Tag Archives: william lane craig

More on William Lane Craig’s Morality

In the comments section of my last post on this topic, it was highlighted to me by Prayson Daniel that I may not have exactly presented Craig’s case accurately. Though I feel that many of the points I made were valid against his argument, I figured I would redo my rebuttal it, and some his others in a new post quoting only his words. I shall provide links for all quotations so that you can see the context. So here goes, I shall dive in:

 

This is Craig’s moral argument in his words:

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

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument#ixzz2JP8r21DE

 

Let us begin with premise one; “if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist”. Lets see what he offers in support of this:

Consider first the question of objective moral values. If God does not exist, then what basis remains for the existence of objective moral values? In particular, why think that human beings would have objective moral worth? On the atheistic view human beings are just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On atheism it’s hard to see any reason to think that human well-being is objectively good, anymore than insect well-being or rat well-being or hyena well-being. This is what Dr. Harris calls “The Value Problem”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris#ixzz2JPCFI1EF

and

On a naturalistic view moral values are just the behavioral byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousins homo sapiens have evolved a sort of herd morality for precisely the same reasons. As a result of socio-biological pressures there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of herd morality which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on the atheistic view there doesn’t seem to be anything that makes this morality objectively binding and true.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris#ixzz2JPCgyOgm

 

I essentially agree with this point. On naturalism there is no independent, timeless, objective system of ethics that exists outside of our own consciousness. This does not mean that a rational account for morality cannot be advanced. Science has shown us that there is a neurological basis for empathy – we are literally hard-wired for compassion. Let me explain; when you observe a person drowning and crying out for help, there will be a certain set of neurons that fire to coordinate their movements and actions as the person struggles in the water. As you observe this a certain subset of those same neurons fire as though your brain were mirroring what that person were going through – hence the name of these brain cells: Mirror neurons.

 

During the course of our evolution, our brains grew larger and we developed a much more complex system of mirror neurons. This would provide an advantage because it allows us to imitate the actions of others, and would play a vital role in the development of tool use. It has also give our brains an intrinsic connection between our own minds and those of others. When we see someone suffering we can literally put ourselves in their shoes through the “mirroring” of their actions in our brains. Similarly when we someone overjoyed or relieved, we share this experience with them. It is in our nature to be empathetic, as neurologist V.S. Ramachandran states:

 

Within some of these regions [of the brain], there is a special class of nerve cells called mirror neurons. These neurons fire not only when you perform an action, but also when you watch someone else perform the same action. This sounds so simple that its huge implications are easy to miss. What these cells do is effectively allow you to empathise with the other person and “read” her intentions—figure out what she is really up to. You this by running a simulation of her using your own body image.

 

When you watch someone else reach for a glass of water, for example, your mirror neurons automatically simulate the same action in your (usually subconscious) imagination. Your mirror neurons will often go a step further and have you perform the action they anticipate the other person is about to take—say, to lift the water to her lips and take a drink. Thus you automatically form an assumption about her intentions and motivations—in this case, that she is thirsty and is taking steps to quench her thirst. Now, you could be wrong in this assumption—she might intend to use the water to douse a fire or to fling in the face of a boorish suitor—but usually your mirror neurons are reasonably accurate guessers of others’ intentions. As such, they are the closest thing to telepathy that nature was able to endow us with.”

The Tell-Tale Brain page 22

 

Thus we have good grounds to believe that it is in our nature to be empathetic and compassionate. We see a person drowning and we want to help them because we can visualise ourselves in that position. Thus, though there may not be a law of the universe that states ‘we should be good’ it is an intrinsic part of our consciousness to be kind, and that is one perfectly adequate reason to be good – its in our nature!

 

I am willing to grant Craig his assertion that on naturalism there is no truly objective grounding for morality, however I do think there are issues with Craig’s unstated assumption that God is the source of objective morality. I shall return to the dilemma I highlighted in my previous post on this topic. Here is the problem:

 

1. If something is good because God commands it then this is a subjective basis for morality

2. If God commands something because it is already good then objective moral values exist independent of God

3. Therefore God cannot be the source of objective morality and Craig’s first premise is false

 

Lets take an example of Biblical morality, perhaps the most obvious; “Thou shall not kill”. If this is an objective indictment then there would be no context in which killing is permissible. Yet we have another passage from the Bible (this is not an isolated instance either):

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.”

(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

 

How can God’s commands be an objective basis for morality when in one instance he states; do not kill anyone, and in another he states; go out and kill? If killing is both okay and not okay in separate instances then it is not objectively wrong. It is determined by the subjective whims of God.

 

Prayson brought up the following point of contention with this in the comments to my previous post:

 

“[A] common reply offered in this literature is that objective moral values and duties base on God’s own nature. Plato called it The Good. Thus it cannot exist independent of God because God is The Good, they contended.

So what God commands reflects his nature. It is for that reason that he cannot command something against his nature.”

 

This does nothing to solve the confusion of the above dilemma. If God’s commands reflect his nature, then his nature must require that killing is both okay and not okay – his nature, according to scripture and this reasoning, is contradictory. So we still cannot arrive at the objective decision “killing is wrong” via this line of reasoning.

 

In conclusion, Craig’s first premise is flawed because an objective grounding morality requires that moral injunctions such as those against killing be true in all instances, yet this is contradicted by instances in scripture in which God endorses and encourages killing. Neither the divine command theory or the argument about God’s nature escapes this dilemma.

 

Let’s turn to premise 2: “Objective moral values and duties do exist.” And see what he offers in support of this assertion:

 

But the problem is that objective moral values and duties plausibly do exist. In moral experience we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior—they’re moral abominations. Some things, at least, are really wrong. Michael Ruse himself admits, “The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.”2 Some things, at least, are really wrong.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university#ixzz2JPerUoXk

 

The problem of this is that he does not provide any real reason to accept that we are actually apprehending a realm of moral values and duties that are an objective reality. He merely states that there is no reason to deny it. Yet there are reasons to deny it.

 

As I highlighted earlier in this post there are neurological groundings for empathy and compassion – we undoubtedly experience feelings of guilt and conscience. But this does not necessarily represent a realm that objectively exists outside of our consciousness. I explained that there are good evolutionary reasons for why we feel empathy and compassion.

 

Other morally guiding emotions such as shame and guilt, have equally sound evolutionary explanations. A short example of this would be, we may have evolved guilt and remorse as a defence against habitually dangerous behaviour – for example; adultery – the more our ancestors committed adultery the higher the frequency of getting caught and injured or killed. The unpleasant emotions of remorse and guilt prevent us from putting our lives at risk from “pissing too many people off” as it were. Likewise, friendship, cooperation etc. are advantageous, those who cooperate can survive much more efficiently than those who are constantly fighting with each other. There are many good naturalistic explanations for our moral experience that do not require the existence of moral principles that exist beyond the functioning of our brains.

 

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that most normal human beings experience what can be described as a ‘moral realm’ – however there is no reason to assume that this realm exists external to our consciousness. It is a part of who we are as a species, but it does not necessitate the existence of objective moral principles that exist in anything other than the internal realm of our experience.

 

Despite his assertion that there is ‘no good reason’ to deny the existence of an objective moral realm – I have shown that there are good reasons to. He offers nothing else in support of his argument. What Craig really needs to do is show us why there are no good reasons to deny his assertion, until he does so, I shall consider his point refuted.

 

Thus his conclusion “God exists” is not shown to be true due to the flaws in both of his premises that I’ve highlighted.

 

I hope this provides a more accurate and in depth analysis of his argument. Feel free to discuss in the comments below.

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Religion

William Lane Craig and his nonsense ethics

Christian apologist William Lane Craig, author of Reasonable Faith (the irony of this title will soon become apparent) argues that if objective moral values exist then God must also exist. Objective moral values do exist, he asserts, therefore God exists. One might be forgiven for thinking that someone with a Ph.D. In philosophy would be able to formulate a cohesive argument in favour of his assertion that objective moral values do indeed exist. One would be mistaken however. His reasoning is as follows; “objective moral values do exist and deep down we all know it.” This is an utterly asinine philosophical argument that is almost too embarrassing to dignify with a refutation. Nonetheless I shall endeavour to persist.

His argument can, without parody, be translated thus; I have a gut feeling that something is wrong therefore it must be objectively wrong. But there are lots of things that human beings have strong aversions to; consider eating rotten meat for example. Most of us would wretch if we were presented with a platter of semi-decomposed carrion. Our strong abhorrence, or gut feeling that rancid flesh should not be consumed does not mean that it is objectively wrong to do so. There is no universal law that prohibits such an act – plenty of organisms do feed off fetid meat. Humans however, have evolved an innate sense of disgust in response to it as a defence against the potential diseases that we might contract from consuming it.

Similarly, our conscience doesn’t necessitate the existence of a universal code of ethics. It merely necessitates that we have evolved a defence against certain destructive modes of behaviour. If you imagine there are two populations; one in which the people have no qualms about murder, theft and other such detrimental behaviour, and another in which the people have a fully developed conscience that prevents them from committing such actions. It is easy to see how the first population would fail to prosper. Their socially destructive behaviour would prevent the necessary cohesion that is required to persist as a population with for any great length of time. The second population on the other hand would cooperate and trust one another with ease, their society and institutions would flourish and they would have the means to deal with the challenges that face any culture. Whilst the first population are too busy squabbling and killing each other to solve even the simple challenge of making sure everyone gets fed, the second population could gain the strength and resources necessary to form armies and conquer the first population with ease – thus eliminating them, and their destructive habits. It is clear to see why having an aversion towards certain behaviours is an advantage in evolutionary terms, without appealing to the existence of objective values.

 

In order to move on however, I shall be unusually generous and put all that aside. Lets assume for the moment that there is some substance to Craig’s claim that objective moral values do exist. Does it follow from this that God exists?
Craig’s reasoning is predicated upon the assumption that only God could provide the grounding for objective morality. If one subscribes to the ‘divine command theory’ – which states that an act is either good or evil depending on whether God commands it or prohibits it – then there are some problems with this assumption. If we take an act generally considered to be immoral, such as killing a child, for example. Is killing a child wrong because God prohibits it, or does God prohibit killing children because it is intrinsically wrong?

If God prohibits killing a child because it is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong regardless of whether or not God exists – and thus objective moral values do not necessitate that God exists. If something is right simply because God commands it, and wrong simply because God prohibits it then anything can become right or wrong based upon the whim of God. Thus if God commands a person murder a child (a problem which is amplified by the fact that God does command exactly this in the Bible) then this would be the right thing to do by definition. This renders morality completely subjective, and arbitrary.

Some will respond to this problem by stating that goodness is derived from God’s nature. However this creates a very similar dilemma. Is helping a suffering individual good because it is in God’s nature, or is helping a suffering individual in God’s nature because it is already intrinsically good? The latter option again removes the necessity of God, and the former can be refuted with an example from the Bible. Consider Jeremiah 19 verse 9: “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters”. Here God is causing people to cannibalise their own children – thus we can consider it to be in God’s nature to induce others to eat their own progeny, and as such we can conclude that doing so is good. If one protests that causing people to eat their own offspring is morally wicked then they are either appealing to a moral standard that is beyond the nature of God, or they are saying that God is capable of acting against his own nature. But if it is in God’s nature to be capable of acting against his own nature then the whole argument is rendered meaningless.

Either objective moral values do exist, but God is superfluous – which is contradictory to Craig’s argument. Or objective moral values do not exist, and morality is down to the subjective and arbitrary whims of God – which again, contradicts the original assertion that objective moral values do exist. Craig’s moral argument falls flat on its face.

William Lane Craig doesn’t stop his ethical embarrassment here by any means. In his debate with Arif Ahmed, he openly declared that: “The premise that pointless suffering exists, or gratuitous evil exists is extremely controversial. We are simply not in the position to make these kinds of inductive probability judgements”. What does he mean by this? He appears to be casting doubt on the existence of gratuitous evil, in other words, evil that is without reason, cause or justification. So, if we accept the implications of this, then we must accept that all evil and suffering exists to serve some kind of purpose. What might that purpose be? Well, God’s purpose of course, as Craig states on his website reasonablefaith.org:

“God may well have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. We all know cases in which we permit suffering because we have morally sufficient reasons for doing so. What Law would have to prove is that it’s improbable that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. But how could he possibly prove that? God’s justifying reasons might never appear in our lifetime or locale or even in this life. Suppose, for example, that God’s purpose for human life is not happiness in this life but the knowledge of God, which is an incommensurable good. It may be the case, for all we know, that only in a world suffused with natural and moral evil would the maximum number of people freely come to know God and find eternal life.”

So, if evil exists to serve a purpose, and that purpose is God’s supreme plan – which is ultimately good (unless you want to concede that God is evil), then it follows logically that all evil is ultimately good. Such a perfect way to commit moral suicide! Although to be fair on Craig, he doesn’t assert that gratuitous evil definitely does not exist. However, his doubtful stance does completely undermine his ability to make any moral judgements whatsoever. If, for example, the torture of a small child for fun cannot definitely be said to be gratuitously evil, and that it might be a part of God’s ultimately good plan, then there is no way to say for definite whether such an act is ultimately good or evil. Thus contrary to his laughably inane assertion that we can just know that something is right or wrong, Craig’s own position actually undermines his ability to make moral judgements.

 

From Craig’s asinine argument from objective morality, to the absurd conclusions that follow inevitably from his scepticism over the existence of gratuitous evil, it is evident that his theological beliefs do nothing to advance any real ethical philosophy. That is not to say that William Lane Craig, is himself devoid of coherent ethics, however I think it is safe to say that they stem from somewhere other than the whims of a supernatural law-giver.

11 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Random

William Lane Craig Argues Himself Into A Corner

In solution to the problem of evil Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig often retort that God may well have good reasons for permitting evil and suffering in the world. On his website William Lane Craig states:

God may well have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. We all know cases in which we permit suffering because we have morally sufficient reasons for doing so. What Law would have to prove is that it’s improbable that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering in the world. But how could he possibly prove that? God’s justifying reasons might never appear in our lifetime or locale or even in this life. Suppose, for example, that God’s purpose for human life is not happiness in this life but the knowledge of God, which is an incommensurable good. It may be the case, for all we know, that only in a world suffused with natural and moral evil would the maximum number of people freely come to know God and find eternal life.

(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9162)

So in essence suffering and evil may well be permitted for the ‘greater good’ and we simply are not in any position to know why it is permitted. Craig goes further in his debate with Arif Ahmed and states:

“The premise that pointless suffering exists, or gratuitous evil exists is extremely controversial. We are simply not in the position to make these kinds of inductive probability judgements”

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NF-LlVFHM)

So here Craig is saying that pointless suffering and gratuitous evil might not exist. If this is true then no act of evil would be ‘ without apparent reason, cause, or justification’ and we can thus conclude that all evil is acted out for a reason, has a cause and a justification. One can assume that Craig’s doubts over the existence of gratuitous evil and pointless suffering tie in with his notion that God permits suffering for the greater good. So the reason and justification for evil is because it is part of God’s plan for the greater good.

Here’s Craig’s argument taken to it’s logical conclusion:

1. Gratuitous evil and pointless suffering might not exist because if God has a plan for the ‘greater good’ then no evil is gratuitous and no suffering is pointless.

2. If this is true no act of evil is truly evil because it is ultimately for the greater good.

Therefore

3. Because of 1 & 2 we have absolutely no way of knowing if an evil act was truly evil or whether it was actually contributing to the greater good.

It follows logically from this that despite Craig’s frequent assertion that ‘we just know some actions are objectively wrong’ – here he asserts that we have absolutely no way of making such a judgement because for all we know there is no gratuitous evil – and therefore the reason for it is ultimately good (according to Craig’s views). Craig has argued himself into the corner that Christian apologists often try to back atheists into.

Craig cannot say whether the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany was evil because if gratuitous evil does not exist, then this must have happened for a reason, and that reason according to Craig is to fulfil God’s ultimately good plan. Therefore we cannot classify this act as evil, because it may have actually been for the greater good (I apologise for breaking Godwin’s law here, however I’m sure you can forgive me).

In his attempt to escape the problem of evil, Craig has put himself in a position where he can make no moral judgements whatsoever (which runs contrary to his “argument” for objective moral values in which he states that we all ‘just know’ the difference between good and evil). Well done Bill!

9 Comments

Filed under Religion

Killing the Kalam Cosmological Argument

1.  In order for the Kalam Cosmological argument to be valid, it must deny that the universe has an eternal cause. If it does not deny this then the argument can be refuted by positing that the universe was caused by an event in a prior eternal, or timeless state. There is no evidential reason to make this assumption therefore it must be assumed as a logical impossibility.

 

2. In order for the Kalam Cosmological argument to be valid, it must assume that something springing into existence from nothing without cause is logically impossible. If this assumption is not made then the argument fails because it could simply be refuted by positing a universe which sprang into existence from nothing without cause.

 

3. In order for these assumptions to be consistent then God can neither be eternal, nor have sprung into existence from nothing without cause. If these assumptions can be invalidated in the special case of God then there is no reason why the opponent cannot claim that the assumptions are invalid for the universe.

 

4. The Kalam Cosmological argument is invalid if it doesn’t assume point’s 1 & 2, but it is invalid if it does assume them. Therefore it fails on it’s own terms.

 

Try harder next time…

32 Comments

Filed under Philosophy, Religion

Why You’ll Never Get Through To An Apologist

“You’re right, I was mistaken in saying that” or “you have a good point there” aren’t phrases you’ll often hear from a religious apologist. It can be frustrating in a debate when none of your points seem to get across. Why is this? I shall examine some of the reasons why you’ll never get through to an apologist.

 

1. Relentless Bias

In order to get someone to change their mind, they have to actually be open to changing it. One of the most revered apologists out there William Lane Craig demonstrates closed mindedness in it’s extreme very well:

Mark Smith (of http://www.jcnot4me.com) set up the following scenario for Craig: “Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection–Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb”

 

Smith asked Craig, given this scenario, if he would then give up Christianity, having seen with his own two eyes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Smith wrote “His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected. He told me face to face that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the ‘holy spirit’ within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus’ tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.” If anyone doubts what Craig said in response, Mark challenges him or her to ask him the same question [1]

Craig admits that there is nothing you could ever do to get him to change his mind. Even if you did build a time machine, and show him that Jesus did not rise from the dead! I agree with Smith when he states that this level of closed-mindedness is astounding. Here you have a man who enters into debates, without a hint of open mindedness. He freely admits that you could do nothing to change his mind.

 

This kind of closed mindedness, a complete unwillingness to concede that their position might be wrong, no matter what you might show them is the first major reason why you’ll never get through to an apologist.

 

2. The ‘I Can’t Claim To Know The Mind of God’ Card

This is the ultimate get out clause for the apologist. When faced with a tough question or challenge they will respond by saying ‘I can’t claim to know the mind of God’ or words to that effect. Again Craig provides a nice example of this on his website:

So when people ask, “Why doesn’t God just remove all the suffering from the world?”, they really have no idea what they’re asking for or what the consequences might be. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could send a ripple effect through history so that God’s reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another country. Only an omniscient mind could grasp the complexities of directing a world of free persons toward one’s pre-visioned goals. You have only to think of the innumerable, incalculable contingencies involved in arriving at a single historical event, say, the Allied victory at D-day, in order to appreciate the point. We have no idea of the natural and moral evils that might be involved in order for God to arrange the circumstances and free agents in them necessary for some intended purpose, nor can we discern what reasons God might have in mind for permitting some instance of suffering to enter our lives. But He will have good reasons in light of the purposes of His Kingdom. [2]

What Craig is essentially saying here is we can’t possibly comprehend the mind of God, or the plan that he has in store for us. This absolves him of the duty of explaining the problem of suffering. He can just say ‘I don’t understand why God allows it, only God understands that’ and can dodge the bullet conveniently.

 

The problem with this is that the apologist only plays this card when necessary. They have no problem understanding the mind of God when it comes to most aspects of their theology, such as the nature of God (‘God is loving’ etc) the fact that God is the God of the Bible, that God is a ‘he’ and so on. Clearly the apologist makes claims to understand the nature of God when it suits them, and when it doesn’t they will dodge the issue by claiming ignorance.

 

3. The ‘Reductionist’ Card

If I was to provide compelling evidence to show that, for example, religious experiences originate in the brain, an apologist would immediately dismiss this as being ‘reductionist’. In their eyes I would necessarily be leaving out a key ingredient in the process (namely God) – so they would never accept such explanations no matter how compelling. The thing is, such explanations are not reductionist, unless you can show that there is something that they are leaving out. If I was to argue that tea had a special magic ingredient, I couldn’t call you a ‘reductionist’ for explaining it as being simply dried out tea leaves and hot water. It’s up to me to show that there really is a magic ingredient before I start accusing you of missing something out.
Similarly, if I explain religious experience, and how it originates in the brain – you can’t go calling it reductionist until you show me that I am actually missing something out of the explanation.

 

4. Shifting the Burden of Proof

If I was to say that there was a magic ingredient in tea, would I be justified in challenging someone to prove that there isn’t? No. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Similarly if you claim that God exists – the burden of proof is resolutely on you. I do not have to prove that God does not exist. The amount of times I have seen people trying to shift the burden of proof is astonishing.

 

5. Personal Experience Trumps All

This is related to the first section of the article. Perhaps the most common apologist tactic is to appeal to personal experience ‘I just know God exists, and nothing you could show me could change that.’ – The thing is personal experience is completely unreliable, and should not form the basis of belief at all. Plenty of people have convincing personal experiences of voices telling them to do things, and other such delusions.

 

A short walk through the ward at a mental hospital will show you with great clarity that personal experience is not reliable. This does not stop the apologist from relying upon it in discussions however. Craig calls it the ‘Self-Authenticating Witness of the Holy Spirit’ and it’s his ultimate trump card. You could demolish all of William Lane Craig’s arguments and even take him back in a time machine and he would always find ways to wriggle out of admitting he’s wrong because he knows he’s right.

 

Apologists are masters of the art of keeping the doors in their mind’s firmly closed, using the tactics mentioned in this article and others  to refrain from ever admitting defeat, or even the possibility of being wrong. The religious apologist is merely an apologist for their own closed mindedness and bias.

—————–

[1] Loftus, John W. – Why I Became An Atheist page 214

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5949

5 Comments

Filed under Religion

William Lane Craig and His Probability Nonsense

The odds against William Lane Craig ever being born are so astronomically high, that it cannot possibly ever have happened. There are around 300,000,000 sperm in every ejaculation – the odds that the particular sperm that resulted in Bill one the race are 1 in 300 million, but it doesn’t stop there, what are the odds that his parents would have met each other (and that both his grand father’s sperm would have resulted in his mother and father, again that’s 1 in 300 million)? And their parents before that, and so on all the way back to the dawn of life on this planet. The existence of William Lane Craig requires so many vastly improbable things to occur that the odds against it are astronomical, therefore we can conclude that William Lane Craig cannot ever have come into existence.

This is of course all nonsense. Bill does exist, and you’re quite right not to be impressed with my argument against his existence. The odds of his existence aren’t astronomical, they are precisely 1 to 1. You can construct a silly probability argument like that against lots of things that did actually happen like a particular stone being in a particular place in your driveway, or something equally stupid, but the truth is they all have a probability of precisely 1 in 1. William Lane Craig does the exact same thing when he makes the fine tuning argument. The odds that constants of the universe are such that they permit intelligent life are precisely 1 in 1, they are not astronomically small as Craig would have you believe. When we have a sample size of only one universe, this probability could not be anything other than 1 in 1. We do not even know whether the constants can be altered – without more than one universe to compare this is a completely unfounded assumption.

Probabilities are meaningless when assigned to events that already happened, they can only be used to predict the likelihood of future events. Craig is either completely ignorant of probability or, he is deliberately dishonest with it, in order to deceive people. He is simply using a trick, but as I demonstrated I can use the same trick to make his existence seem astronomically unlikely.

26 Comments

Filed under Critical Thinking, Religion

William Lane Craig’s 5 Arguments Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

William Lane Craig is perhaps the most popular Christian apologist out there. In almost every debate I have seen of his, he begins with the same 5 arguments for the existence of God. I thought I would give a series of 5 articles addressing each one of these arguments in turn, starting with the Kalam Cosmological argument.

 

The argument goes something like this:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
5. God exists. [1]

 

There are a number of problems with the first premise alone. Nothing truly has ‘a beginning of it’s existence’ it is simply a recycling of matter in a different form, yes there are certain things that cause matter to take on a different form such as chemical reactions or nuclear fusion etc, but the only real ‘beginning of existence’ was the beginning universe itself – which created all the matter that recycles itself into different forms according to different causes. We do not currently know what, if anything caused the big bang to happen. So if nothing that we can observe actually begins to exist, it is merely the recycling of existing materials, the only beginning of existence is the beginning of the universe itself – which we simply do not know the cause of, or even if the beginning of the universe required a cause in the same way that existing matter requires a cause in order for it to take on a different form.

 

In fact the only thing that we can observe that begins to exist, rather than being a recycling of existing matter is virtual particles, and these appear spontaneously without cause [2] – this is in direct contradiction to the assertion of the first premise. In short, there is absolutely no reason to grant the first premise of this argument; matter can be caused to take on different forms – but this is very different from beginning to exist, and our observations of things that do begin to exist contradict the assertion that they require a cause.

 

The second premise is also problematic. The universe as we know it began with the big bang, but this is not to say that it did not begin from some prior state of existence. However, even if it did begin to exist, I have shown that the first premise is faulty; things that begin to exist do not necessarily require a cause, so even if we grant the second premise the conclusion does not follow from the second premise alone.

 

The forth premise, that the universe had to have been caused by God is a completely unfounded assertion. If we assume that the universe had a cause for it’s existence, it does not necessarily have to be God. M-Theory provides a cause for the big bang that is not God, rather a collision between membranes [3] – although M-theory is currently not supported by any evidence (it predicts some known facts about the universe though), it is an example of a theoretically sound explanation for the cause of the big bang that is not necessarily God, demonstrating that the fourth premise is merely an assertion that is unsupported and does not follow even if we grant all the premises in the argument so far.

 

This argument simply does not prove God’s existence no matter how confidently Craig asserts that it does. The Kalam cosmological argument is not a good argument.

 

——–

1. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

2. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

19 Comments

Filed under Religion