stryder2112

I don't know if this is the right or best forum for this, but here it goes. Last night, the well-known Christian apologist William Lane Craig spoke at Purdue University on the problem of evil. Well actually, it was mostly a warmed-over rehash of his opening statement in his <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html" target="_blank">Does God Exist?</a> debates.

Craig's basic argument was this: The simple possibility that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil gives a crack in the classical formulation of the problem of evil.

1 God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.

2 Evil exists

3 Therefore God does not exist

With that single statement, Craig launched into, IMHO, a bizarre argument to improve the "probability" that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow what appears to us to be evil.

Craig gave a somewhat incoherent explanation of Chaos theory. His unstated point was that Chaos theory is a justification for accepting "God works in mysterious ways" since we cannot perfectly predict the future due to the chaotic effects of small perturbations. Therefore God more probably has morally sufficient motives for the appearant evil in the world since these small evils (small perturbations) generate greater goods that we mere mortals cannot predict

The next section of the talk was simply the most bizarre thing I've heard. He argued that Christian doctrines make the probability that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist much higher.

His argument was that knowledge of God is the ultimate good because knowledge of God is a ticket to eternal bliss, which outweighs any possible suffering in this life. Furthermore, God is justified in allowing suffering in this life since suffering causes us to have greater dependency on God thereby increasing the possibility that we will come to know God. That is so unbelievably laughable. I hereby declare this argument the <a href="http://www.shpm.com/articles/parenting/hsmun.html" target="_blank">Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy</a> solution to the problem of evil.

The rest of Craig's talk was his opening comments, verbatim, from his "Existence of God" debate: Cosmological argument using Big Bang, Anthropic Principle/Fine Tuning Argument, etc.

In the Q&A after the talk, someone asked about the genocide of the Canaanites in the Old Testament. Craig's answer was surprising. He stated that the genocide was morally justified because God commanded it. We must assume that God had morally sufficient reasons for the command. Craig then gave some possibilities for morally sufficient reasons that centered around the Canaanites moral depravity that would "infect" the Israelites, but in the end God can do whatever he wants with His creation and we have no right to question His motives. I guess we now know how Craig answers Euthyphro's dilemma.

Stryder

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 'cause I can't spell]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 ]</p>

James AD

That is exactly what makes religion extremely dangerous. The belief in an afterlife coupled with the idea that the "corrupting" influence of outsiders can cause one to loose it, is a formula for trouble.

Toto

I had heard many infidels speak in awe of Craig's debating prowess, but when I heard him I was less than impressed. He speaks fluently, and I think his purpose is to show that you can be a Christian and not be a white trash, tongues-speaking, holy-rolling hillbilly.

But when you look at his arguments, it's like listening to a lawyer argue that eyewitness testimony against his client should be thrown out because it destroys the accused's presumption of innocence.

I think some debaters (like Luedemann) are just too polite too point out how bizarre his arguments are.

stryder2112

I agree. He is a very fluent speaker and he has his patter down to a T just like any good magician. I definitely wasn't impressed with his arguments, though.

I agree. I listened to some of the past Craig debates to get an idea of what I was in store for last night. I could hardly believe the responses from his opponents. I almost shouted at the screen when they didn't just rip his idiotic arguments to pieces.

The surprising thing about last night was Craig's honesty in his purpose since this wasn't a formal debate. In past debates he has been very careful to limit the claims he makes in order to limit the ability of his opponent to take him to task. Last night, especially in the Q&A session, he let the more extreme and bizarre aspects of his arguments come shining through.

For example - in response to a question about salvation, he stated you would go to hell for eternal torture if you don't "accept Jesus as your Lord and savior," including people who never had the possibility of hearing the gospel unless they see the truth of the Christian claims that are written in nature. He was quick to point out that salvation in this way almost never happens, just that it is possible - which gets around the problem of evil. He then plugged his essay on the subject on his web page. I read it. In the essay he goes even farther by suggesting that God knows in advance that many people will reject the gospel and thus makes sure that those people are the ones that never have a possibility of hearing the gospel since they'd just reject it anyway.

Stryder

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 ]</p>

PompousBastard

Ugh.

Therefore God more probably has morally sufficient motives for the appearant evil in the world since these small evils (small perturbations) generate greater goods that we mere mortals cannot predict.

Standard theodicy. God allows/causes evil in order to facilitate a greater good. Let's ignore the fact that an omnipotent being could bring about that good without resorting to convoluted plans involving lesser evils. This argument would never get off the ground in a sane world.

Pompous Bastard

Bill

No argument in favor of Christianity would ever get off the ground in a sane world. That's the insanity of the situation in which we now find ourselves....

== Bill

Toto

Check out Helen's take on Craig in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=000188" target="_blank">this thread</a>. (scroll down half way.)

Bill Snedden

It seems to me that the inescapable conclusion of all these types of convoluted theodicies is that God's personal "moral system" is utilitarian in nature (to bring about the greatest "good" to the greatest number).

Ironically, it also seems to me that orthodox Christianity requires a deontological moral system and that orthodox Christians must therefore reject utility as a basis for a moral system.

If utility is not a proper basis for a moral system, why is it apparently acceptable for God to use it as one?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Photocrat

Well, wouldn't that mean you'd have to accuse God of sin? :] Then we can have lots of fun with how one defines 'sin' and such... but I'm not up for it right now. Besides, that debate usually consists of quoting all the annotations in the Skeptics Annotated Bible & then having fun with the interpretation of all 10 commandments [the favorite seems to be how do you jive the commandment against murder with the capital punishment required for committing it]

Basically, I really think they use utilitarian ethics because they assume that the people they're trying to convince agree with such ethics; hence the case can be made as a hypothetical [e.g. assuming X, we can still show Y to be true]

PompousBastard

Bill Snedden,

If utility is not a proper basis for a moral system, why is it apparently acceptable for God to use it as one?

&lt;apologist&gt;

Utility is an acceptable basis for a moral system. Unfortunately, we mere humans do not possess the intellect and the outside-the-bounds-of-time perspective to truly judge utilty, while God does. Therefore, in order to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, God lies...uh...deceives...no...interprets! for us and convinces us to accept a deontological moral system that he has devised for our own good. Paradoxically, we achieve the greatest utility by adhering to a non-utilitarian moral system.

&lt;/apologist&gt;

Much easier than just giving us all the intellect/perspective to know what is good for us...

Plus, it uses a form of the word "paradox," which makes it sound suitably mystical and trans-rational to be believable.

-Pompous Bastard