To hear Dawkins' talk, it sounds as if he's refusing to debate Craig because he holds an evil position, on killing the Canaanites.
But the fact is in Dawkins' universe, statements like "It was wrong of the ancient Hebrews to kill all those Canaanites and Amalekites" is neither true nor false. He may dislike it pretty intensely, and no doubt he thinks it conflicts with some strong moral intuitions that he has, but his philosophy doesn't even allow him to charge Craig with error on this point.
It isn't that Craig holds such a preposterous position that this proves his total irrationality. In fact, he holds a view that Dawkins himself would not consider to be false, let alone refutable.
Somewhere in England, an emperor is missing his lab coat.
26 comments:
The atheist position on morals and ethics may be illogical and cannot be rationally defended, but in the end that is basically irrelevant. Why? Because you'll so seldom get an atheist to admit this fact. At least not today. In the 19th Century, it was fashionable for disbelievers to openly declare, "Since there is no God, everything is permissible". But that has fallen out of favor nowadays. The current fashion is to spout nonsense like, "It takes religion to make good people do bad things".
No, what we have to look for in this specific instance (why Dawkins is refusing to debate Lane) is who is Dawkins' audience, as he is making his refusal? He's not even speaking to any Christians that might be listening to him. He's already written them off. And, as I demonstrated on the previous thread, he doesn't really give a damn about the ancient Canaanites. No, he's playing to his base: the coterie of like-minded people who get a charge out of looking down on everyone less "enlightened" than they view themselves, who hang on Dawkins' every word, and buy all his books (the REAL motive).
So has Dawkins actually committed himself to moral subjectivism?
Even if he did, I don't see the problem. "I find this disgusting, don't you?" seems a pretty good appeal so long as the audience shares Dawkins ideas of moral disgust. And hey, I'll go on record and say Craig's style of apologetics for assorted OT genocide is pretty disgusting.
(As a further note: Although Dawkins may have chanced on a good reason to hold Craig in contempt, the real reason for him refusing to debate is surely him running scared. If it wasn't, he wouldn't keep changing his story).
I doubt that Dawkins is "running scared". The motives behind his entire schtick are profit and ego driven, and he simply sees no personal advantage to debating Lane.
If Dawkins believed that his book sales and speaking fees would go up after such a debate, you can bet he'd be all over that empty chair in a heartbeat!
Why do people insist on taking this guy seriously? He's got no more credibility that a Fox Newscaster!
his philosophy doesn't even allow him to charge Craig with error on this point...
This doesn't follow at all. He may have a different view of moral truth/falsity, one not based on God's decrees or God's nature or some third realm, but that doesn't make him a subjectivist. It doesn't commit him to the claim that there is no true/false.
Might have been a good objection to Ayer, but I think logical positivism is not particularly popular right now.
Bob is partly right I think, but
If Dawkins believed that his book sales and speaking fees would go up after such a debate, you can bet he'd be all over that empty chair in a heartbeat!
I think is false. He doesn't want to play Craig's silly games. Don't negotiate with terrorists, otherwise you only encourage them. (before the stupid get all in arms, that is just an analogy).
>He's got no more credibility that a Fox Newscaster!
I agree with you completely Bob accept I would have said MSNBC Newscaster. A Fox Newscaster has a lot of credibility?;-)
Cheers Brother!;-)
>Might have been a good objection to Ayer, but I think logical positivism is not particularly popular right now.
Actually Positivism and Scientism are the default view of your average popular New Atheist.
Sure more sophisticated Atheists wouldn't be caught dead doing that but it is not with good reason sophisticated Atheist like let us say Nagel refer to the likes of Dawkins as an "amateur" critic of religion.
Sophisticated and philosophically learned Atheists simply don't have Dawkins political agenda or his imprudence.
Craig knows Dawkins isn't academically in his league when it comes to philosophy. But Dawkins is a high profile religion basher who likes to make people think just because he is a scientist he is an expert on everything that is not genetic biology.
His refusal to debate Craig is no different then Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron dropped out of a Debate they once challenge him to regarding Evolution.
Hey, Ben, don't you go dissin' Chris Matthews! If you can't play "Hardball", stay off the air!
But ben Dawkins never agreed to debate him.
Apologists like the circus, is the take-home message. A chance to put your kids in the bus and go watch someone send you into orgiastic highs of getting your outdated belief system stroked by someone that knows how to speak English well.
That this is even taken up as a serious topic.....who refuses to debate whom...does Loftus not make it clear how stupid it is when he pulls the same idiocy?
Sorry I thought this was a more intellectual site someone at valicello's mav phil suggested.... You all seem very nice sorry this site needs moderation....
Stagnato,
Those are some very good points.
Craig is clearly playing the crowd as much as Dawkins. I don't think I can deny that.
But I would have more sympathy for Dawkins if he would just man up and admit he doesn't have the philosophical knowledge to be an effective critic of religion.
He is not exactly pleasant to Atheists who disagree with him.
But as it stands he should just man up & admit his failings.
>Sorry I thought this was a more intellectual site someone at valicello's mav phil suggested.... You all seem very nice sorry this site needs moderation....
I just mostly agreed with you do you still think that?;-)
Bob,
As to you views on Chris Matthews I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am....:-)
I'm not sure to what extent Craig is involved with the advertising campaign.
"his philosophy doesn't even allow him to charge Craig with error on this point."
No, but he can charge Craig with inconsistency with his own ethical standards, and, as others have said, he can say that he finds Craig's ethics distasteful. But of course, the same might be said of some of the ethical statements of Peter Singer (who I regard as admirable on some matters, but not on others) or Sam Harris.
Which suggests to me that both sides are being tribal rather than reasonable on this - "Our champion will bash up your champion because your champion sucks!".
I think both sides would be better leaving such tribalism behind them.
"If Dawkins believed that his book sales and speaking fees would go up after such a debate, you can bet he'd be all over that empty chair in a heartbeat!"
And WLC wouldn't?
"And WLC wouldn't?"
WLC has debated plenty of people who were not nearly as well-known as he was and whose name would add nothing to his "CV".
You're so ignorant. :-)
'But the fact is in Dawkins' universe, statements like "It was wrong of the ancient Hebrews to kill all those Canaanites and Amalekites" is neither true nor false.'
Just as in Dawkins' world where it is a matter of opinion about which football play is best, the statement 'It was wrong to run the ball on 4th and 20 , when backed up on your 2 yard line', is neither true not false.
Of course, theists believe in objective football plays (not the subjective opinions of head coaches) .
Only a theist can definitely say it is wrong to run the ball on 4th and 20, as for them, there are objective football plays, not just subjective opinions.
I find it ironic that you would chastise Dawkins for not knowing enough about natural theology to adequately rebut it, and yet you repeat the canard that non-theists cannot espouse moral positions because they have no objective basis on which to make their determinations. You appear to have not studied, nor understand, a fairly simple and common explanation of what objective morality would look like for a non-theist.
Your ignorance would be excusable, except that you chastise others of the same behavior you yourself evince. This makes you appear hypocritical, and that is less excusable.
B.Prokop: "... And, as I demonstrated on the previous thread, he doesn't really give a damn about the ancient Canaanites. No, he's playing to his base: the coterie of like-minded people who get a charge out of looking down on everyone less "enlightened" than they view themselves ..."
Basil's Car ... and Justice
B.Prokop: "... And, as I demonstrated on the previous thread, he doesn't really give a damn about the ancient Canaanites. No, he's playing to his base: the coterie of like-minded people who get a charge out of looking down on everyone less "enlightened" than they view themselves ..."
Thrasymachus: "So has Dawkins actually committed himself to moral subjectivism?"
Yes ... and to worse ...
Stagnato: "This doesn't follow at all. He may have a different view of moral truth/falsity, one not based on God's decrees or God's nature or some third realm, but that doesn't make him a subjectivist. It doesn't commit him to the claim that there is no true/false."
Basil's Car ... and Justice
"I agree with you completely Bob accept I would have said MSNBC Newscaster. A Fox Newscaster has a lot of credibility?;-)"
Or, at any rate, cleavage.
@Tony
>I find it ironic that you would chastise Dawkins for not knowing enough about natural theology to adequately rebut it,
Tony he is chastised for his ignorance in philosophy if anything else. Atheist Philosophers like Mary Migley have said so and other like Thomas Nagel have said so.
>and yet you repeat the canard that non-theists cannot espouse moral positions because they have no objective basis on which to make their determinations.
That is a philosophical argument and even Atheist philosophers like Alex Rosenberg(& a host of others) have come to the same conclusions & stated atheists should be nihilists(though nice ones).
>You appear to have not studied, nor understand, a fairly simple and common explanation of what objective morality would look like for a non-theist.
That you seem to assume Sam Harris is the sole Atheist moral philosopher in the world shows your own lack of study here chief.
>Your ignorance would be excusable, except that you chastise others of the same behavior you yourself evince. This makes you appear hypocritical, and that is less excusable.
CHUZPAH alert!
Tony the NT has a passage about not taking the stick out of your brother eye while ignoring the log in your own.
Oxford Atheist philosopher Daniel Came is obviously not all that impressed with Dawkins. Take it up with him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig
BenYachov said...
That is a philosophical argument and even Atheist philosophers like Alex Rosenberg(& a host of others) have come to the same conclusions & stated atheists should be nihilists(though nice ones).
A host of other atheist philosophers have come to the opposite conclusion, and some to conclusions in between. Check out Camels with Hammers sometime.
That you seem to assume Sam Harris is the sole Atheist moral philosopher in the world shows your own lack of study here chief.
Your assumption that Sam Harris is unusual in holding for objective morals is the one that shows a lack of study.
OneBrow, -- you are correct, and thanks. I could have mentioned the same and other problems in basically every assertion of sweet Ben's, but I've found time is better served not responding to the whirligig of nonsense that fills those comments.
Ben, I think you should start your own blog; I think that the engagement you engender would be a good way for you to more objectively measure the value of your commentary.
Ah, well. There are always other places to find people interested in discussions and arguments. Cheers.
@One Brow
>A host of other atheist philosophers have come to the opposite conclusion, and some to conclusions in between. Check out Camels with Hammers sometime.
Why would I deny this? It is Tony who says"you repeat the canard that non-theists cannot espouse moral positions because they have no objective basis" thus implying there is a cookie cutter view for Atheism on objective morality.
I know there is a diversity of opinion among Atheists even as I know there is among theists.
But does Tony know it? Because his statement doesn't indicate that.
>Your assumption that Sam Harris is unusual in holding for objective morals is the one that shows a lack of study.
I didn't say that nor do I think that. But since Harris is the most popular these days (claiming science can give an objective morality) it was a valid assumption that is where Tony is getting his narrow view that Atheists as a whole believe in objective morality.
>Ben, I think you should start your own blog; I think that the engagement you engender would be a good way for you to more objectively measure the value of your commentary.
Tony you are not the first to suggest that but I am a combox groupie.
To paraphrase Conan the Barbarian "I eat! I love! I slay/argue/criticize! and I am content!".
Cheers.
Victor Reppert said:
To hear Dawkins' talk, it sounds as if he's refusing to debate Craig because he holds an evil position, on killing the Canaanites.
Roger replies:
This morning, in a video, I found 13 seconds with Dawkins that might be relevant.
From 08:27 to 08:39 at
freemanhunt.blogspot.com/2011/10/want-backstory-to-dawkins-refuses-to.html
Dawkins: What about infanticide. Emm. Morally I, strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all, I would be in favour of infanticide.
Post a Comment