P. Z. Myers on William Lane Craig's "Nature's Flaws and Cruelties"

[Recusant]

I think that this topic relates to the Sam Harris articles on which Ecurb Noselrub posted a thread. Myers takes Craig to task for basically asserting that animals don't really feel pain the way that humans do. In his answer to a question, Craig uses some outright falsehoods (surprise!) to hand-wave away the problem of animals suffering pain, even though they are supposedly innocent of sin. Apparently, animals do feel pain, in Craig's view, but really they aren't aware that they do.

[T]he awareness that one is oneself in pain requires self-awareness, which is centered in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain—a section of the brain which is missing in all animals except for the humanoid primates. Thus, amazingly, even though animals may experience pain, they are not aware of being in pain. God in His mercy has apparently spared animals the awareness of pain. This is a tremendous comfort to us pet owners. For even though your dog or cat may be in pain, it really isn't aware of it and so doesn't suffer as you would if you were in pain.

I admire Craig's skills as a debater, but the more I learn about his beliefs, the less I admire him as a person.

[The Magic Pudding]

[T]he awareness that one is oneself in pain requires self-awareness, which is centered in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain—a section of the brain which is missing in all animals except for the humanoid primates.

So humans do it this way and it's inconceivable animals could find another way?
Crows, Cephalopods, don't bother looking at that mirror, we know you can't see yourselves.

Why shouldn't animals experience pain more than humans, they may have no conciousness to reassure them the pain will pass, they may experience it more fully.  It's pretty obvious animals remember pain and avoid it.  Animals certainly give a good impression of feeling pain, they may not think oh my, I'm going to miss the next episode of Dr Who, but so what?

It just sounds like he wants to see humans as separate from animals, whether to justify faith or mistreatment I don't know. 

[Recusant]

First, it should be noted (per Myers) that Craig is displaying either ignorance or mendacity in his assertion that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain is missing in all animals except for the humanoid primates. As to his motivation for making his somewhat revolting comment that animals aren't aware of being in pain, it has to do with his argument in favor of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent deity, i. e. theodicy. According to standard Christian dogma as I understand it, YHVH created a perfect world, and pain and suffering are aspects of the world we live in today only because of the sin of Adam and Eve. But why would an omni-benevolent, omnipotent deity allow non-human animals which (according to the doctrine) are incapable of sin, and thus do not share the inherent sinfulness of people, to experience pain and suffering? As Craig puts it:

It is only when we begin talking Christian theology that God's attributes of being all-powerful and all-good come into play. There the challenge is merely to provide some consistent account, which, if true, would show that the biblical God is not incompatible with nature's flaws and cruelties.

This is actually a side argument to his main point in the answer to which I linked, but it's what Myers deals with in his blog entry.

[Stevil]

I don't think that William is a theist.

I get the feeling that he is quite arrogant at his ability to debate an impossible position. Certainly, if you are good at something and full of pride, you would want to push it to the extreme. He implements many debating techniques in order to give himself an advantage, so he is a technically adept debater, he has a good clear voice and is well structured in his approach to delivering his points. He certainly appeals to the already believers and argues from the point of view that certain things are a given, e.g. God exists, is all powerful, is non material, is eternal. I feel he understands well the concepts that theists struggle with and uses these to confuse the already believers. I think he consciously does this, he knows when he is being dishonest and misleading. It is an important technique in debating to twist the meaning of words, to use double meanings to your advantage.

The scientists that he debates are people that are more scientifically focused, who are more interested in explaining their findings rather than convincing people through whatever means possible into a debate position in order to "win" a debate.

[Recusant]

I don't think that William is a theist.

Well that's one that I hadn't heard before. I can see why you might adopt that view, since some elements of Craig's work such as the ideas that Myers takes issue with, and his justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites, may seem like they're calculated to expose an odious side to Christian doctrine. However, I think that he is a sincere Christian who is unafraid to confront the tougher questions that Christian belief might raise. His approach allows Myers and others to point to his statements and take him to task, but I think that he's so confident in his faith and in his own powers of reason that he really believes that he has effectively dealt with troubling issues such as pain and suffering in the animal world, and divinely ordered genocide.

If your idea about him is true, then in my opinion it would make him an even nastier piece of work than I had previously thought.

[Stevil]

Well that's one that I hadn't heard before. I can see why you might adopt that view, since some elements of Craig's work such as the ideas that Myers takes issue with, and his justification for the slaughter of the Canaanites, may seem like they're calculated to expose an odious side to Christian doctrine.

Oh, he is not fighting for the Atheist, he is genuinely fighting for Christians. But just like Christian scientists whom present facts and purposefully miss out other facts, they know what they are doing, their misleading is intentional.

[Too Few Lions]

I just read that article on the slaughter of the Canaanites, what an idiot 'Dr' Craig is, it does annoy me that any moron can get a doctorate in theology!

My main problem is he's trying to justify a mythological event as if it was actually history. It's a bit like trying to justify Yahweh wiping out all of humanity in the Flood (does he also try and do that?) Archaeology has shown that the Exodus and conquest of Canaan never happened, the Jews were originally of Canaanite stock themselves, and Judaism evolved out of Canaanite religion. Only a fool tries to read the Bible as inerrant truth these days.

I also think his main argument is odious in the extreme. To claim that murdering a population isn't murder but a virtuous obligation if it's the result of 'a divine command' opens up a whole new can of worms. It justifies the persecution and murder of non-believers throughout history, which is a historical reality (unlike the slaughter of the Canaanites).

[Davin]

He certainly appeals to the already believers and argues from the point of view that certain things are a given, e.g. God exists, is all powerful, is non material, is eternal. I feel he understands well the concepts that theists struggle with and uses these to confuse the already believers. I think he consciously does this, he knows when he is being dishonest and misleading.

I agree on several points. I can't understand the idea that a lot people trying to debate the existence of a god start from inside the concept of a god already existing using statments like, "if there were a god we'd see the things we see," instead of arguing from a more reasonable position of being outside the claim of god existing.

As far as him being dishonest, I'd only go so far as to say he's intellectually dishonest, because that term covers more. I do think he can be honest, while not being intellectually honest.

I don't really like his arrogant, condescending attitude that much, though I'd not mind it so much if he was correct and/or at least not have everyone of his arguments reliant on blatant fallacies. But what can a theist do, if they hold the position that there is a god, they have to commit at least one fallacy.