WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Shrunk · **#321** by **Shrunk** » Feb 03, 2012 11:43 am

Angra Mainyu wrote:I meant that he uses very obscure language, so sometimes one has to analyze what he meant, consider alternatives, etc.

Thanks for clarifying. Although I'm not sure it isn't accurate to say he is obscure in the other sense, as well. Other members here have mentioned the fact that when you mention Craig to most academic philosophers, you get a reponse of complete non-recogntition. I wonder if his reputation as one of the leading theistic philosophers is mainly an internet phenomenon, and not a reflection of his actual standing in the discipline of philosophy itself.

THWOTH · **#322** by **THWOTH** » Feb 03, 2012 11:51 am

One could look at Craig's citation record to judge his relative standing compared to others in his field.

Shrunk · **#323** by **Shrunk** » Feb 03, 2012 1:38 pm

THWOTH wrote:One could look at Craig's citation record to judge his relative standing compared to others in his field.

One could, couldn't one? You've reminded me (inadvertently I'm sure) of a comparison that, while admittedly not involving someone in the same field, may nonetheless be enlightening (0:50 - 1:00):

Angra Mainyu · **#324** by **Angra Mainyu** » Feb 03, 2012 10:27 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Angra Mainyu wrote:I meant that he uses very obscure language, so sometimes one has to analyze what he meant, consider alternatives, etc.

Thanks for clarifying. Although I'm not sure it isn't accurate to say he is obscure in the other sense, as well. Other members here have mentioned the fact that when you mention Craig to most academic philosophers, you get a reponse of complete non-recogntition. I wonder if his reputation as one of the leading theistic philosophers is mainly an internet phenomenon, and not a reflection of his actual standing in the discipline of philosophy itself.

I don't know exactly, but I don't think he's regarded as being at the level of, say, Swinburne or Plantinga.

However, my impression he's one of the most famous if not the most famous among the general public, and that's his main target audience.

Shrunk · **#325** by **Shrunk** » Feb 04, 2012 4:32 pm

Angra Mainyu wrote:However, my impression he's one of the most famous if not the most famous among the general public, and that's his main target audience.

I guess we'll know he's reached a suitable level of notoriety when South Park does an episode about him.

Clive Durdle · **#326** by **Clive Durdle** » Feb 04, 2012 4:40 pm

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... chens_32_2

Holocaust affirmation.

Stormcrow · **#327** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 05, 2012 12:03 am

That writer makes another good point about Craig's genocide defense. However, like many others, it seems like he's sort of edging around what I think is a pretty good response to Craig's usual debate tactics.

In a lot of his debates, Craig likes to argue that an atheist couldn't tell a camp guard at Auschwitz that the industrial extermination of Jews is wrong because LACK OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY. He then just leaves it to be assumed that he, Dr. Craig, could chastise the camp guard, because JEBUS GIVES HIM OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Herein lies the problem. He can't say the camp guard is doing wrong.

Why is this? Because Craig has no epistemology. Therefore, he has no way of knowing what God has told someone else to do. In fact, he goes out of his way to hide this flaw in his arguments from the discussion, even ridiculing questioners in the audience who bring it up during Q&A. His defense of the genocide of the Canaanites hinges on the idea that God told the Hebrews to commit it, and that makes it okay. The problem is that God only directly communicated with one person, and everyone else got their running orders from Moses. By the same standards, it could be argued that God ordered Hitler to kill the Jews. Why? Who knows. However, God has ordered outside powers to punish the Jews before, and the defeat of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria was certainly genocidal, so it wouldn't even be the first time in history.

In the absence of a stated and philosophically coherent epistemology that could consistently confirm that God has actually told someone to do something, it is entirely possible that the Holocaust was ordered by God, as part of his divine plan/mysterious ways, and there is no way that Craig could show otherwise. Most religious folks get around this by arguing that God wouldn't order someone to do something that we mere humans perceive as bad (hence why "God told me to" isn't a legal defense). However, with his argument that "Everything God commands is by definition a good thing," Craig has locked himself into a philosophical cage, wherein he has to admit to the possibility that the Holocaust was in fact a good thing.

By contrast, even the most subjective morality could at least show that the Holocaust wasn't a good thing, something Craig's OBJECTIVE MORALITY can't even succeed at.

proudfootz · **#328** by **proudfootz** » Feb 05, 2012 2:29 am

Stormcrow wrote:

In a lot of his debates, Craig likes to argue that an atheist couldn't tell a camp guard at Auschwitz that the industrial extermination of Jews is wrong because LACK OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY. He then just leaves it to be assumed that he, Dr. Craig, could chastise the camp guard, because JEBUS GIVES HIM OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Herein lies the problem. He can't say the camp guard is doing wrong.

The thing that bothers me about this story is that there's already been a few thousand years of theism - if that is inadequate to persuade humans there is an 'objective morality' that informs us that an operation like Auschwitz is wrong it's a flawed system.

Does Craig (or any nincompoop who trots out this example) really believe they could have talked Hitler out of his crimes by blithering on about 'no morality without God' nonsense?

FFS they already knew they were doing wrong evidenced by their efforts to hide it!

Stormcrow · **#329** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 05, 2012 2:44 am

proudfootz wrote:
FFS they already knew they were doing wrong evidenced by their efforts to hide it!

To be fair to Hitler*, and to further emphasize the point that under Craig's moral system there is no way of knowing that the Holocaust was wrong, and the evidence indicates that his deity is just the sort of deity who would command such an atrocity for the "Greater Good," many people who think they are doing the right thing still try to hide it. Reasons for this are numerous, but my anecdotal experience is that the most frequent reason is their notion of the right thing to do, and society's notion, do not align. A good example to use against Craig, if he did try to use your quoted line to produce an argument that the Nazi's knew they were doing wrong and could not therefore have been acting under God's orders, would be to point out the great lengths that Chinese Christians have had to go to to hide their faith and proselytization , despite the fact that they (and he) would agree that believing in and spreading Christianity is the right thing to do.

From my own point of view, I think that Hitler truly believed that he was doing the right thing for Germany by exterminating the non-Aryan races, and may well have believed it was God's will. But, since I can't know his mind, and wouldn't care to if I could, I wouldn't want to bring my personal point of view on the topic into an argument with Craig.

* :yuk:

Nicko · **#330** by **Nicko** » Feb 05, 2012 3:13 am

Stormcrow wrote:In a lot of his debates, Craig likes to argue that an atheist couldn't tell a camp guard at Auschwitz that the industrial extermination of Jews is wrong because LACK OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY. He then just leaves it to be assumed that he, Dr. Craig, could chastise the camp guard, because JEBUS GIVES HIM OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Herein lies the problem. He can't say the camp guard is doing wrong.

Why is this? Because Craig has no epistemology. Therefore, he has no way of knowing what God has told someone else to do. In fact, he goes out of his way to hide this flaw in his arguments from the discussion, even ridiculing questioners in the audience who bring it up during Q&A. His defense of the genocide of the Canaanites hinges on the idea that God told the Hebrews to commit it, and that makes it okay. The problem is that God only directly communicated with one person, and everyone else got their running orders from Moses. By the same standards, it could be argued that God ordered Hitler to kill the Jews. Why? Who knows. However, God has ordered outside powers to punish the Jews before, and the defeat of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria was certainly genocidal, so it wouldn't even be the first time in history.

In the absence of a stated and philosophically coherent epistemology that could consistently confirm that God has actually told someone to do something, it is entirely possible that the Holocaust was ordered by God, as part of his divine plan/mysterious ways, and there is no way that Craig could show otherwise. Most religious folks get around this by arguing that God wouldn't order someone to do something that we mere humans perceive as bad (hence why "God told me to" isn't a legal defense). However, with his argument that "Everything God commands is by definition a good thing," Craig has locked himself into a philosophical cage, wherein he has to admit to the possibility that the Holocaust was in fact a good thing.

By contrast, even the most subjective morality could at least show that the Holocaust wasn't a good thing, something Craig's OBJECTIVE MORALITY can't even succeed at.

Nice.

proudfootz · **#331** by **proudfootz** » Feb 05, 2012 3:14 am

Stormcrow wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
FFS they already knew they were doing wrong evidenced by their efforts to hide it!

To be fair to Hitler*, and to further emphasize the point that under Craig's moral system there is no way of knowing that the Holocaust was wrong, and the evidence indicates that his deity is just the sort of deity who would command such an atrocity for the "Greater Good," many people who think they are doing the right thing still try to hide it. Reasons for this are numerous, but my anecdotal experience is that the most frequent reason is their notion of the right thing to do, and society's notion, do not align. A good example to use against Craig, if he did try to use your quoted line to produce an argument that the Nazi's knew they were doing wrong and could not therefore have been acting under God's orders, would be to point out the great lengths that Chinese Christians have had to go to to hide their faith and proselytization, despite the fact that they (and he) would agree that believing in and spreading Christianity is the right thing to do.

True - one can think one is doing the right thing yet still try to hide it from those who they fear disagree.

But I think the argument might hold with the sort of people likely to be swayed by Craig's assertions.

They seem just the types who think 'no one should object to surveillance by others if they have nothing to hide'...

From my own point of view, I think that Hitler truly believed that he was doing the right thing for Germany by exterminating the non-Aryan races, and may well have believed it was God's will. But, since I can't know his mind, and wouldn't care to if I could, I wouldn't want to bring my personal point of view on the topic into an argument with Craig.

*

Yes, I imagine Hitler would say he is objectively correct in wiping out the commies, the gypsies, etc.

Just as some in our present age think it's a good thing to simply allow the less lucky in society's game to sicken, starve, and die because they 'couldn't compete'.

Xeno · **#332** by **Xeno** » Feb 05, 2012 7:26 am

Stormcrow wrote:... Craig has no epistemology ...

I used exactly this point (by inference) in an argument with a Craig devotee on another forum. The response might have been funny were it not so pointless, for page after page. Rather than attempt to provide any epistemology, our opponent persisted in claiming the only relevant topic was ontology after which, apparently, we were all supposed to be so convinced of god's goodness as to take the rest as, er, gospel. :shifty:

In any event, the hole is, I agree, wide, deep and worth pointing out. If they hear of an apparent genocide, they have to wait for god to tell them whether this was a morally good one or morally bad. This is Craig's objective morality.

Stormcrow · **#333** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 05, 2012 2:55 pm

I think it is also worth pointing out that God can provide two different people with directly contradictory messages, both of which will then be "the right thing to do," under Craig's morality.

As an example, let us Joshua 11:20, which reads as follows:

New American Standard Bible wrote:For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses

Now, if we take Craig's morality to be true, then God instructed the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites, which therefore made it a good thing. However, at the same time, he was instructing the Canaanites to resist the Israelites, making what they were doing also a good thing, as part of God's greater plan of providing the Israelites with the Promised Land. Both parties were doing the morally correct thing, per God's instructions and plan.

To extrapolate this out to the Holocaust, Craig's favorite "Gotcha" question, this shows that even if Craig actually is told by the Holy Spirit that the Holocaust was morally wrong, the same Holy Spirit could have been telling the Nazis that they were doing the morally right thing, all as part of God's greater plan. Under Craig's morality, there is literally no way to know that anything someone else does is morally wrong, ever. All you can know is that something is the morally right thing for you to do, which still does not exclude the possibility that someone else could have directly contradictory, and also morally correct instructions. William Lane Craig's "morality," taken seriously, destroys everything that our moral and legal systems are based on and replaces it with an inability to judge or punish anyone's actions, ever.

On a different note, I'm readying this particular argument for deployment against my local Craig devotees, who I talk to in person, so it might be punchier in that environment. With that being said, if anyone notes any holes in the argument, please point them out before miss something really obvious and look like an idiot. :oops:

Shrunk · **#334** by **Shrunk** » Feb 05, 2012 4:08 pm

Xeno wrote:
Stormcrow wrote:... Craig has no epistemology ...

I used exactly this point (by inference) in an argument with a Craig devotee on another forum. The response might have been funny were it not so pointless, for page after page. Rather than attempt to provide any epistemology, our opponent persisted in claiming the only relevant topic was ontology after which, apparently, we were all supposed to be so convinced of god's goodness as to take the rest as, er, gospel.

In any event, the hole is, I agree, wide, deep and worth pointing out. If they hear of an apparent genocide, they have to wait for god to tell them whether this was a morally good one or morally bad. This is Craig's objective morality.

Yes, which is why I said earlier his using the Holocaust as an example is only a rhetorical strategy and and not an argument in favour of his position. He says explicitly in one of his recent debates (either Krauss or Harris) that the Holocaust must have been moral because the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient god allowed it to happen. And, in any event, we already know that one of Craig's objective moral values is not "One should not commit genocide" as he as defended a Biblical genocide, largely on the basis of preserving the genetic purity of a particular race of people, no less.

The only moral value that I have heard him defend is that whatever brings the maximum number of people into a loving relationship with god, thru acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus, is moral. So the Holocaust must have forwarded this objective in some way, in his moral system.s

Nebogipfel · **#335** by **Nebogipfel** » Feb 05, 2012 7:46 pm

Stormcrow wrote:
In a lot of his debates, Craig likes to argue that an atheist couldn't tell a camp guard at Auschwitz that the industrial extermination of Jews is wrong because LACK OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY. He then just leaves it to be assumed that he, Dr. Craig, could chastise the camp guard, because JEBUS GIVES HIM OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Herein lies the problem. He can't say the camp guard is doing wrong.

I often think that Craig's first question to the guard would not be What the fuck do you think you're doing?, but Did God say you could do that?

Scar · **#336** by **Scar** » Feb 05, 2012 7:55 pm

Shrunk wrote:
He says explicitly in one of his recent debates (either Krauss or Harris) that the Holocaust must have been moral because the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient god allowed it to happen.

In that case, anything we manage to do is by defintion moral, because god didn't stop us from it. Therefore, we shouldn't be at all concerned about the effects of our actions, because, after all, god would stop us if we were to perform an immoral act. Therefore, everyone is by definition morally justified in whatever he/she does - including, say, engaging in homosexual sex.

Of course, this whole stupid argument is in stark conflict with free will bullshit.

Shrunk · **#337** by **Shrunk** » Feb 05, 2012 8:02 pm

Scar wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
He says explicitly in one of his recent debates (either Krauss or Harris) that the Holocaust must have been moral because the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneficient god allowed it to happen.

In that case, anything we manage to do is by defintion moral, because god didn't stop us from it. Therefore, we shouldn't be at all concerned about the effects of our actions, because, after all, god would stop us if we were to perform an immoral act. Therefore, everyone is by definition morally justified in whatever he/she does - including, say, engaging in homosexual sex.

Of course, this whole stupid argument is in stark conflict with free will bullshit.

I don't know if it works that way. It might still be morally incumbent upon us to try stop the Holocaust and consider it immoral, but that doesn't mean that it is immoral for God to have caused it to happen. But, yeah, the closer you look at it the less sense it makes. "Free will" is just another fly in the ointment.

Stormcrow · **#338** by **Stormcrow** » Feb 05, 2012 10:46 pm

I think Shrunk is right. Within the context of Craig's postulated moral system, whatever God does is, by nature, morally correct. Therefore, allowing the Holocaust to happen was the right thing for God to do because MYSTERIOUS WAYS. However, the individual actions of the perpetrators could still be immoral, provided God had not instructed them to perform said actions.

That is, by ordering someone to perform an immoral act, God makes it the moral thing to do, which is what Craig is arguing for. And, in the absence of a consistent epistomological basis for determining if God has in fact told someone to do something, Craig is essentially throwing out any possible way of determining the morality of actions. Anyone anywhere could simply state "God told me to do this," and there is no way to demonstrate that they are wrong, because God's command makes even the most heinous act moral.

In the act of pinning his objective morality to God's whim, Craig has created the most subjective of all moralities, a morality where an outside actor can never demonstrably prove something was immoral.

Also, it totally throws out his assertion that "We all know there are objective morals, and we all know what they are," because knowing the objective morality at any given time means that we would know the mind of God, something that most every religious person I have ever met asserts is an impossibility. Although, usually they only assert that when it's convenient to do so. The rest of the time, they seem quite certain of the state of God's mind.

Xeno · **#339** by **Xeno** » Feb 05, 2012 11:32 pm

@stormcrow, about "mysterious ways" and your later point about knowing the mind of god, one thing likely to become implicit in your discussions with the Craigists is that god has a "higher purpose". That immediately shoots down (again) objective morality as either understandable or implementable by people. They do not know why god wants X but if they think god wants it, well, let's learn to take off in this aircraft.

Inviting the comparison, how do they distinguish their own morality from that of others who share their fundamental approach to it, can also be interesting, as you watch the circles decrease in size.

THWOTH · **#340** by **THWOTH** » Feb 06, 2012 12:11 am

Clive Durdle wrote: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... chens_32_2

Holocaust affirmation.

Hitchens in Free Inquiry wrote:... This is why I suppose people lay traps for Dawkins, trying to catch him out. Most recently there was an attempted “gotcha” when he showed reluctance to have a public exchange with the Protestant fundamentalist William Lane Craig. This time the chorus turned sarcastic and pseudo-ironic—“Dawkins declines debate, etc.”—as if this time they wanted him to be more strident rather than less. It’s not as if Craig is a biologist or has any other sort of serious credential, but he does like to claim “credibility” by taking on great names. Dawkins is usually willing to accommodate debates with the “other side.” But he had serious misgivings about the premise of this one because Craig had set out an especially hard and brutal defense of the genocide of the Amalekites. In general, we of the “Four Horseman” faction avoid direct engagement with Holocaust deniers, lest the idea of denial become insidiously more acceptable...

WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Re: WL Craig: The Moral Argument for God

Who is online