"Is Good From God?" Craig v Harris

[Recusant]

Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?

Seeing as YHVH has stopped talking to anybody but the select few like Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush, it's really hard to say. I think you have a point; the Canaanites, Amalekites and other tribes supposedly wiped out by the Israelites are safely millenia in the past. However, if Dr. Craig were ever convinced that his god had commanded a genocide in the present day, you can be sure that he would confidently tell any who would listen that it was moral and proper. Something along the same vein: You can listen to Craig tell his flock why the earthquake and tsunami in Japan were all part of his god's "providential plan" here. As a bonus he gives a little lesson on plate tectonics (though some things about that seem a bit off to me).

From "Japan and Natural Evil" by Dr. Craig:

...we have to keep in mind God's sovereignty over human history. Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the Kingdom of God, to bring as many people as He can freely into eternal relationship with Himself and the knowledge of God and everlasting life and blessedness...

... it may well be the case that God has providential plans for the disasters that occur in life that ultimately serve His good ends for the human race.

Voltaire would have loved this guy.

[Whitney]

Ok, I got a chance to watch it.  I'm not entirely sure that Harris built a solid case; but he didn't bomb the debate either.  Craig, however, said something really stupid towards the end that I don't think Harris caught; Craig defined god as that which is good and said any other supreme being that is not good would not be god.  That right there lost the debate for Craig even if he had argued everything else perfectly.  In order to determine that a god is good and therefore giving us good moral direction objective morality would have to exist outside of god.  And if objective morality exists apart from god then good isn't from god.

[Sophus]

Dear God. I think there's something about these stories being so far in the past that it is easier for people like Craig to say stupid stuff like this. I can't picture him ever saying the same of a recent or current genocide. Or am I sadly mistaken?

Seeing as YHVH has stopped talking to anybody but the select few like Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush, it's really hard to say. I think you have a point; the Canaanites, Amalekites and other tribes supposedly wiped out by the Israelites are safely millenia in the past. However, if Dr. Craig were ever convinced that his god had commanded a genocide in the present day, you can be sure that he would confidently tell any who would listen that it was moral and proper. Something along the same vein: You can listen to Craig tell his flock why the earthquake and tsunami in Japan were all part of his god's "providential plan" here. As a bonus he gives a little lesson on plate tectonics (though some things about that seem a bit off to me).

From "Japan and Natural Evil" by Dr. Craig:

...we have to keep in mind God's sovereignty over human history. Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the Kingdom of God, to bring as many people as He can freely into eternal relationship with Himself and the knowledge of God and everlasting life and blessedness...

... it may well be the case that God has providential plans for the disasters that occur in life that ultimately serve His good ends for the human race.

Voltaire would have loved this guy.

Boy, for a sophisticated theologian he's not much better than Pat Robertson.

Craig, however, said something really stupid towards the end that I don't think Harris caught; Craig defined god as that which is good and said any other supreme being that is not good would not be god. That right there lost the debate for Craig even if he had argued everything else perfectly. In order to determine that a god is good and therefore giving us good moral direction objective morality would have to exist outside of god. And if objective morality exists apart from god then good isn't from god.

I don't think I would've caught that either. Very astute of you, Whitney.  

[freeservant]

You're still not getting it, man!  :verysad: So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying.   from the article you site...

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2).  So what is the problem supposed to be?

The problem is genocide amiright?  In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God.  Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to fulfill.  He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.

Are you then placing moral commands upon God or that there should be an equality between yourself and God.   ) When I debated in high school, it was all about rapid fire presentation, but Craig's style is much more sophisticated. He's quite good at using subtle emotional appeals as well as efficiently presenting his arguments and answering his opponent's points. The man is no slouch.

If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.



http://is.gd/wg4eS6  from True Free Thinker blog

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament a means to look away?

[Davin]

You're still not getting it, man!  :verysad: So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying.   from the article you site...

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

Do you have evidence for objective moral values? Because when you consider the amount of discussion over morals, that's evidence against humans knowing if objective moral values even exist.

Premise one is making the hidden assertion that objective moral values cannot exist without a god. God being a sentient all powerful being means that either the morals dictated by the god are not objective (exists independently of the control and/or perception of a sentient being) or the objective moral values are independent of the god.

In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2).  So what is the problem supposed to be?

The problem is genocide amiright?  In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

Then how do you demonstrate objective moral values? If it's objectively good for this god to kill people, for this god to command people to bash babies heads on rocks... etc. then the same actions are just as objectively good when committed by people. Unless they aren't objectively moral actions.

If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

Care to demonstrate this?

[Link]  from True Free Thinker blog

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

In order to properly refute a concept, one must understand that concept. The statement "The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection." demonstrates an almost criminal level of misunderstanding evolution. This is what is known as a Straw Man, in that the person is constructing an opposing argument out of things the theory of evolution does not even say. The person using the straw man has not refuted his/her opponents actual argument so it's really just a waste of time for all.

So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament a means to look away?

What has been misunderstood?

[Ulver]

Premise one is making the hidden assertion that objective moral values cannot exist without a god.

...and hidden incredibly poorly, rendering the entire point =  

[Recusant]

 So let's see if you really understood what WLC was saying. from the article you site [sic]...

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you accept that there are objective moral values?

No.  If you had read the post which opened this thread, you would have seen my view of the origin of morality in humans.

In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what is the problem supposed to be?

This is bullshit.  I can (and do) view the slaughter of a whole tribe down to the infants in arms as morally repugnant without basing my view on "objective morality."  Craig's argument about the Shoah is rather weak, even if he didn't go on to defend a genocidal act commanded by his god.  This supposedly objective morality supposedly existed during the Shoah, and many of the perpetrators were Christian. Did the supposed objective moral law make any difference to them? Does the condemnation of their acts coming from a Christian have any more weight in reality than condemnation coming from an atheist? No.  From the view of a Nazi, either one is irrelevant.
 

The problem is genocide amiright? In that you are thinking in the context of western Judeo-Christian values for giving opinion about genocide and making judgement's regarding God's authority.

No.  I'm thinking in the context of my empathy for the millions of innocent people who were slaughtered.  If I were a certain type of Christian racist fascist I could easily consider the Shoah to have been part of my god's plan; perhaps a divine retribution visited upon the Jews and others.  After all, this wouldn't have been the first time my god had commanded genocide.

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.

Are you then placing moral commands upon God or that there should be an equality between yourself and God.

No. Since YHVH/Jesus don't exist, why would I even consider placing moral commands upon them?  In fact, since I do exist, my moral standing is not equal to them, it's greater.  Hoot and jeer all you want about that, but in my opinion the moral views of a real person take precedence over those of a non-existent mythical being. Especially when that mythical being supposedly commanded acts of genocide as well as personally committing them. (The Great Flood, for one.)

To read the entirety of the article gives a good understand. The inspired word of God is a communication that is minimally sufficient. An example of minimal but sufficient communication: Press any key to continue (some look for an any-key)

I grant that there are parts of the Bible that are difficult to understand but that does not mean that with study and a means to talk with others who also study the bible that you can't get sufficient understanding.

So you do agree with Craig that the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women, children and infants was a good and moral act?  How open minded of you.

If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.



http://is.gd/wg4eS6%20from%20True%20Free%20Thinker%20blog

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2

From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.

So does anybody here care to acknowledge the problem or is misunderstanding the Old Testament
a means to look away?

Though I don't agree with Harris's position, it's not because of any circularity in his argument.  It's because I don't think that there are objective morals, whether emanating from a deity or from nature.  Find somebody who agrees with Harris, and present your circularity objection to them.

[Recusant]

A report from Nathan Schneider for the Religion Dispatches online magazine:

"Debating God: Atheist and Evangelical Face Off at Notre Dame"

[Sophus]

If you have debate experience then I hope you can see the poverty of Harris's argument given the circular nature of all things come back to a Darwinian construct.

As Whitney has said before....  Darwinism is made up. Sorry.