Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Ding

  Bohm,

  A theist might say, "Rape is wrong because it is contrary to the character of God," or "Rape is wrong because it is contrary to God's will." This, of course, is an appeal that claims there is a God who is the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong.

  But if you say, "Rape is a bad strategy because it reduces both the overall fitness of society and your chance of reproducing," how do you answer the man who says, "I don't give a damn about the overall fitness of society or my chances of reproducing. I find it to be a good strategy for maximizing my pleasure; I enjoy raping people. If that offends your sense of morality, that's your problem, not mine."
• 

  leavingwt

  Sam Harris' new book may be of interest to some.

  http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape/
• 

  yourmomma

  did anyone see his debate with Bart Erhman? Erhman was absolutely epic. WLC tried to claim that he had a scientific formula to prove empirically that Jesus was resurrected. I dont know if I have ever seen Erhman so animated, its really an entertaining watch. I saw it on youtube. WLC reminds me of a car salesman.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I have resigned myself to the idea that objective values do not exist. It's not a comfortable thought but it's the way it is. And it doesn't mean that we don't have values, it just means we need to take responsibility for constructing our own.

  Using the exististence of objective values as a starting assumption is highly dubious.

  I have watched William Lane Craig in debate with Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos. I can't say I was impressed.
• 

  bohm

  Ding -- but i will just put him in jail?

  Isnt this like saying: Things are funny because they conform to Gods absolute standard of funny? I dont see how it add anything, except removing our own sence of humor (and as in this case: our ability to form moral judgements). I see it as quite a depressive worldview actually!

  And rape is not wrong because its contrary to Gods will -- that mean that if (or when!) God says you should rape someone, it become right. it cannot be so, i dont understand why it become natural for WLC to accept such an incomprehensible position when it does not explain any part of human behavior evolution and rational thought does not explain in itself.

  I certainly dont understand why he is telling me i should accept it because i think its right! the man must be delusional.
• 

  bohm

  SBF: "I have resigned myself to the idea that objective values do not exist."

  but what is an objective moral value? it it something like when i say: "Raping a baby is wrong", except God somehow "vouch for it" it and it become objective?
• 

  bohm

  for all this time i thought the entire discussion on morality and atheism was if a sence of moral could evolve! i have had it wrong the entire time.
• 

  Ding

  Bohm,

  You will put the rapist in jail? So there's no underpinning morality? It all comes down to an appeal to force?

  If your son asks you why rape is wrong, are you going to say, "because it's a bad strategy because it reduces both the overall fitness of society and your chance of reproducing? And if you don't care about that but you rape someone anyway, I will put you in jail."

  I don't think your analogy to humor is valid. Humor is a matter of taste. I may find something to be funny that you don't or vice versa. To each his own. But we don't say that about rape or murder.

  In Hitler's Germany, genocide of Jews and other "undesirables" was seen as morally acceptable, even virtuous, as promoting the survival of the fittest -- his "master race." If Hitler had succeeded in exterminating everyone on the planet who didn't accept this, would his genocide have become morally acceptable because everyone who was left thought it acceptable and there was no one left to argue with them? Would mankind have moved "beyond good and evil"?

  Or is there an underlying objective morality that exists even if most -- or even all -- human beings come to reject it?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Bohm,

  Regarding the argument form:

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

  2. Objective values and duties do exist.

  3. Therefore, God exists.

  The argument above is of the form known as modus tollens. In form it is valid.

  However the argument above depends on an enthymeme that is an assumption. This enthymeme assumes a bifurcation as a primary premise. This bifurcation asserts that only the existence of God can result in the existence of objective values and duties. If and only if objective values and duties exist solely because God exists then the above argument is valid. But proving the former is something your source fails. Without this the argument above is worthless.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  bohm

  Ding -- i really want to understand this. Your seem to be saying:

  • evolution can explain our "effective" moral code, ie. our behavior (even though it is not objectively grounded, etc.).
  • The "objective" moral code is not actually being used by anyone, and does not explain anything we can observe.
  • ...but it must be there because otherwise things would not "feel" right?

  which of those do i get wrong and which do i get right?