Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for the Existence of God
Atheist Dr. Zachary Moore was invited by Kevin Harris to question Dr. William Lane Craig during a lecture after the taping of a podcast for his Reasonable Faith website this past weekend. I find Kevin to be quite charitable, and this is a mark of someone who values truth. Dr. Moore writes about this experience on his Blog where Craig is offering his moral argument for the existence of God. Craig is in the process of revising his Reasonable Faith book and it will include this argument.
Dr. Moore had previously asked me what question I might ask Craig and he writes about it in the last paragraph. It's the same one Mark Smith asked him that many Christians have doubted he did. Smith simply challenged others to ask the same question, and Moore did with pretty much the same results. (Click on "Comments on Craig's Book: Reasonable Faith").
7 comments:
john,
This Craig guy is a sad little man. However, I will not attempt to "beef up" any of his feeble arguements. I have no need for that.
Instead, I've been re-scrubbing previous posts about what motivates your need for debunking Christianity, and beyond your unquenchable need for logic and reason (not necessarily a bad thing, however it does solidify your "NT" personality type) and the distasteful experiences with particular groups of church-goers...I'm not quite sure that i understand the end-state of your crusade.
Here's my specific question to you. 1.) Is your motivation to debunk Christianity based on your disagreance with it, or do you see it as socially dangerous/destructive, if so how?
2.) Is it possible that one could be a Christian, based on scriptual teaching in lieu of most of the modern pulpetismic nonesense, and actually be a positivly contibuting member to this society (thus negating the need to be debunked)?
IOW (I've been learning, via the "Daily Show", that our president helps us understand things better be restating them with the preface: "In other words"...so it can't go wrong there, right?) Shouldn't your blog be more apptly titled: "Debunking those who poorly portray modern Christianity", or do you ultimately seek to erase the name of the Christian God from the face of this planet, and if so why?
thanks
1) Both. A delusionary faith can and does eventually lead to disasterous consequences, if for no other reason than the fact that Christians do not live a full and richly rewarding life free of guilt (that's my opinion which you will sure to disagree with).
2) Yes.
I don't have any unrealistic goals here. Christianity will probably always survive any attacks. But in some future date Christians will be in their own little conclaves like the Amish are today. Still, I don't believe I will live to see that day, and I don't know when it will happen, but I believe it will, so I am doing my small part in today's world.
Killing babies, children and expectant mothers
Here is Willian Lane Craig's explanation of why it is morally right to stick a sword in the belly of an expectant woman.
'''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.'
That article is sad, but it's sad to me because so many of my fellow Christians want to stop ethnic and religious cleansing around the world, yet they feel compelled to defend the very same thing in the Old Testament. Talk about cognitive dissonance! If we defend the Israelites' wholesale slaughter of Canaanite men, women, children, and animals (assuming it did happen as described), then we have effectively lost our credibility to speak out on contemporary atrocities. What are we to say? That it was alright then but not now? That is was fine because Israel was an instrument of God's judgment, but it is not fine for God's Army to perpetuate Christian terrorism in Thailand today? How do we know who is an instrument in God's hand? Do we afford Muslim and Christian terrorist groups the same benefit of the doubt that we give to Moses and Joshua?
There is no moral high ground here unless you reject genocide out of hand--in which case you would also have to reject the God of the Old Testament who commanded such unspeakable atrocities. A God who would forbid murder on the one hand, yet command it indiscriminately on the other hand is not a God of love at all. He is a tribal god of war, used to manipulate armies into a frenzy of killing.
BTW, the theory behind genocide is that if one person is left who is not slaughtered, then out of revenge he may assassinate the leader of the slaughter, or drum up an army to wipe them out. Both notions are barbaric.
Craig writes 'What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him. '
Really? It is up to God how long you live?
Forget those healthy diets.
And Craig writes 'On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.'
If God orders you to sin, it is not a sin.
There goes objective moral acts.
If God tells you to torture your 3-year old child, it is not a sin.
As it is not a sin, it cannot be against God's eternal character to order you to do something which is not sinful.
John, you studied under Craig.
Why were you not physically sick listening to him speak?
John, you studied under Craig.
Why were you not physically sick listening to him speak?
LOL. I needed that today!
Ahhhh, but I was a believer.
Now it makes me sick!
Post a Comment