Reasonable Faith

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 66 Posts
    • View Profile
This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's response to the central arguments in Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion,” at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford.

25th October 2011, Sheldonian Theatre, Broad Street, Oxford

1

Ian

  • **
  • 8 Posts
    • View Profile
is there an mp3 audio download I can get for this?

thanks,,


2

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
Bansaw wrote: is there an mp3 audio download I can get for this?

thanks,,



It should be available soon (I think later today) on the Unbelievable page on the Premier Christian Radio site.

Update: no dice. I guess not yet. I am pretty sure they said the next episode with have it though.

3

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/is-god-delusion-william-lane-craig-in.html

4

pinkey

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile

Just watched it. Very entertaining, and Craig dealt with the issue of the slaughter of the canaanites in the last Q&A question very well.

"[A]ll such persons as I am speaking of, who profess themselves to be atheists not upon any present interest or lust but purely upon the principles of reason and philosophy, are bound by these principles to aknowledge that all mocking and scoffing at religion, all jesting and turning arguments of re

5

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.

6

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
blank wrote: Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.

7

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
emailestthoume wrote:
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.

8

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
blank wrote:
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?

To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.

Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.

Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


9

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?

10

Sandspirit

  • **
  • 306 Posts
    • View Profile
If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement?





11

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Sandspirit wrote:
If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


This was Hitler's view too.

How many of you, if you really reflect and think, feel comfortable with this statement?






Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment.  Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?


12

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
blank wrote:
Quote from: expsredemption
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?


You brought up the idea of collective punishment which is understandable.  From the human perspective collective punishment is a bad idea because we (as finite humans) cannot know whether a population really merits a collective punishment.

I do see that you seem to acknowledge that punishment is, at least, sometimes personally merited.  So punishment in and of itself is not the issue.

You stated that Genocide is a big issue with you.  It is a big issue for me as well.  However, I made my statement about some whole group meriting punishment in order to show that there can be cases where what looks like genocide is, in fact, merited punishment.  

If a whole distinguished group merits the punishment... should the punishment not be enacted simply because it would punish the whole group (even though the punishment was merited)?

There can be instances when a situation is merited punishment and yet we don't see or understand how it is merited... so we call it genocide.   This is not to make a case for a human to be able to make the decision as to whether the punishment of a whole group is merited.   This is to say that in a world where there is two perspectives, God's and man's, man may not always fully understand or see why God took some form of action.

If the situation with the Canaanites were simply a decision made by a human being, I would be more than willing to call it Genocide and view it as a negative.   A human being is not in the position to make the decision of whether something like that is merited or unmerited.

If the situation involved a being such as God, the situation changes dramatically.  God does have a better position to acknowledge whether the punishment of the whole group is merited.  God would also have the ability to act upon that acknowledgment that the punishment is merited.   If the punishment is merited and deserved, it is not necessarily genocide as we commonly mean it.  Sure the whole group was effected fitting the definition but the pejorative nature would not be there as the punishment was merited and deserved.

You brought up the concept of their land being taken away.  If there is a being such as God, is the land really the Canaanites?  Or are they just "tenants" of sorts?

I don't know if you are doing this or not, but often times I see people trying to see things from the perspective of a being like God existing but actually continuing to view things from the human perspective with a being like God not existing.  Viewing out of context.

I would say that if there is a being like God (you know what context in which we are speaking) that a situation like the Canaanite situation can be merited and acted upon and not be immoral.  This of course is so long as God is the one making the decision rather than a man (who is not in the position to make this kind of decision).

I would also state that if the situation is that a being like God exists, what you might call genocide subjectively in this case (in the pejorative negative sense) is not genocide objectively, rather an appropriate punishment for acts that merited such punishment (no matter how many people are being punished, even if they are a whole culture, it is not immoral if they merited such a punishment.)

But lets look at the situation with the Canaanites.  
Is there a being such as God involved in the context? Yes
Does God make the decision or does man make the decision? God
Does God really kill all the people in the land? No
Does it really call for all the people in the land to be killed? Not necessarily (this is something much bigger than what can be handled in the forum setting with here and there responses).
Is the punishment merited? It can be. God seems to think so.  Man may not, but man does not have all the information either.
Was this land objectively the land of the Canaanites in the context that a being such as God exists? No.

Don't get me wrong, this is a tough situation to deal with even with a being such as God existing.  I don't intend to present the case more lightly than it should.  I simply don't know if there will be much movement on the topic in this format as people post here and there, and each small aspect of the posters statements are extensively discussed... the discussion tends to simply get larger rather than more narrowed.

Looking forward to your thoughts.  I am really trying to get a good picture of where you stand and why.  It is much easier to discuss a topic when you know exactly where the other individual stands.  

I stand in a position where a being such as God is possible.  I also understand that if such a being as God existed and acted in the context given in the
    OT I would be held accountable by such a being.  Whether I liked that being the case or not would not matter as that would be the case and the frame of reference in which I would have to function.   Would I be mad if I were to be punished similar to the Canaanites?  Probably.  Does that mean I am justified to be angry... not necessarily.   When I got a speeding ticket, I was furious that I got the ticket.  Was I speeding? Yes.  Did I deserve the ticket? Yes.  Did I know this? Yes.  Did I like it? No.  Why didn't I like it?  I felt there were other people who deserved a ticket as well.  Even if it was true that other people deserved a ticket as well, it does not change the fact that I deserved a ticket myself.  We don't always like the situations we find ourselves in, but that is not an indication that they are unfair, unmerited, or wrong.

13

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Quote from: blank
Quote from: emailestthoume
Quote from: blank
Craig justified the genocide by basically saying something along the lines of it being okay since it was commanded by God. He thus, promptly gets gored by the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.


Dr. Craig has defended his divine command morality in print, and in depth. I doubt he made such a simple mistake. I believe he has also successfully refuted Euthyphro's dilemma in other places. (using arguments of his own or others I am unsure) Furthermore, if I remember correctly, almost his entire speech about the destruction of the Canaanites had to do with the historical evidence about it, where he argued that what happened was indeed not genocide at all in the first place.

I would encourage everyone to watch it themselves and make up their own mind. It is dealt with towards the end in the question and answer section.


Though he has defended the genocide in print, it still is a bad idea. No, he hasn't refuted the dilemma and he clearly gored himself with the statements he made at the closing. The methods by which he tried refuting the dilemma were sometimes special pleading (e.g God gave the command but we cannot really say it was immoral) or blunt assertions (e.g God is good though he gave such a command).
I too encourage someone who hasn't heard it to listen to it and if you have heard it, please listen to it again and pay close attention to his response on the Canaanite genocide commanded by his God.


What is the probability that you will EVER be convinced that the situation with the Canaanites was a moral situation?


The chances of that happening is very low.

expsredemption wrote:
To me it seems that you are caught up on the term "genocide" as necessarily bad.  If the whole group is bad... and they are killed for that immoral nature... it can be just punishment AND genocide at the same time.


How can one conclude that an entire population of people which includes old people, young people, toddlers, pregnant women are all bad and deserve to be murdered for their land?

expsredemption wrote:
Definition of Genocide:
"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." (www.dictionary.com)

If the whole national, racial, political, or cultural group is deserving of a penalty... it does not become undeserving just because the whole is punished, as they merited such punishment.


You may want to look up on the idea of collective punishment and the problems associated with it.

expsredemption wrote:
Is you fixation on the word genocide? Or is your fixation that what happened with the Canaanites (even if not genocide) cannot ever be considered moral?


Sorry but I have a problem with genocide. Not just the word but a command that says a group of people should be exterminated and their land taken away from them.
How is it that you people can try to justify such terrible activities? Do you really not expect non-believers to stand by and watch justification of genocide?


You brought up the idea of collective punishment which is understandable.  From the human perspective collective punishment is a bad idea because we (as finite humans) cannot know whether a population really merits a collective punishment.


Hold on, you don't think one can tell that a child shouldn't be punished for the crimes their neighbour has committed?

expsredemption wrote:
I do see that you seem to acknowledge that punishment is, at least, sometimes personally merited.  So punishment in and of itself is not the issue.


No it isn't. Though there is an idea of cruel and unusual punishment which is an issue.

expsredemption wrote:
You stated that Genocide is a big issue with you.  It is a big issue for me as well.  However, I made my statement about some whole group meriting punishment in order to show that there can be cases where what looks like genocide is, in fact, merited punishment.

If a whole distinguished group merits the punishment... should the punishment not be enacted simply because it would punish the whole group (even though the punishment was merited)?


Can you confidently say that all the individuals in that population actually deserved to be killed?

expsredemption wrote:
There can be instances when a situation is merited punishment and yet we don't see or understand how it is merited... so we call it genocide.   This is not to make a case for a human to be able to make the decision as to whether the punishment of a whole group is merited.   This is to say that in a world where there is two perspectives, God's and man's, man may not always fully understand or see why God took some form of action.


I hope you realize that such a statement can be used to justify pretty much any occurrence of genocide in recent history. Since one doesn't actually know what God wanted, maybe the Rwandan genocide was okay.

expsredemption wrote:
If the situation with the Canaanites were simply a decision made by a human being, I would be more than willing to call it Genocide and view it as a negative.   A human being is not in the position to make the decision of whether something like that is merited or unmerited.

If the situation involved a being such as God, the situation changes dramatically.  God does have a better position to acknowledge whether the punishment of the whole group is merited.  God would also have the ability to act upon that acknowledgment that the punishment is merited.   If the punishment is merited and deserved, it is not necessarily genocide as we commonly mean it.  Sure the whole group was effected fitting the definition but the pejorative nature would not be there as the punishment was merited and deserved.


In that case, God isn't even as good as e.g the current British military which doesn't have his capabilities. I mean, even they at least try to distinguish between civilians and non-civilians, God doesn't care. He simply kills them all. Yet some say that this God is loving. Sorry, I don't think so.

expsredemption wrote:
You brought up the concept of their land being taken away.  If there is a being such as God, is the land really the Canaanites?  Or are they just "tenants" of sorts?


Sure they are tenants of sorts in the same way Native Americans were "tenants of sorts". Why couldn't an omnipotent God give them the Sahara desert converted into a lush savannah?

expsredemption wrote:
I don't know if you are doing this or not, but often times I see people trying to see things from the perspective of a being like God existing but actually continuing to view things from the human perspective with a being like God not existing.  Viewing out of context.

I would say that if there is a being like God (you know what context in which we are speaking) that a situation like the Canaanite situation can be merited and acted upon and not be immoral.  This of course is so long as God is the one making the decision rather than a man (who is not in the position to make this kind of decision).


No, it is immoral if God is supposed to be loving towards human beings, omnipotent and omniscient. Unless of course you wish to change what it means to be moral.

expsredemption wrote:
I would also state that if the situation is that a being like God exists, what you might call genocide subjectively in this case (in the pejorativ
   e negative sense) is not genocide objectively, rather an appropriate punishment for acts that merited such punishment (no matter how many people are being punished, even if they are a whole culture, it is not immoral if they merited such a punishment.)


Actually, in such a situation, no incidence of genocide can be objectively called genocide since God is ultimately in control.

expsredemption wrote:
But lets look at the situation with the Canaanites.  
Is there a being such as God involved in the context? Yes


Okay for the sake of the argument.

expsredemption wrote:
Does God make the decision or does man make the decision? God


Okay.

expsredemption wrote:
Does God really kill all the people in the land? No


I guess God failed again.

expsredemption wrote:
Does it really call for all the people in the land to be killed? Not necessarily (this is something much bigger than what can be handled in the forum setting with here and there responses).


Well, that was what his command sounded like.

expsredemption wrote:
Is the punishment merited? It can be. God seems to think so.  Man may not, but man does not have all the information either.


So we allow genocide when your God says it is okay.

expsredemption wrote:
Was this land objectively the land of the Canaanites in the context that a being such as God exists? No.


Could God make more land?

expsredemption wrote:
Don't get me wrong, this is a tough situation to deal with even with a being such as God existing.  I don't intend to present the case more lightly than it should.  I simply don't know if there will be much movement on the topic in this format as people post here and there, and each small aspect of the posters statements are extensively discussed... the discussion tends to simply get larger rather than more narrowed.


It only appears tough or contradictory when you make certain assumptions. e.g would a beneficent, omnipotent, omniscient God order genocide? Well no because that would not be a beneficent thing to do. If humans who are neither omnipotent, omniscient or always beneficent reject genocide, why didn't God know enough having his powers to better?

expsredemption wrote:
Looking forward to your thoughts.  I am really trying to get a good picture of where you stand and why.  It is much easier to discuss a topic when you know exactly where the other individual stands.


My stance is that it is not a moral thing to command genocide.

expsredemption wrote:
I stand in a position where a being such as God is possible.  I also understand that if such a being as God existed and acted in the context given in the OT I would be held accountable by such a being.  Whether I liked that being the case or not would not matter as that would be the case and the frame of reference in which I would have to function.   Would I be mad if I were to be punished similar to the Canaanites?  Probably.  Does that mean I am justified to be angry... not necessarily.


You would be justified if you didn't know any better, if you personally didn't do anything wrong e.g if you were a child in that population.

expsredemption wrote:
When I got a speeding ticket, I was furious that I got the ticket.  Was I speeding? Yes.  Did I deserve the ticket? Yes.  Did I know this? Yes.  Did I like it? No.  Why didn't I like it?  I felt there were other people who deserved a ticket as well.  Even if it was true that other people deserved a ticket as well, it does not change the fact that I deserved a ticket myself.  We don't always like the situations we find ourselves in, but that is not an indication that they are unfair, unmerited, or wrong.


But the situation would be different if you were simply driving at a reasonable velocity under the speed limit yet you got the ticket because the city wanted to meet a quota in order to fund a new elementary school. I think you would still be offended and you would be right to be offended.

14

Sandspirit

  • **
  • 306 Posts
    • View Profile
Hitler is a pejorative terms at the moment. Sure it was his view, but there are two questions to ask:

1. Was his view correct?
2. Even if his view was correct, was he actually (not what he thought personally) in a position to make and act upon that decision?


I don't suppose many of you became christians in order to be associated with this sort of sentiment but in the name of "reasonable faith" you've compromised your critical faculties to the point where you don't know whether genocide is right or wrong. Many christians shun Craig because of his views on genocide. Forget Dawkins and the debate - it doesn't matter. It's not hard to see that eliminating an entire people is wrong. Or maybe I'm mistaken.