Richard Dawkins has stated as one of his reasons for refusing to debate William Lane Craig that Craig is a “Christian ‘philosopher’ [who] is an apologist for genocide”.
He then goes on to quote Craig’s understanding of the Biblical passage on the destruction of the Canaanites – and labels Craig as “ an apologist for genocide”. In doing this, Dawkins is debating Craig, without giving Craig the opportunity to respond.
Two can play at that game, of course. So here is Richard Dawkins smiling cheerily at the idea of cannibalism:
And here he is advocating infanticide:
But would he eat the murdered babies? Can we look forward to another article in the Guardian where he might enlighten us further on his culinary experiments?
Perhaps Craig would be doing Dawkins a favour by being willing to share a platform with an apologist for infanticide and cannibalism.
This is very snarky, I approve.
– This coming from a man who believes there is no such thing as evil and that ‘evil’ in the most natural of terms is simply man ‘dancing to his own D.N.A?’ I’m sorry, but Dawkins does not get to take the moral high-ground here! Allow me to point out the fact that Dawkins is making a moral argument, advocating a mutual exclusion between the objection of ‘genocide’ and ‘morality’- while at the same time believing that if it were not for the non-random survival of random, and might I add, ‘amoral’ particles, non of us would be here and yet, how does he think those ‘particles’ survived? And now, all of a sudden we’ve evolved the ability to ‘reason’ our way towards the delusional and non-existent ‘morality’ that pragmatism and civility are now somehow “moral” concepts that were not immoral millions of years ago — when they were necessary for survival — but are now somehow immoral concepts? To put it bluntly, it is self-contradicting to juxtapose the opinion that genocide is wrong, while at the same time, denying a source of measurement for the word “wrong” – except only in the framework of biological and natural phenomena that somehow has informed the ‘subjective opinion’ that “wrong” exists in the first place!
Dawkins has NO objective reference point to make that claim and yet, he refuses to debate Craig on the basis of a moral objection? I don’t think so Mr. Dawkins!
Pingback: Richard Dawkins responds to Craig’s debate challenge in a UK Guardian editorial « Wintery Knight
One thing I don’t understand. Craig’s cheerleaders are very eager to jump up and down and call Dawkins a “coward” and whatnot. What has NOT been forthcoming, however, is an explanation of why Craig’s words on the Canaanite genocide are not, in fact, profoundly evil, and should not be regarded as the words of a dangerous extremist.
So, dear Craigites, I extend this my challenge to you. Defend what he said about the Canaanite genocide. No smokescreens or diversionary arguments: address what he himself wrote. If you cannot defend his despicable theology, then perhaps you ought to rethink your knee-jerk eagerness to leap to his defence.
He might be on the Christian side of the argument, but his theology is deeply ugly and does not represent my understanding of the faith. I think we ought to be careful who we choose as our champions ….
Just a thought.
On the contrary, it was explained here:
I read the Stanley article, and found it mealy-mouthed and unpleasant. He tries to make Craig’s arguments acceptable by a process of exegesis that owes nothing to the source of these comments. Craig IS celebrating the slaughter of the heathen – he practically crows about what a wondrous revelation of divine justice is the murder of children. It’s sickening, it’s not the kind of apologetics I’m interested in, and for once I fully support Dawkins in his determination not to give legitimacy to this ghastly man.
@Jon: pure ad hominem–from you and Dawkins.
Debate the existence of God on the basis of the arguments themselves, not on something somebody said on a different topic. Just a fancy ad hominem smokescreen.
Actually I don’t doubt the existence of God, and it’s not easy finding myself on the same side as Dawkins (who I also regard as an extremist). I just vehemently disagree with Craig’s take on this. It alarms me that there are so many atheists who not only reject Christianity but actively hate it, and it makes me want to beat my head against a wall when I see someone with a theology I find so distasteful getting such an automatic, ecstatic reception from Christians simply by virtue of not being Dawkins (to the extent that you apparently assume I’m an atheist just because I refuse to endorse his message!!!). There are so many more worthy champions of the Christian cause out there who do not resort to apologetics for genocide in defence of God.
I’ve written all I want to say about this. I’ve prayed about it, and that has strengthened my conviction that I’m right to mistrust Craig. Others can do as they wish – I intend to beware this false prophet.
Jon,
Your position is puzzling.
If you are a Christian, surely you understand that Christians attempt to take the Bible seriously, so Craig’s attempt to understand the passage in question is, even if you don’t agree with his interpretation, at least worthwhile. How would you make sense of it?
If you are a theist or a deist, but not a Christian, why would Craig’s theology in particular be “distasteful”? Wouldn’t, Christianity itself be distasteful?
@ Jon – Jon, I have two questions for you. First, are you a Christian? And if so, could you please explain what exactly you found so distasteful about Craig’s explanation on the Canaanite genocide? If you believe the Bible is true (assuming you’re a Christian) then surely you must believe that the God of the Bible cannot act both benevolent and evil? Therefore, if Craig was simply positing an argument for why a “good” God would commit such a seemingly heinous act, then what exactly is your objection, if not against God Himself? Which, if that is the case, this is an entirely different argument.
I believe Craig is now claiming that no children would have been killed if they had toddled away really quickly from the soldiers sent to kill them.
I bet a 2 year old can toddle real fast, if he knows Yahweh has sent soldiers to kill him if he does not flee.
Here is Craig , channeling Osama bin Laden, claiming that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it, and it is not even murder then.
CRAIG
Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.
The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
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.
CARR
Craig’s views are now being picked up by some Muslims.
“In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,
I write this letter to inform you that I departed for the land of the jihad.
To dispel the unbelievers, and to help establish the Islamic state.
I do not do this because I like fighting, but because the Almighty has commanded this ‘Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you may not’”
CARR
How does Craig’s claim that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it differ from a jihadist claim that fighting is obligatory if his god commands it?