framing and key concepts.

 

[sturmgewehr]

I think WLC got his ass handed to him in this debate:

That was just an astounding video. I've really learned stuff from watching it.

That is also the only time I've seen Craig actually being thrown off beat from his verbal dance routine. Heck, he actually tripped which induced some laughter from the audience at one point. Usually, debates with Craig entail a rational person trying to speak over Craig's traps and obscure fallacies.

That Kagan fellow did a great job of succinctly rejecting and exposing the flaws of Craig's framing and key concepts.

Yup, Craig got demolished here, Kagan did a great job, I would like Kagan to debate Craig over the Kalam Argument as well, Even though the Kalam has been refuted and made redundant by Kant, Hume and other philosophers Craig still keeps using it because no one till now has come into a debate with him and do as good as Kagan did in this debate, Kagan should definitely debate WLC over the Kalam.

That Kagan fellow is not an usual fellow by the way, he is a professor of Philosophy at Yale University.

You should also Check Craig's debate with Arif Ahmed, Ahmed did very well on the debate with Craig, not as good as Kagan but way better than Sam Harris and Hitchens.

There was another debate I ran into between Craig and another philosopher on the problem of Evil and Hell, Craig got his ass handed to him the same way like in the Kagan debate as well.

you should also check this link, there are 600+ Debates here, all of Craig's debates included:

http://worldviewnaturalism.com/debates/

 

[Frenger]

Craig did debate Lawrence Krauss and I think the Kalem argument did come up. I like how silent Craig is after Lawrence's first speech, you can actually hear him gulp.

 

[sturmgewehr]

@ Frenger:

I see people trying to refute William Lane Craig's Kalam Argument all over Youtube and forums all the time.

The question is, why has there never been anyone who has refuted William Lane Craig in a debate the way Kagan did on the debate I posted ???

People keep saying OH THE KALAM IS NONSENSE, IT COMMITS THIS LOGICAL FALLACY, THAT LOGICAL FALLACY but no one has ever refuted WLC in a debate thoroughly, WLC has been using the SAME, exact SAME, arguments in debating people since the 70s or 80s, how is it possible that no one has ever refuted him on the Kalam Argument ????

If it is so easy to refute him why don't they do so ???

I mean all u have to do is watch WLC's debates on youtube which are pretty much the same, analyze the arguments, come up with good counter arguments, get into a debate with WLC and embarrass him, that is it.

Dawkins has been ducking WLC for like forever, I think Dawkins can refute WLC if he watched WLC's debates on youtube.

 

[Laurens]

If you enjoy seeing Craig get his arse whipped, I think you'll find this pleasant to listen to:

 

[sturmgewehr]

Yup that is the one with Arif Ahmed I was talking about, there is another one with another debater where Craig gets his ass handed to him, a debate about Problem of Evil and Hell, something like that, I don't remember the guy's name.

 

[unkerpaulie]

Good point, I might look into that. One question though... Does he ever explicitly say not to kill a child?

There's another side to so-called "objectively morality", which is the source of such morality. If we define objective morality as based on God's commandment in the bible, then you'll find that there is no guide on morality in the bible. For instance, it is generally universally agreed that killing children is wrong. In the bible God commands "thou shalt not kill", yet both prior to that commandment and after it, God orders the killing of children multiple times. In fact, to get the israelites out of egypt in the first place, god himself killed every firstborn child in egypt.

The argument that objective morality substantiates god's existence is defeated at its foundation. There is no objective morality. Every single one of the 10 commandments were contradicted by god himself in the bible. No sooner did he say "thou shalt not kill" than he passed a plethora of other laws not only making it ok to kill, but making killing a community responsibility. Death by stoning was a "fun for the whole family" event that everybody got to participate in. God also commanded Jacob to lie and steal his brother's birth-right, and Commanded Abraham to commit adultery. Every commandment God commanded his people to keep is accompanied by several instances of God commanding his people to break them.

What is the author's source of objective morality? His gut feeling? The bible? Does he keep all the commandments? The argument doesn't even have a premise to stand on.

 

[televator]

Good point, I might look into that. One question though... Does he ever explicitly say not to kill a child?

There's another side to so-called "objectively morality", which is the source of such morality. If we define objective morality as based on God's commandment in the bible, then you'll find that there is no guide on morality in the bible. For instance, it is generally universally agreed that killing children is wrong. In the bible God commands "thou shalt not kill", yet both prior to that commandment and after it, God orders the killing of children multiple times. In fact, to get the israelites out of egypt in the first place, god himself killed every firstborn child in egypt.

The argument that objective morality substantiates god's existence is defeated at its foundation. There is no objective morality. Every single one of the 10 commandments were contradicted by god himself in the bible. No sooner did he say "thou shalt not kill" than he passed a plethora of other laws not only making it ok to kill, but making killing a community responsibility. Death by stoning was a "fun for the whole family" event that everybody got to participate in. God also commanded Jacob to lie and steal his brother's birth-right, and Commanded Abraham to commit adultery. Every commandment God commanded his people to keep is accompanied by several instances of God commanding his people to break them.

What is the author's source of objective morality? His gut feeling? The bible? Does he keep all the commandments? The argument doesn't even have a premise to stand on.

I'd like to note that I think WLC's moral basis for god is defeated more precisely in that there is no objective morality as he tends to describe it as moral absolutism with cosmic significance (e.g.: killing is always wrong, and the Planet Jupiter cares because god is there too). Of course, however, he also shows a tendency to toss that position when ever it suits his contrived apologetics to do so by stating that god's absolute morality is subject to the greater goal of maximizing salvation through free will.

 

[RedYellow]

I think it would be a good idea to ask theists what they would choose if presented with a choice between god and morality.

Imagine that you are given a choice between two worlds, one of which you must live in for the rest of your life.

One world, has a God who can save you and take you to heaven. But, this God considers it morally good to rape and murder, and you must do so in order to be saved.

The other world is a Godless world, but with a dominant culture like the one in which we currently reside, which condemns rape and murder as violations of human rights.

The choice(hopefully) forces them to see that their acceptance of God and morality in general, have nothing to do with one another.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I think it would be a good idea to ask theists what they would choose if presented with a choice between god and morality.

Imagine that you are given a choice between two worlds, one of which you must live in for the rest of your life.

One world, has a God who can save you and take you to heaven. But, this God considers it morally good to rape and murder, and you must do so in order to be saved.

The other world is a Godless world, but with a dominant culture like the one in which we currently reside, which condemns rape and murder as violations of human rights.

The choice(hopefully) forces them to see that their acceptance of God and morality in general, have nothing to do with one another.

I understand the point you are trying to make here but I think you left out a couple of options:

Godless world that supports rape and murder. <----- I wouldn't want to hang with these peeps.

God world that condemns rape and murder. <---- I would hang with the peeps.


I think the thing that some theists need to realize is that some atheists are really decent people. And if some theists realized that an option called secular humanism essentially sums up the position that both you and I made then that also shows no link between god and morality. Meaning that I'm not 'choosing' people to hang out with based on religion alone...... I would tend to place a higher value on the 'behavior' aspect (your civil respect to not rape or murder is of higher value than your selection of a particular Diety) as opposed to your type of religion that you happen to practice. I think that some theists need to also realize that 'pushing your beliefs based on covert actions" could be considered a violation of my rights and freedoms, so please don't do it.

So in this specific scenario the proper question should be......... Do you place a higher value on the principles of 'rights and freedoms' or do you place a higher value on what god or lack thereof that I happen to 'follow'.

I also realize that this example is a gross over-simplification of the issue but sometimes a gross over simplification is needed to start even the most basic of dialogues.

 

[RedYellow]

^ I see where you're coming from as well, though I think giving them the option of a non-murder and rape God world lets them escape on the basis that they want both morality, AND all the other things God supposedly offers like a purpose to life, eternal life, etc.

I offer them all of those things, but to get them they have to worship a God who would command them to rape and murder.

Likewise, the godless world offers only the short biological life with no universal purpose which they hate so much, BUT is the only way to get the morality they're comfortable with.