William Lane Craig Defends the Canaanite Slaughter
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- Check out Shortform and get a free trial and 21% discount at www.shortform.com/oconnor
For early, ad-free access to episodes, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
William Lane Craig is a Christian philosopher and public speaker, who today makes his third appearance on Within Reason. We discuss why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him, and whether Old Testament slaughter can be justified.
- LINKS
Episode 51 with Richard Dawkins: • Religion Is Still Evil...
- TIMESTAMPS
00:00 What Dr Craig Thinks of Richard Dawkins
04:50 What Are Richard Dawkins’ Biggest Pitfalls?
11:19 Will Science Eventually Answer the Mysteries of God?
18:23 Why William Defends the Slaughter of the Canaanites
22:51 The Innocent People & Children of Canaan
32:02 Divine Command Over Objective Morality
44:53 Who Does God Wrong in the Canaanite Slaughter?
49:08 How Can One Know it is Truly a Command of God?
54:39 Is This Slaughter a Genocide or Not?
59:33 If Dr Craig Was a Canaanite
1:04:58 Conclusion
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Check out Shortform and get a free trial and 21% discount at www.shortform.com/oconnor
It's incredibly poor taste to invite William on your show for a long form conversation, and then attack him on a singular position in the title. I'm the opposite of a William Craig apologist, but the way you often hold over on people morally (passive aggressively) is gross. *edit - almost 20 minutes in before you announce the reason you invited William back on the show. The title admittedly reads very differently in that full context. My mistake.
@@kenhiett5266I agree with you, @CosmicSkeptic should change the title quickly.
Dawkins is right.
This man is moral monster.
@@klaxoncowyes I agree with you too. WLC has no right to call himself a philosopher, because he definitely doesn't love knowledge or seek its acquisition.
@@kenhiett5266 Outside of a bit of introduction at the start, it was a singular topic video though. This is 1 hour of William Lane Craig defending the Canaanite Slaughter.
Did you not watch the video?
I am from Afghanistan. I remember Taliban when beheading civilians say
if they are guilty it is just to kill them,
If they are innocent, they should not be worried as they will go to heaven.
That is exactly religion can be evil.
yeah but you understand it's different because craig has the real holy book from the real god
@@warptens5652 Isn't it great we have differnet gods? My, we wouldn't get any killing done at all if it weren't so.
@@andreasvox8068 We certainly would, people kill each other over land, money, power, mere disagreements which escalate, politics etc, more often than not God has nothing to do with it and the times when he does it's just them invoking him as justification, if they were atheist, they'd find something else to justify it.
>this is why religion is evil
Well, Islam is evil and was spread by Prophet Muhammad through brutal conquests, while Jesus’ message was spread through the Roman Empire without violence since his word spoke to the masses.
If you compare the life of Muhammad to the life and teachings of Jesus this is clear to see. Through actual research and reading both holy texts you can see that Allah is like the strawman that Atheists make the Judeo-Christian God out to be.
Also read about Stalin, Mao, the Mongols, current behaviour of the Chinese government, etc. There are endless examples of atheist regimes acting brutally. In a hypothetical universe where everyone followed the teachings of Jesus perfectly you would have absolute tranquility on earth. Read “the sermon on the mount” moral perfection 2000 years ago when it was normal in Roman Empire for people to have literal slaves and the state to enact genocides like at Carthage.
😂
His argument seems to be the highly rationalized version of "God said so."
Which will not help in convincing anyone who is not already a believer.
I thought the same thing. It’s literally “because I said so”. I generally think it’s a bad thing to blindly follow the instructions of any figure of authority without exercising our own best judgment.
Yes. But that is not the point. The point is that because God is good the order he gave to israelites is moraly good , so there is not discrepancy between God being all loving and this comand of killing babies. That is his point
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816 how would you know if the entity who gave that command in the Bible is in fact God? Maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to allow the evil being in the old testament to convince you that he is God.
@@onisimpetrescu4816the only way for that to be the case that I can think of is to define good as what god wants. If you do that I reject your concept of it. Good could just as well be defined as anything satan wants but I doubt defining it that way would convince many christians that Satan is all good.
Really impressed with Alex for keeping a straight face when he hears the whole well kids go to heaven argument
The pro life or pro abortion theories when you read between the lines. Take a pick...Bunch of hypocrites 😢
This guy philosophy makes me 🤢 VOMIT 😢 !!! Now... my cat was there, and israelites killed it... my dog escaped, then came back to eat the dead babies. Hey ! Lot a burials hard work for them ... poor israelites... overall, the whole thing is a bunch of LIES, Historically speaking ... Well.. it's a horrible bedtime story.
He flinches a bit if you look at him very closely in that moment
Is there a problem with that argument?
@@Jk-ow8ny for me it’s just easy to become insensitive, which leads to some contradictions in other issues. For example why should we care about people having abortions since we can assume they will go to heaven. Or why be upset when governments kill large groups of people like the holocaust. The logic can easily get abused
Did he seriously said it was a blessing for the kids to be killed because they went immediately to heaven? Oh wow...
Wow. I don't know where WLC gets this stuff from. I may not be a bible scholar, but I thought there were prerequisites for getting into heaven. The Catholic church didn't think innocent babies went to heaven. That's why they invented Limbo.
He did specify "in my theology". In the scriptures themselves about the commanded genocide of the other canaanites, no where in that section does God say: "don't worry about the child murder, I'm taking those kids to my paradise."
I not certain if at the time of the writing of these stories the theology of humans going to paradise with god was a part of Judaism.
@@ghanson1717 Well, the Catholic church is wrong. There are several passages from David and Moses that give support the idea that babies are gathered up by God when they die.
@@kyleepratt The is absolutely evidence from the Bible that children go to heaven. Go to "Got Questions" and start looking up some of them.
@@ghanson1717 If you don´t believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins, you do not believe in his resurrection you go to hell. Since infants can't make such a decision in Protestantism they go to hell. In the catholic church to Limbo. A strange sense of morality.
When the ad break came in with “do you like reading?” At first I thought he was talking to William Lane Craig in a condescending way lol.
😂
Same, lol
Facts cus I was doing dishes n just listening not watching at that part 😂
Same here hahaha, it was so abrupt I laughed out loud and had to stop doing dishes and look at the screen hahaha
@@Lucas1Apple12 That's wild lmaoo
*"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"* ― Voltaire
What we just watched was the clearest example of Voltaire's quote in action.
Anything - literally anything - can be justified with divine command theory. That fact alone should make you incredibly wary of adopting it as your moral foundation.
Good quote ,,but doesn't make your assumptions right.
It’s not an absurdity it’s actually perfectly consistent
@@ckay_real2765 Can't spell immortal without immoral.
Craig is a shame to mankind
"it's been ... ahh, let's just see what people think about this one" is just gold.
In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder. This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense. I have so many objections it's difficult to even start to respond. I can count 4 off the top of my head; practical, authoritarian, tautological, moral.. If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted. (Edit: You actually got him to bite the bullet on psychosis induced school shooting, I don't know how this man sleeps at night)
*In my 29 years on this earth I've never about-faced so quickly as after hearing William Lane Craig defend child murder.*
So what? Child murder has been defended all the time in living memory and even today in Modernity. There are cRiMeS and then there are crimes. You most likely have no problem the former, despite that in both latter and former cases, child murder takes place.
*This man has logically defended evil and uses his theology as defense.*
There's a lot of things you would probably defend that would contain in them what you consider to be evil. Be consistent.
*If I met such a person that believes what he does, I would be hard pressed to not be disgusted.*
Likewise.
@@thepalegalilean you just made a bunch of assumptions about me and I have no idea what you're talking about. Go argue with someone else online
@@xxdragnxx1
*you just made a bunch of assumptions about me and I have no idea what you're talking about. Go argue with someone else online*
That is correct. Unfortunately, I am forced to make assumptions about you like you have to do the same with me. That's exactly why I use terms like 'most likely' and 'would probably'. I'm aware you may very well disagree with the propositions above. But I did so because I'm trying to present you on a general basis. It's up to you to make these generalizations more catered to your actual positions, should you care to do so.
@@thepalegalilean If you felt like my first comment on this video was a personal attack on you or made assumptions about you, please just move to Canada.
@@xxdragnxx1
I didn't think that at all.
This is 100% what hitchens ment when he said that with god all things are permissible
Well hitchens is wrong, obviously, and he’s been destroyed in every debate against John Lennox about this.
Fundie: What's your basis for *morality* filthy atheist!
Atheist: Secular humanism - wellbeing - survive, thrive - etc.
Fundie: That's subjective!
Atheist: What's yours?
Fundie: gawd said so!
Atheist: *unimpressed*
@@sparrow3026 classic apologetics' logic. 😂😂"it's true because i said so". funny how you folks love claiming yourselves to be objective when your arguments really boil down to "because I (or god) says so". just a bunch of subjectivist pretending to be objectivist accusing others of subjectivity. hypocrites 🙄🙄
"As it was written"
@@GrammeStudio they are the epitome of hypocrisy
“It wasn’t genocide. It was just that the land was to be cleansed.” 🙃
Perfect logic 😂
WLC is the master of word games.
yes, ''ethnic cleansing'', as genocide has been called
You can't corner him. He dictates the flow .
From the river to the sea
Exceptional Moderating Alex! You extracted the details of the discussion and different perspectives efficiently and with grace and compassion to Craig and his views. It really allowed for the discussion and the depth of the logic behind all sides arguments to develop quickly and deeply. Extremely mature and professional of you.
Fantastic interview!
“Driving a people out of their nation on pain of death isn’t genocide no one had to be killed” -low bar bill on why genocide isn’t actually genocide 😂
The Gaza explanation.
yeah: "it was only ethnic cleansing, let's not be rash"
@@RichardCThurstonwhats happening in gaza now isnt genocide it isnt to drive people out for pain of death
@@dizehjvegnomiswhat even is ethnic cleansing and what is difference between that and genocide?
@@lampad4549 Ethnic cleansing is the destruction of a people, using any means. This could be killing, displacement, interbreeding (the non-consensual form that RUclips refused to let me post), sterilization etc.
Genocide is a specific type of ethnic cleansing, that means that one of the predominant means of achieving it is through systematic killing of the unwanted ethnicity.
What is described here is pretty much exact definition of genocide, although WLC argues that the Canaanites were also given the option of ethnic cleansing through displacement.
I think the old man is not even listening to what he is saying, "they didn't have to die" they just had to leave all of their families and belongings and lands and flee because there are some murderers commanded by a fake "god" are coming to exterminate them. What the hell is this guy even thinking
lol, exactly
yeah, after 400 years of being there!? what the crap... whats the waiting about
atheist: "Why did God kill the raping, pedophilic, beastiality practicing, human torturing, human sacrificing, violent community after 400 years, they were good people God is such a meanie"...also atheist, "i believe in the death penalty, if kills someone"
plus, it's all good and moral because the (imaginary) arbiter of goodness and morality commands it.
This is undefendable BS and grotesque as others have pointed out and it drives me mad that Alex isn't as obviously disgusted at this explanation as I am. Some seemingly just have clearer heads.
@@QuintarFarenor I'm sure Alex is disgusted. He has to remain professional.
Fantastic job here Alex
What a fantastic conversation. Thank you, Alex, for being a wonderful interlocutor, and thank you to Dr. Craig for being willing to enter the lion's den. So to speak.
I wish there were more comments like this
The “they were sacrificing their children, so their children needed to be slaughtered” argument.
"We need to save those children from being potentially sacrificed by killing all of them!"
I’m starting to believe their actual problem isn’t the "kids being killed" part but the "in the name of another god" part.
I literally laughed out loud when he used child sacrifice as evidence of immorality.
@@leslieviljoen whoops edited it
Funny cuz doesn’t the Christian god sacrifice his son too 😂
@@Tom-iz5ps
That son came back to life later, so not really...
Good grief, Craig’s defense of divine genocide is as convoluted as it is grotesque.
But God is good so good is whatever God says. I hope the people defending wlc are bots or trolls but i doubt it. Just a bunch of monsters.
@@GameTimeWhy I asked a close member of my family if they.would have done what Abraham nearly did. To his son and they could not give me an answer... So yeah, probably real people
It’s convoluted and grotesque, because you demanded a logical explanation of something alogical by Nature, if you can’t transcend your egoistic urge to demand a logical explanation, you’ll criticize naive theists forever, accept that Unconditional Love, the stuff of Being, and WHO “God” IS, transcends petty “logic”
I will turn my other cheek, and allow you to reincarnate as an atheist as many times as you want, because I love you, but if you get bored of that, I Am Who I Am
@@jacksonelmore6227 Blah blah blah. Mystical word salad to relativize genocide. Won't deceive anyone with more than 2 neurons, mate.
@@GameTimeWhywhat is even a monster? God ends the lives of children every day. Ultimately it boils down to good and evil
I listened to this on the podcast channel. This is your best episode yet Alex. Well done.
I’m amazed by your ability to remain calm in this discussion.
38:17 "So it was actually a tremendous blessing for these children to be killed"
What did i just hear.
When you go so far down the religious rabbit hole that you believe the lunacy you're spewing without second thought.
one would think it's "just a view" but there are mothers who literally did this. one took her son's life so he'd be sent to heaven before he could be corrupted by the world. one must wonder: why are folks who share Craig's belief so against abortion then? it's not for any OBJECTIVE reason. it's only wrong SUBJECTIVE to who's doing the kiIIing.
If I heard that out of context I would've thought it was an interview of a cult member. I'm astonished as to why Alex continues to platform people with ideologies like these
I've been hearing a lot of people trying to justify the killing of children lately.
The "AlL-PoWeRfUl" OT god couldn't find a less PAINFUL way to resolve the situation yknow
The thumbnail with him smiling next to the word “slaughter” is killing me 😂
Alex has so many humorous thoughts that he does 😂
Then why are you participating in modern day slavery, bying cheap clothings, laughing all day, while people somewhere else have to work for pennies to make your cheap stuff? Never thought about that? And yes, literally children die by producing make up.
You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter".
Lovely touch wasn’t it
You are easily amused.
Yikes. This really brings to life the quote: “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg
Hitchens said something similar unless he was quoting Weinberg
So you believe in objective morality then?
@@gqqq5042what do you believe in dumbass
I was hoping Alex would ask William Lane Craig if he regrets leaving Van Halen at their peak to pursue a solo career
He seems to think that driving a people out of their homes is an non-violent thing. This is such naive thinking.
What makes it worse is that the Canaanites didn't receive the same revelation from God as the Israelites. All they knew is that they were being invaded - they couldn't have even thought "well, it's what God wants so we better flee in peace". It was therefore inevitable for them to try to defend themselves (like any normal society). The whole notion that God didn't want them to be slaughtered is just not born out by the circumstances. And if God wanted them to flee in peace, why all this talk about God judging them for being evil? If they actually did flee in peace, then God apparently didn't really care about their evil.
It's not naive at all because he doesn't really think that. He's only claiming it in this case to make his god seem less of a monster. He doesn't even need to do so though because, if something is good because god says so, violence in this case would be good. he can't even be that honest though. He has to pretend that obvious violence isn't actually violence. Talk about denying reality.
@@Jockitoyou make such a good point. WLC looks awful throughout this conversation
Yeah, it is just like what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people today.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’?
And so, we come back to a war of two world views…
1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong)
2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment
And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
You had me at "The real victims were the Israeli Soldiers carrying out the slaughter."
3000 years later and this argument is still being used to justify genocide
Reminds me of Himmler's Posen speech made in 1944.
And yet Craig concluded that even they weren't ultimately wronged either. So no one was wronged - just winners all round.
😂😅
seems defending israeli atrocities has a long long history
I commend WLC for having the courage to reflect publicly on one of the most difficult topics in biblical theology. One important point here is that fear of harming ones own public image can negatively impact ones ability to speak freely, honestly, and openly. WLC does not let such fear limit his free speech, which is commendable. I also very much respect O'Connor for his intelligence, candour, and respectful manner of expressing disagreement.
One thing which Craig intimated, but didn’t spend much time on was how he felt emotionally about the slaughter. He fully acknowledges Dawkins point from his (Dawkins) perspective and fully admits he had a struggle with this when he first learnedly it. As he said, he is arguing this point only in his capacity as a philosopher and does not input his own emotional ideas, which, to his credit, shouldn’t have a place in a philosophical discussion.
I think it’s unfair to assume (which lots seem to do) that because he holds this view, that he doesn’t feel for the innocents.
@@danieljohnstone6284 great point!
So do you agree with his free, honest and open justification of killing children?
@@32shumble not relevant for this thread. Read the original post.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao also never feared the opinions of others, and also "bravely" expounded their belief that they could murder children or anyone else they chose to. If this is your measure of "courage," then please stay far away from me, and I pray that you never get anywhere within a city block of any child.
The way that he smiles and laughs about things like "extermination" is exactly why I understand Dawkins' decision not to platform Craig. He says he approaches these things "dispassionately," but the reality is he is fascinated by the idea that genocide is moral if god commands it.
Exactly. It’s so creepy. He’s so totally disinterested in morality. It doesn’t bother him at all. The only thing that gives him pause is the thought of the poor soldiers doing the slaughter. They are the only people he can think of that might be wronged in this situation. He would have made an ideal Nazi. How can we do this killing without harming too many German psyches?
@@rik80280 Craig is not disinterested in morality?? You haven't even watched the episode if that's your conclusion. Most people in the comments are like solely trying to find a reason to degrade Craig. They are not trying to come to a conclusion.
And your equivalence with Nazi?? Are you equating God's commands with hitler's??
Most people like you will do anything to not believe in the truth of God and I can't help you with that. If someone doesn't want to believe in God then they can be separate from God and God's not gonna force you to be with him.
How do you defend against the idea that Dawkins is in the small minority of people who have refused to debate Craig. Alex said he is his first three time guest. What would explain the reason why Dawkins would refuse to debate him other than coming up with frankly lame excuses. If someone is so confident in their view that another person is wrong and this other person is extremely influential, wouldn’t it be foolish perhaps not to take the opportunity to argue against that person? Heck, he could offer to Craig to debate this VERY topic and we can pretty much guaranty that Craig would accept. Most people (and it seems Alex is included) know that Dawkins reason for rejecting a debate with him is pretty lame.
“Canaanites were so wretched that they sacrificed children to their Gods” and “Israelite soldiers were the victims because their God told them to exterminate thousands of children”
Note that Craig's god demanded a child sacrifice, but in this case is was god, or an avatar of god, but actually the son of god, who is the same as god who is a father. Hmmm, no wonder Craig can spew his evil psycho-bible stuff believing such a twisted idea.
What's ironic is that Yahweh orders the Israelites to "turn the Canaanites over to him" so herem warfare is a form of human sacrifice to Yahweh
@@onedaya_martian1238 do you not comprehend trinitarian belief the son is of the same substance as the father a singular divine essence and how is the self sacrifice of god equal child sacrifice
@@durrangodsgrief6503 What is to comprehend, when a contradiction is presented ?
Saying things like "a father and son are the same but different" makes anything possible. That babble-ing story has the son/god plead to not have to die, but dad/god made the rules...the stupidity in all this goes on and on. For example, how does a god die, especially for three days ??? And "To get to the father, one has to go through the son" makes no sense irr f they are the same but different.
This is completely incoherent...and thinking a rational person is inferior because they actually comprehend this is obvious nonsense, is why religion should be classed as a mental disorder. It leads to thinking the world is flat or 6000 years old or genocide is moral !!(see William Lane Craig explain this to Alex O'Conner on RUclips) That's just dangerous and leads to planes flying into buildings.
"The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary." - 1984
Just finished Craig's section ending at 32:00, and he sounds like an absolute psychopath to me. As long as "god" commands it, it's moral. Literally don't think for yourself, just accept it. Completely insane.
Edit: Holy shit. Not even 10 minutes later, and it actually got so much worse. 😳
Edit 2: I do not recommend reading the replies to my comment. They are unnecessarily confusing thanks to one seeming defender of theistic morality.
Replace God in any of these defences WLC gives with Hitler and it becomes obvious how dumb they are
I did the exact same thing. I felt the need to stop and comment right around mid way through the video, but then realized that I had made a mistake. It gets much worse.
Poor brave soldiers
Sam Harris called WLC out during their debate on the Divine Command theory. No matter what... If his god commands it, it's moral.
Same!
I am a Christian and love William Lane Craig. But my comment is for you Alex. I truly enjoy your debates and interviews. You are so gracious and mature in your debating style. You are so fun to listen to even if I disagree with you sometimes you are so respectful and not hateful in your interactions and that is extremely refreshing! Thank you for teaching me more about how debates should work! Truly a fan!!
Always glad to see people who disagree leave kind comments. The world could use more of that behaviour.
he was not debating as much as he was interviewing
yes he did a great job interviewing. this is how we should talk about things.
@@tim1903 yeah this was for sure an interview. I was simply talking about his debating style in other debates I’ve watched him in. I enjoy the way he debates and interviews.
"I am a Christian and love William Lane Craig."
If you can honestly say this after watching this video, then you're literally a dangerous psychopath. The man just spent an hour defending the horrible murder of children, and your moral compass sees nothing wrong it. I truly hope I never encounter you in the street, because I would be violently terrified just to be near you.
@@ChristinaBiasca Imagine watching a guy spend an hour defending genocide, and then having the compulsion to leave a comment, pointing out you dont always agree with the other guy...
William Lane Craig's defense of the Canaanite conquest, though deeply unsettling to many, highlights the intricate dilemmas faced when reconciling faith with actions that defy modern sensibilities. His unwavering adherence to Divine Command Theory leads him down a logically sound yet profoundly troubling path. Craig's intellectual integrity shines through his unflinching examination of such complex issues, even as his conclusions leave us grappling with difficult questions. The fundamental tension lies in the very concept of Divine Command Theory - if morality flows solely from God's decrees, then acts that seem unjustifiable to us may hold a different logic within that framework. While Craig's intellectual honesty is commendable, the ultimate challenge lies in wrestling with the nature of morality itself when guided by the dictates of an all-powerful deity.
Indeed. The main problem with Craig's defense is not the logic, but the implication that divine authority overrides common sense morality. That by itself may be fine, but when there is a precedent that divine authority can command... _that..._ then literally anything can be interpreted as a divine command. In places like the Middle East, that very scenario is _happening right now._
@@danieltoth9742Divine command morality is an oxymoron. You don't need any morality when all you have to do is to obey commands. When WLC calls this moral, he misunderstands the very point of morality, which is that moral people can decide by themselves between good and bad. They are able to judge by themselves. And that means they can judge God's actions described in the bible.
The consequences, sadly, aren't just being enacted in the middle east, they have been enacted over and over again throughout history. WLC's arguments are as old as religion, and have been used to justify countless atrocities.
Craig is showing surprisingly a bit of Calvinism in his Divine command theory. The reason it is unsettling is it places God as the one who defines right and wrong. Wrong is what does not bring God glory, right is what brings God glory. If God is the definition of “Goodness” then he is the maximum embodiment of that which brings himself Glory. The destruction of the Canaanite’s was justified by destroying that which did not bring himself glory. In destroying the people he destroyed the worshiping of False Gods. But since the the Israelites failed to complete this they later fell into worshiping these false Gods. So therefor their act of not completing this decree (Slaughter of the cannanites) was actually a sin because it caused them to in the future return to false Gods. Which did not bring God glory.
Justifying the brutal slaughter of innocent children in order to justify a belief system doesn’t reflect “intellectual integrity”
Being unwaveringly adherent to anything when it leads you to such a vile and stupid conclusion is ridiculous
@@AbdiHassan-jq2ln your very perception of this as being wrong and not normative is as a result of the cultural influence of ancients before you and one of those being the early Christians who nearly single-handedly eradicated things such as child/human sacrifice.
And thus the root of all religious evil in the world - just convince yourself that God has commanded you to slaughter your perceived enemies and you’re good to go. Craig’s moral theory is truly monstrous.
Oh, but objective morality!!! How can society function if we don't have the Christian God being the foundation of an objective morality!?
The objectively moral God: "Murder the children of these folks, plz".
The memes make themselves.
Just as Allah commanded the Hamas!
That's if you don't believe God exist
@@daily-chargebut even if you do, there’s no way to tell who’s acting on God’s command and who’s just pretending. In a world where divine command theory is universally accepted, there’s no way around this problem. Justice systems would completely fail.
There hasnt ever been a religious genocide that Craig didnt just fully justify.
38:18 "It was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed..."
"Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself." (Napoleon)
I disagree with DCT but you are clearly not able to comprehend it. God would have gave the children an infinite good and saved them from falling. In what sense is that not a blessing? This does not say that people can kill children because they will go to heaven. A person killing a child does not confer good to the child. God is the one who confers the good, he gives you infinity in return for finite suffering. All the person does is confer bad, the person gives suffering and gives no good
@@Shehatescash
Naturally I understand that what you write is the justification. If, however, the Abrahamic god is nothing but a fairy tale, and there is no justification to believe otherwise, then the act caused by such a belief is not a "blessing" for the killed children.
What if a person attacks and murders innocents then claims that God told him to do it, does it become justified? Because that is exactly the case with the Caananites: the Israelites commited war crimes against innocents, then wrote in their books that God told them to do it. You cant prove that God didnt tell them to do it, just like you cant prove that he did@Shehatescash
@@Soonzuh First I wanna say try not to lump “abrahamic gods” into 1. But it looks like we both agree that IF god does exist, then he’s justified in permitting the death of a child, and so this “biblical slaughter” does nothing to undermine the goodness of The Christian god if he exist. Now it looks like there’s just a question of whether or not he does exist, which isn’t the topic here. Alex and Craig have argued that before tho and I do believe there is reason to think he exist. I do want to point out that if god doesn’t exist, then that means god didn’t even command the Jews to slaughter cannan, and so the “biblical slaughter command” objection wouldn’t even work. That’s why when raising the slaughter objection you have to presuppose god exist and then argue that this part of the Bible contradicts what the rest Bible says about god. This slaughter objection is like an argument from within Christian belief
The level of delusion is just unbelievable
Its refreshing to see genuine dialogue rather than straw-manning and name calling. This is how intellectual progress is made.
The Canaanites/Philistines are the five signs found in Revelation 9.5. The scorpion (Scorpio constellation) is the leader of Sagittarius thru Pisces. These five signs make up the body of Jesus (as the winter sun).
The winter season was a period of hunger, sickness, cold, rain, slavery, and death where it was important that the crops saved from summer were to be shared with all. Craig is pushing for the killing of Jesus (as the winter sun) who called for this sharing of the crops.
This is explained in Matthew 25:35-40 ...... for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
How does this compare to the “Christians” who support the murder of the Palestinians and theft of their homes?
As a Christian that was a hard watch not going to lie. Thanks for having these conversations and both the grace that you show your guests as the rigorous way you hold them account for their words. I don't think I have found anyone that does this like you do Alex you are defiantly a blessing to the world.
As a Christian who disagrees with WLC, what do you think God's explanation was for killing the women and children?
@@president234 I am currently working on an answer myself, but since you asked.
I will give you a half-baked answer, as I still need to check all the information.
God said go and kill all the sinners. - 1 Samuel 15:18
I consider this to include babies and children, but not animals since they aren't humans.
But most people would say that children, babies and animals are innocent so let us go with that, even though I don't believe it.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and etc. Ephesians 6:12
The "we" is referring to us and not God from what I can tell, but God is also fighting a spiritual battle.
Exodus 20:5
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
@@president234 This sounds harsh like it is saying God will kill the children and babies, because of their parents' sin.
Possible, but let us use it to say that is possible to have an infected spiritual dna.
Since you can pass down sickness and other problems to your children through dna, so too with sin.
Whatever keeps you healthy in God is not there, because the parents are worshipping idols.
So, they're actions aren't helping, and they aren't praying over the babies.
Now here is the problem in Mark 5:12
They say send us into the swine. Which means it is Jesus power that move them out from the man into the pigs.
I believe they said that because when Jesus cast out devils, they either are cast out to the deep or out of the country. Mark 5:10 & Luke 8:31
Instead of them being send into the pigs, Jesus allowed them to go into the pigs by their own power.
We can see this at Mark 5:12 where they say "that we may enter them" which can be taken that it was by their own power they entered the pigs.
(I could be wrong here)
But in Matthew 8:31 and Luke 8:32 it says suffer them to, which means to allow them to.
So, in other words they enter the pigs by their own power.
God fights spiritual battle, and he wants to be 100% victorious.
If your parents don't pray for you, you could get possessed.
Since the devils can enter pigs by their own power, they can exit humans and animals by their own power too.
I believe if you kill the sinners who are adults, the spirits will just move to the children, babies or even animals.
Since they are not under any spiritual protection of the Lord like prayers, and God wants to be victorious in this spiritual battle.
They must all be eradicated to ensure the devils do not escape.
@phamtom27070 I agree with God's decision against the canaanites. What I was trying to ask was to that Christian who disagrees with God on why he thinks God is wrong
Jews didn't have to be deported to the camps, it was only those who chose to stay behind and not to flee. To be an apologist and be able to live with himself. He lost me several times but completely at divine command morality, an oxymoron. Dawkins should not debate this guy, he is deluded and IMO dangerous.
You’re retarded. The command from hitler was to take up Jews and throw them in camps and kill them. The Nazi’s didn’t say “only kill the Jews who stay” the Nazi’s said “kill all the Jews”. You’re trying too hard and failing
🤦🏼♂️ I mean if you think child sacrifice is dope just say so. To me, the culture that would allow such horrific acts is far more dangerous than a person who thinks that an attempt to end said acts is justified. But hey, call me deluded too, I guess.
@@michaelhenton159in your worldview, what happened to the children whose parents would’ve had them sacrificed but were interrupted by the Israelites invading?
@@Sebanovic5 is there a discernible point to your question? I’m not seeing one.
@@Sebanovic5 God always granted the children heaven. Even when they were being sacrificed. The fact that the children are dying is not inherently the issue, the issue is that mere humans are killing the children. And when humans kill they do not confer good, they only confer suffering, it is god alone who confers good to the child. That is why humans cannot kill children but god is justified in permitting it. Because god confers an infinite good and saves then from future suffering, while the human simply confers suffering onto the child
25:00 The ol' "They didn't have to die, they could have just left their homes and belongings to the marauders, and march thousands of miles to the next country".... as if that isn't a death sentence, especially thousands of years ago.... This moral argument is really something else
Isn't that an Israeli talking point for what is happening in Gaza?
So... by this "logic"... no one in Ukraine has to be killed or injured, "if they would simply retreat" and give Ukraine to Putin... what kind of an argument is that? Is the speaker serious? Does he even understand what he's saying?
Also, Craig contradicts the Bible here. It is described that Canaanites must be completely destroyed, including womans, children and old men. Cities must be burned, altars destroyed, and Jews are meant to dominate promised land in such a brutal way. Actually, Craig could have been perfectly slapped by Alex by bringing those citations from the Bible, although I'm 💯 sure Craig would still find some way to twist that around too.
@@avan432did you watch the video? He does bring up those points
@@theinvestingpalace4710 I watched the video, but I suppose you misread or misunderstood me. Alex didn't bring exact citations from Bible that would contradicts Craig's softening on Godly command about Canaanites. It would be so fun to watch Craig trying to massage Bible words to get what he wants them to mean. And also would be way more apparent from that what a lying fraud Craig is.
@CosmicSkeptic this was a great interview, and I think your gentle approach made for a far more powerful critique as it allowed Dr Craig to feel free to unpack a full defence of his position.
I'd like to use several comments from Dr Craig in this video in an upcoming video where I discuss the implications of a divine command theory (and whether or not it really helps his treatment of the conquest of Canaan). It would just be a few minutes of quotes in total. Is that alright with you?
Alex, thank you for exposing the disturbed religious thinking.
The Canaanites are the five constellations found in Revelation 9.5. The leader of the five months that can harm man is the constellation of the scorpion (Scorpio) who leads Sagittarius thru Pisces. This is the winter season of deprivation where the harvest of summer is to be shared.
These five signs make up the body of Jesus (as the winter sun). These same signs are the five wounds of Jesus.
Craig is pushing for the "killing" of Jesus who encouraged the sharing of the harvest. See Matthew 25.
@@harveywabbit9541just a friendly observation: you should take your meds and stfu.
You conceived that without narcotics?
@@marksandsmith6778 He just likes to jizz the same comment everywhere, like a spraying dog.
@@Goettel It's a pet theory Harvey has, derived from an author named Samuel Dunlop, as I recall.
I feel he believes it'll dismantle the Old Testament. Worth a shot, to some.
If my family and I were being slaughtered by marauding zealots, the last thing on my mind would be whether or not their morality was internally consistent.
Also, gotta hand it to Craig, he doesn't run away from the Euthyphro dillema. He grabs the bull by the horns and impales himself on the worse of the two options.
The last thing on my mind would also be whether or not they were divinely commanded to do so. I mean, who actually thinks they were ever going to think "this is probably divinely commanded, so we better flee in peace and give up our homes". Craig's retort that "no one had to die" is so blatantly ridiculous, it's disingenuous.
@@Jockitoand yet we have fairly modern examples of this exact thinking playing out today. Canadian residential schools, 60s scoop...
@@Jockito I mean, if you commit a crime that you think you didn't commit, when you are standing in court in defense of yourself, the last thing you are concerned about is to understand whether or not the court is just in condemning you. That's why you need a lawyer. We are not and aren't meant to be the final moral agent capable of discerning those things at all times.
@@marukchozt6744 I'm not saying the Canaanites should have been the final moral agents to discern what was just. Rather, the issue is that there was no epistemic way for them to verify that the Israelites were in fact commanded by God. Craig himself said that one would have to have an incredibly high level of justification for this. So the Canaanites were acting rationally to defend themselves. There was no other reasonable thing to assume, other than they were being attacked. Which again, is why the notion that the whole ordeal didn't have to be violent is just disingenuous.
@@Jockito Heh? You said they shouldn't be the final moral agent to know those things and yet you proceed to say they need to be able to verify it? And yeah, their defense of themselves was rational
Absolute Madman. He should listen to himself once in a while. Sitting there and saying killing innocent children is ok if god demands it. Feels like listening to the logic of suicide bombers. Smh.
Is genocide wrong? Why?
I thought Craig's explanation was unsatisfactory. There may not be an explanation that can be justified. But I keep coming back to if there is no God there is no right or wrong. And I want people that are atheists to think that through and then own the fact that none of this even matters.
@@ericbilderback7676 Listen to yourself. If the only right/wrong is what a god says, then it's not morality at all. It's just kissing the ass of the biggest bully. And of course things matter. They matter to *US.*
@@ericbilderback7676
That is ridiculously nonsensical to me. If there is no god, then good and bad is up for discussion. Funny enough, this is exactly what we have always done, even while having these religious "guidelines" (that everyone tends to interpret slightly different). Killing is not evil because the bible says so, but because it makes sense. In every culture, in every religion.
Just because we are able to justify cruel deeds that do not align with our moral beliefs (a triple hooray for cognitive dissonance), does not mean that there was any divine command to do so.
If the Canaanites really were slaughtered and forced out of their land, then that is literal genocide and the bible is just whitewashing their history.
If you make a video game, you’re allowed to remove any character you want, at any time, for any reason-even and especially if those “characters” are using _your life force_ to exist in the first place.
@@waido_ If humans are just pawns in God's game, why would we respect him? I'd fear a being that is willing to "remove me" just because it has the power to do so, of course, but I'd not respect him, much less adore him.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. Go ahead and defend genocide and the mass murder of children because it's your God doing it, but you don't get to then turn around and say "Isn't he a perfectly good and lovely God?? We should adore him!". If that sort of God existed, I'd despise him.
Really well done interview!
His argument remind me of one of those Crusader quotes "Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them. For the Lord knows who are His.). That is the origin of the modern phrase: "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Caesarius did not hear that statement firsthand but merely wrote that Arnaud was reported to have said it (dixisse fertur in the original text)."
Have you not heard about the anti christian wars of aggression the Muslims waged against christians before the crusades? If not that might help give context that actually helps give perspective. I think at least the earliest crusades were defensive retaliations.
@@N81999 Yeh no I agree with you on that sort of, the muslims invaded Persian and the Byzantine Empire not Europe per say. So I think it was more of a political/ pre-emptive move by the pope to call the first crusade because they were responging to the call for help of the Byzantine emperor. I just though that the point this guy was making was kinda similar to this point of view. Also btw interestingly this quote comes from the Albigensian Crusade which is a crusade that happened against christian heretics in Southern France so not really against muslims even.
@@maksymsytnikov9199 actually Muslims invaded and controlled most of Spain and made it into the southern part of France but were turned back at the battle of Pointer I believe. But yeah the stuff about the Byzantines is true to!
@@N81999 True True but that happened almost 400 years earlier soo a bit late for the counter crusade because the spanish started fighting back and france won and also pushed em back. So not directly related but sets the theme I guess.
Divine Command Theory, the loophole for Craig to avoid being called a Moral Relativist. So all evil is justified as long as the god of the Bible commanded it. Good job Craig, you’ve proven Dawkins point about you.
What standard of evil are you talking about, last I checked atheists don't believe in objective morality.
Yes, and Alex has exposed WLC with polite questioning, just as WLC thought Alex did with Dawkins.
Let me start by say I feel I agree more with Alex than Craig. Just admit you don’t know Craig. But should have pointed out that there is no rule that is unqualified. Alex is asking a very easy question, is it always wrong to kill a child? You can abstract this to “it is wrong to do X” I feel it is abhorrent. I cannot envisage any circumstance where this is moral therefore your doing X is immoral. Taking the example of the child, I can think of a circumstance. What if that child were to carry an infections disease like Ebola - a Typhoid Mary-like carrier - meaning the disease doesn’t kill the child. In that case you would kill the child to save thousands. Then admit that we BELIEVED there is a reason but we don’t know it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s definitely appealing to a highly speculative and convenient technicality to avoid not just being called but actually being a moral relativist.
@alanpearly What the f is wrong with you? Of course, you wouldn't kill the child! You could isolate it and try to cure the disease, but jumping straight to murder is frankly abhorrent. Killing children is wrong, plain and simple, and if your first thought is to somehow justify the murder or try to find an example that does it, something is not right with you.
As someone who grew up within the Christian faith and was surrounded by people who both sounded like and espoused similar beliefs to William Lane Craig there is something unmistakable about his intonation and tone when he speaks. It's not so much the voice as it is the forced sincerity and kindness. It comes across as so incredibly smarmy and difficult to listen to. It makes my skin crawl, especially in the mismatch between the 'kindness' of the inflection and the 'brutality' of the acts he attempts to defend within the Old Testament.
Anyways, thanks for the great interview Alex. I always appreciate your work.
Absolutely unconvinced of his sincerity
I feel the same, they all act similar and when yo have a lifetime of people like them telling you how sinful you are and how beatiful its gonna be when jesus come back to destroy the world and sent everyone to hell, yes, your skin tends to react.
'hate the sin love the sinner' kinda vibes
@@wataehebro1543 Uhm.. I don't think you understand Christian theology? Maybe consult an AI to clear those misconceptions
That's interesting. As someone who grew up around atheists, and as one, I don't hear smarmy.
As a Christian myself, I'm going to dip into this toxic hole I call the comment section simply to say, this was a cool interview. Thanks @cosmicskeptic for asking hard questions and just being a really smart and honest guy. Good stuff.
Respect. I love comments like this. Cheers
I’m a Christian and nothing that Jesus teaches condones killing innocent children. Jesus brought the good news which makes the OT completely redundant.
This guy doesn’t have a clue what Richard Dawkins argument is. When Alex asked him what is Dawkins argument, his voice started to shake and he waffled on into a ludicrous gobbledygook, it was embarrassing 😅
I few things that I think WLC doesn't tackle but help the case.
1. There is a difference between a divine command and the means in which that divine command is executed. God commands us to pray and fast. Jesus condemns the Pharisees for fasting and praying publicly. So God can say "Cleans the land of Canaan" and the Israelites can interpret that as "Kill everyone under any condition" then they are extending the command to their own desires. God cannot control us.
2. There is a scriptural fallibility and interpretation component here. We are often quick to point out that "oh even though it says Giants (Nephilim) it actually means warriors"...we are quick to take some things as explicitly literal, and other things as interpretation. Throw in 6000 years of translation and while you can still believe in the veracity of the Old Testament there is a fairly strong case that some parts were translated "wrongly" or even simply "too broadly". All of this to say that it's entirely possible that there was an explicit command from God that said "also don't kill children they are innocent" that was left out or lost.
3. I think where WLC has the strongest point is the notion of where morality derives. Alex suggests that surely *everyone* agrees that its morally wrong to kill children. While that's generally likely the case it's actually hard to make that moral argument. There are scenarios where, for example, killing a child in labor to save the mother, killing a child carrying a pathogen or a bomb vest, or even making a distinction in our own laws that there is a clear difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. You can make an argument that there are some instances where a moral standard can have an exception. The religious argument is that one of those exceptions is when God explicitly commands something. You may not chose to believe that exceptions can be extended to supernatural sources but that is really the point of the debate.
Most of the arguments against this are very much "but imagine yourself there" or "But it just sounds bad" and while those have some merit they don't progress any sort of philosophical or moral debate. Just personal sentiments.
I like this thoughtful comment. Take a like
This video is a great example of how theism can totally pervert one's morality. Leave it to the arbiters of morality - the moral monopoly - the ones who accuse nonbelievers of borrowing from their worldview, to claim that the real victims of a genocide are the ones who committed the genocide. Sometimes the monsters don't come yelling and snarling. Sometimes they shake your hand and give you a wide smile.
Absolutely! I am grateful for this demonstration of theist morality taken to its logical conclusion, by a renowned apologist, no less! This has excellent educational value! It ought to be discussed in classrooms.
WLC did the world a favor by presenting himself as an excellent bad example for morality. Who can believe that religion is a positive force in the world after hearing this? Who can still defend "objective morality"?
Do you think the Allies were justified in killing hundreds of thousands of civilians by firebombing German and Japanese cities including women and children non-combatants in it?
He seriously needs to watch your video about the time travelling pastor
Feels like an atheist crossover seeing you here
Long time no see!
At first I thought that Dawkins was being a bit hyperbolic, but after listening to William Lane Craig express his view for an hour I have to admit that Dawkins is right. William Lane Craig is an extremely disturbing man.
1000% agree. WLC is bereft of sanity.
Yes
Psychotic.
the scariest part is his mode of thinking isnt fringe. its mainstream christianity.
@@kenopsiamusic And they're using the wholesale Slaughter of the Canaanites to justify Israeli violence against the Palestinians
What verse is Craig using to derive his statement. "That God gave the enemies of Israel a choice, that is; Either stay and be slaughtered.
Or that they can leave the land and be saved." Because I am not seeing it as I read the Scriptures. Can anyone please help me with this question?
To WLC's credit he remained internally consistent with his position. But at what cost?
At least with WLC’s position, people can actually have right and wrong behaviors.
@@lovespeaks777 not really. If god can command anyone to take any action, what manner of right and wrong even exist? If any moral or ethical viewpoint can be flipped on its head at any time by a divine command, how can anyone ground morals and ethics by defending any position? It makes morals irrelevant.
The insistence on divine command, when we have never ever observed one, is so astounding to me. William, there are NO DIVINE COMMANDS HAPPENING.
How do you know? Do you know what a divine command looks or sounds like? If God is real, He is capable of speaking to His creations. What form would that appear in? Presumably you have some preconceived notion of how God would speak to us, how He should behave, and the kind of things He is “allowed” to command of us; why does it have to be that way? Why are you the arbiter of how a Supreme Being should be? God could be completely evil, it would not change the fact of His existence. The fact of the matter is, if God exists, and you don’t like God, YOU’RE the one in the wrong. What you’re doing is like a video game character getting mad at its developer; what right do you have to question _anything_ God does? You (and I, and everyone) are dust, using God’s very breath to blaspheme Him. Do you not see the problem with that?
@@waido_while reading your comment god spoke to me. He said I have to pass you a message. He said you must never comment on you tube ever again. Bless you 🙏🏽
I just received a second revelation from God, praised be His name.
He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet @matthewbazeley2984 . The new covenant says that @waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO.
May His will be done!
@@matthewbazeley2984
I've also received a revelation from God, praised be His name.
He said that I should start a new covenant to improve the covenant started with the prophet Matthew.
The new covenant says that waido_ should not use the internet as a whole and should just stay home playing LEGO.
May His will be done!
@@waido_I see no problem with it. This “dust” is morally superior to this God.
Alex pointed out in the debate with Shapiro that believing that God grounds your morality could be bad if you believe evil things, as there would be no way for someone to change your mind. This is the great example of that.
But it's ok to do the evil things because God commanded them and thus they are not evil.
@@malirk Moral relativism with extra steps.
Exactly. Many theists speak like grounding morality is a good thing, when I think it's a terrible thing that prevents us from changing our attitude when we learn how an action may be harmful.
@@OmniversalInsect It could be a good thing if we actually had a source of reliable moral authority. The problem in religion is that they have rules created by humans that they believe come from a god that is good and moral.
@@OmniversalInsect So morality is spontaneous and irreducibly fluid? Every moral standard is grounded. Where it is grounded is the essence of this debate. To say that grounding morals is a bad thing is to admit you don’t understand moral philosophy.
Good lord, what did I just watch? William Lane Craig basically just confessed to being a violent sociopath.
The Canaanites/Philistines are the five constellations found in Revelation 9.5. These five months/signs/constellations represent the winter season of hardship where people often went hungry as the saved crops were consumed.
The scorpion constellation is cursed throughout the bible as it was thought to bring on the winter season of non crop growth. See Rev 9.5., where the scorpion is the "leader" of Sagittarius thru Pisces.
The fourth son of Ham (Heat - the summer season) is Canaan aka the constellation of the scorpion.
The terrible five months/signs of winter is also the five mice and five emerods.
@@harveywabbit9541 you’re a lunatic. Get a therapist.
@@harveywabbit9541 bro. Get help. See a therapist. You’re literally taking like a crazy person. You have scrupulosity.
I've already watched this, but it came back in my suggestions and I had to laugh at the thumbnail again. Perfect. 😂
Alex: let me step aside for a second...
Craig: excellent. now let me impale myself.
"I think you eviscerated his position in that interview. But you did it so sweetly and so gently that I don't think he had any idea of what actually went on"
an ominous premonition
Spoiler alert
One could say, "holy irony"
Jesus Christ this is accurate
Oh the irony 😄
Fr I was screaming at the top of my lungs. This was the toughest one to watch of this man's Psychotic rent.
I think WLC also could have pointed out - just because we don’t know why God commanded something doesn’t mean there isn’t a good reason for it that we don’t know about, and could maybe never know about because that event never came to fruition.
But that's not his moral system. Your suggesting a moral system which is "least harm". His system is "what God says is right, even if it doesn't lead to the least harm".
William Lane Craig explaining the biblical rationale for future Palestinian genocide. “They could just leave!”
No logical connection whatsoever. (I am a Muslim, an Anti-Zionist)
@@moroccandeepweb5880 the same argument is used concerning the bombing of civilians in the Gaza strip, that they could “just move, just leave the area”, except the forceful expulsion of entire group is ALSO encompassed in the definition of genocide. Biblical verses like the slaughter of the canaanites have been invoked by Israeli officials as precedent as well.
Is it me, or did WLC do exactly what Dawkins said he would?
He did everything Dawkins said he would. Wait a minute, is Dawkins a prophet? 😅
@@Vhlathanoshat this point, I'm convinced
Because that was always his opinion. This was not a secret.
@@Vhlathanosh all hail the selfish gene!
For me, its merely reinforced that WCL is a dreadful man.. God Deluded
I just realized that William's argument is similar to an Islamic Jihadist. Anyone kind of see the similarities?
Jup. It's not only similar but it's the same rhetoric that religious fanatics are always utilising. It's dangerous and it's irrelevant which religion it exactly is based on.
Yeah I commented the same thing. If you watch old Bin Laden tapes he makes the exact same argument. All religious genocide or violence is justified by Craigs argument, unless you can prove that they really didnt speak to God...which you cant...
Its the exact same rhetoric. Disgusting.
I like what atheists unconsciously think they’re trying to do, but you’re comment just comes off as so surface level, you’re petty and in your ego
I immediately picked up on that vibe as well. Like a shiver down the ol’ spine.
“They had to cleanse the lands of these people” - WLC.
Hitler type beat
It's ironic that as far as I can tell the very reason Alex invited him to talk about this is BECAUSE atheists like Dawkins (and this comments section) dismiss him, while Alex wants to engage the viewpoint of the eminent Christian scholar who all these people are dismissing, and yet his comments section still can't take the hint - all I've seen here is egregious inflation of Alex's carefully worded concerns - his measured prodding - into "slam dunks" with no thoughtful philosophical engagement anywhere. Kudos to both of the men in this video, but this comments section is an utter waste of time. But oh well, I guess that's RUclips...
The duty of the apologist is not to seek the truth but rather to defend his preconceived notions using any mental gymnastics necessary
Atheists love thinking of themselves as the "intellectuals" when they're the first to believe nonsense. Is "mental gymnastics" just supposed to mean "thought"? I'd understand why atheists aren't used to it.
Get off yr atheistic horse
Totally agree
@@evanskip1 lost Muchachos
as Mr Deity coined it , excusigist. make any excuse to make good look better than an evil monster character in the bible.
With a smile on his face, he effectively says "who is wronged by this genocide?"
Holy shit.
Those who _were_ wronged by the genocide are in his outgroup rather than his ingroup, so of course he doesn’t think of the victims as people
Did he actually say that, verbatim? I don't remember that but you have put speech marks over it, implying that you have quoted him directly.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 I think I quoted him accurately but I'd have to go back to make sure.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 the exact wording is "who has been wronged by this action". So I guess I'm paraphrasing a bit.
@@emmanuelmannymojo2591 you can open the transcript and do ctrl f and type: wronged
46:29
Thanks for this- I really respect WLC for his honesty and clear focus on following intellectual, logical and philosophical reasoning. If I may speak in general terms, so often in todays society it is the Christian who is branded as falling back on argument by intuition, where the Atheist is seen as the logician. Whatever your view on this topic- here, in the positions of Dawkins and WLC; it seems to be the other way round!
Also really appreciate Alex how respectful you and WLC are to each other. So encouraging to see people of such different viewpoints still managing to be so congenial/respectful to each other.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one thinking this
Dawkins imitating Craig is what I didn't know I needed
It's shocking what religion does to people's minds. Thanks Alex for showing this to everyone.
Just imagine if WLC was raised in the Manson family.
Alex is smartly subtle. He invites Craig on and lets him hoist himself with his own petard.
We are all religous. That is, we all worship something. Even those who think they don't worship, they worship their own thinking. What Christianity brings is a foundation for proper object of worship. And, morality must be based on something other than our thinking. A fluid flexible morality brings on the worst of humanity. What is the basis of your moral judgments?
@@randyrobinson2609all morality is subjective. Everyone makes a subjective decision about what to put at the top of the decision-making pyramid. Merely saying you put God at the top of the pyramid doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't solve the problem! It just kicks the can further down the road.
You can call it biblical morality or you can think that you're basing your morality on the ten commandments or some such, but you're not really doing that. You're taking the Bible as a starting point and then (hopefully) using reason and logic to assess whether or not these biblical rules make sense, and then making your moral decisions based on your own interpretations of the biblical rules.
PS of course morality should be flexible! That's the entire point of famous books like the Scarlet Letter, the Crucible, and Les Mis.
@@randyrobinson2609I am not religious in any widely agreed sense of the word
It sends shivers down my spine hearing this man talk about the killing of innocent children being morally justified if it has been commanded by god. This man is insane.
This is not really a discussion about Israeli armies and dying children… it is a discussion about worldviews and the grounding of ethics and morality… most comments here are laden with emotion about the atrocity of the Israeli actions and how appalling Craig is for defending them - but that emotion comes from our moral intuitions (which I share) which under Alex/Dawkin’s worldview has no objective underpinning… to put it another way, under atheism is there any reason why the killing of innocent children is truly wrong - other than ‘it just feels wrong’?
And so, we come back to a war of two world views…
1 - under atheism, we have a sense of appall at the biblical story (and at a God who would command such a thing) and at Craig for defending it… but, with no objective basis for that emotional reaction… (indeed, some terrible dictator might argue that the indiscriminate killing of innocent children is a good thing - and under atheism we’d have no objective way to prove him wrong)
2 - while under theism we have the very paradigm of goodness and justice (God) commanding an act which ultimately serves his own good purposes but which to our moral instincts seems reprehensible… what on earth might these good purposes be?.. well, according to the biblical narrative, God ordered the exile/destruction of the Canaanites to execute judgement on a wicked people group and to advance the cause of his chosen people through whom he will ultimately bring about redemption of the earth - in the death and resurrection of Jesus… does this seem unjust?.. Yes!!.. But remember - under Craig’s worldview this action is just as reprehensible and unjust, should it be mandated by any one of us… but this action against the Canaanites was not mandated by one of us… it was ordered by God - who in his unique role as creator and judge of all people is the only one who is perfectly justified in giving such an order, as long as it is consistent with his character. And it seems that it is: in his role as just judge, he brings judgment against the Canaanites for their wickedness… while, out of his love God ensures that the innocent who suffer and die in the process, go on to enjoy an eternity in perfect peace and fulfilment
And so, as always, whichever worldview you come to this debate with, entirely determines on what side of the fence you will land
@@davidblack1353no, not at all. There's more than a philosophical discussion of worldviews, which is why Alex says many times that even though he can't point to a contradiction there are many intuitions that are undermined by Craig's model. You don't need to be an atheist or a theist a priori, since there are many theists who wouldn't agree to divine command theory too
@@davidblack1353Very well put. It's ironic that the listeners of this channel might otherwise pretend to be rational but resort to emotion the moment their intuitions fail against a more consistent theory. That's what seperates Alex as despite that he tries to present reasonable arguments even if he based them on reliability of intuitions.
What bothers me so much is how he just goes back to these like nothing burger sentencences like "you see morality is imposed by a moral imperative to help be moral, so because od the moral imperative and the genocide of canannitez" like BRO WHAT
the idea goes -> if there is an all just god, i wouldn’t mind being killed to be with him to be saved from the evil around me. however, the problem is that this turns the whole argument backwards where you are proving these morals with god’s existence instead of indirectly supporting god’s existence via his goodness through his own written morals
There is so much evil in the world caused by mindsets like this. It isn’t just religion, across time a lot of people do and have clearly justified their horrific actions by basing it on a god, a leader, a country. Removing their own responsibility and ability to decide what is moral by placing it on something they have made unquestionable. I want to believe humans are inherently good but it’s hard to believe that when watching this, when so little is what it takes to think child murder is acceptable.
If modern Christianity properly understood the context of the Israel-Canaanite conflict, no one would ever describe the motivating factors in this conflict as "so little."
Glad you're thinking about these things in a holistic way, and not just a "bash Christians" way. Honestly a rare trait amongst today's atheists.
If a Christian is removing their own responsibility to decide what is moral, then they aren't following the Bible in the best way, because that isn't what our Lord asks of us. I hope that we can both observe this world and come to clear conclusion that human beings are not inherently good. War, death, and chaos are the baseline of human existence, the products of sin.
Craig makes his claims a little more bombastically then they should be, but from I've listened to in this video, he is still correct from the biblical perspective.
@@christopherpearson2116 I'm not sure what you mean. But I will try to explain what I think you're missing.
Sin came into our reality through the manipulation of the devil and the sin of Eve and Adam. Sin originated because Adam and Eve gave into the temptation of satan to try and be like God, and so they disobeyed Him, bringing sin into God's new and perfect creation for the first time. That is how sin came into our world.
Now, we know a little less about how satan and his demons became corrupted, but Ezekiel 28 sheds some light on the fall of lucifer. Lucifer, in his pride, wanted to be greater then God, this was a sin, and so he was cast out of the presence of God, since God cannot abide with sin (this is the same way as how God turned His face away from Christ when He took on the sins of the world on the cross). In this way, satan is a corrupted supernatural being residing in our natural world. Satan's sin originated from his pride. He was the greatest of God's angels, He had all that a created being could want, yet he used his free will to sin and thus could not continue to abide with the Lord.
You're right, sin has no place in Heaven, which is why satan and his armies were cast out by the Father. End of.
And yes, the free will of man is responsible for sin and death in our world.
@@user-nz8uy1zm3z The free will of just... two 'men' yes. Who didn't know good from bad.
That's not real, functional, modern free will. Theoretically circumscribed, by Romans 8:30, 9:21, 2 Timothy 1:9, and 2 Thessalonians 2. Or Revelations 13:8 - as it is said to be.
Also - I see no good outcome in designing an angel with both pride... and no common sense.
Or many other angels... gullible, to his arguments. It is the desire to sin - that really matters, here.
And hasn't been enough explained. Adam and Eve got a fancy - that's all. They could barely judge it from one thing to another.
What is 'bad' about death? Or disobedience? To one for who that, and Good, are abstractions alone?
And how come this God could look on... slavery... bequeathable slavery... and infant-icide? Or the supposed 'testing' of Job by a being who would not care one way or the other what the test proved?
And we do not truly know if all angels had 'all they wanted'. Nor what Eve dreamed of.
We do know she did not die, however... not 'in the day'. And Adam saw she had lived.
Plus - see Genesis 3:22. The snake did not tell the only lie... or half truth, say? That day.
And no - not 'end of'. Not yet. 'Cast out' where to - and how far. And how safely.
@@christopherpearson2116 That is free will. They chose to go against God when they had every reason not to. They are human beings too, they knew what they were doing.
God didn't create lucifer with pride. Lucifer chose to be prideful through his free will.
The angels lived a world of no evil or wrongness, serving God as they were created to. That is all that anyone wants, to be free from the evils of the world.
This is gold
It is. It shows the absurdity of atheism
There are a couple of things I would have liked Craig to be pushed harder on:
- He talks about the epistemic burden, and how one can know that God is in fact giving a divine command. I'm curious what it would take to get Craig to believe that God was giving him a command; would a vision be sufficient, or would he require a higher bar of evidence? What kind of evidence would be required to get him to kill innocent children? On a related note, could the Israelites have been mistaken about whether or not God really commanded them to drive out the Canaanites? Even if they were not mistaken and God truly did command the slaughter, were they justified in committing it on the basis of the evidence that they had?
- Craig claims towards the end that God is restricted by his just and loving nature; he says there are commands that God could not make because they would be contrary to that nature. However, if God is the standard of love and justice, then anything he does is by definition loving and just. Additionally, if killing kids does not contradict God's 'loving and moral nature', then I struggle to thing of what action would.
That's my point. How do we confirm a divine commandment? I mean he believes old book written by men is divine and based on that. One dude just needs to say God told him
Excellent comment
To your first point: yes, many Christians take a reading of the Bible that sees the Isrealites as wrestling with their understanding of God. It seems clear to most Christians that God would not command such a thing today. It seems clear that this is in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus for example, to love your enemy.
To the second point: that's the exact point it falls apart, right? Craig is holding on so tightly to the part of his brain that recognizes the extreme immorality of the version of God he believes in. By who's standard does he insist that certain things would never be commanded by God? He is putting limits on God that God seems to be okay with removing from time to time. The very God that doesn't want sacrifice demanded it. The very same God that demanded mercy and forgiveness demands violence and slaughter.
And this view of God is consistent with human nature. There's an irony when you insist that God's nature is more loving and more forgiving and more reconcilitory than our own, people will tell you that is a God of our own making.
Craig's sociopathic abstraction, er 'god' needed a child sacrifice, but not just any child, but "god's child" which is really an avatar of itself... hence this jeezuz idea...that loves billy !! And now Bill ritualistically, but symbolically !! eats this avatar's body and drinks his blood.
Jeffrey Dahmer sounds almost sane compared to WLC's religion.
Regarding your second point, WLG is basically arguing that the end justifies the means. The killing of innocent children is justified because it's a blessing to them as they all go to heaven.
In his mind, this nullifies the cruelty of the action, enabling him to say "see? They all go to a far better place, therefore God's command was consistent with his good and loving nature".
Did God personally tell the Canaanites that the land now belongs to the Israelites? Or are they just to take the Israelites' word for it that he said so?
This is something I wished Alex spent more time on. Near the end Alex asked if they were justified in defending themselves. And Craig said ultimately they weren't because they were going against what God wanted. But if God never commanded them to leave, there was no way of them knowing what they were supposed to do except as you say, to take the Israelites word for it - except the problem with that is that Craig also said that one needs to have an *incredibly* high level of epistemic justification for God's commands. So really, there wasn't much hope for those little Canaanite babies was there.
It would be God's way to do such a thing and there are precendents for the same. When the kingdom of Judah was to be punished through Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah was sent to them to tell them to acquiesce and let Nebuchadnezzar's army into the city after which he would move them en masse to Babylon. The price of resisting was mass death.
Likewise, Jonah was sent to the city of Nineveh to tell them to reform their wickedness or they would be punished. They acquiesced and God's wrath was averted.
@@andrewdaly21 Don't you see a problem with having to trust a third party's word for it that they were sent from God? This is just not epistemically justifiable. Craig himself said that it would be basically impossible to justify whether one has been divinely commanded.
On that note, how do the Jews know God wanted this? They just take Joshua's word for it?
@@iamalmostanonymous Yeah. One guy hears a voice and everyone just goes along with it.
Emotional rhetoric aside, WLC is absolutely right. And I would probably summarize it by just saying that we should analyze a story in its entirety. So if we're granting the existence of the Canaanite story for the sake of argument, we have to also grant the existence of heaven for the same reason. Then it becomes clear that what we're really talking about is a momentary suffering followed by a relocation to an eternally blissful state. Not so obvious that any death (commanded by this "god" at least) would be wrong in that light.
And I might add that only god would know who is/isn't *bound* for that eternally blissful state, whose continued presence on Earth is more important in the grand scheme of things, etc., so that it wouldn't be the case that just *anyone* could kill people justifiably.
ETA: We also need to recognize that deferring to the existence of our moral intuitions in order to argue that morality is objective does not commit us to the view that our moral senses are *infallible.* In the same way not everyone has perfect vision (many are even blind), not everyone's moral sense is going to perfectly detect moral realities. Nor does that infallibility call into question the existence of the physical/moral realms respectively.
You cannot remove emotion from genocide by claiming that some human defined God gets to be the ground for objective morality.
@@carl7674 As I said, you have to analyze the entire story or not at all. So if your argument is that "If the Christian god exists he was wrong to command the slaughter of the Canaanites", then "The Christian god is made up by humans" is off the table. You need to decide what your argument is, first.
And as Craig explained, it wasn't a genocide that was ordered. But even if it were, you'll need more than an appeal to emotions to establish that such a command would be wrong in the context of the biblical narrative.
@Vic2point0 My argument is simply that whatever ANY ill-defined God is supposed to characterize, it was ALL Man's creation. Why would Man create God/s? Because MAN is inherently credulous. Some are very uncomfortable with mysteries. They want an answer NOW. Even if the answer is irrational and nebulous. hey are too impatient to search for apostioiri explanations for phenomena, so why not invent a God that can provide answers without needing good realistic
explanations.
And with people like Craig who is famous for eloquently articulating artifice, why not be impressed. But hey, even expertly presented sophistry, is still sophistry.
@@carl7674Can Craig’s position be immoral according to your world view? Or is it just your opinion he’s wrong?
@lovespeaks777
Craig decided that there is a God. His God. Craig gave his God the attributes he claims his God possesses, including the ability to decide what is objectively moral. Craig's God can be, or do anything Craig can create an apologetic for. So can anyone who created and believes in a different God. That is not my opinion. It's called "Special pleading" which lacks sufficient demonstrable evidence to support the claim.
If ANY God claim could have been verified, why wouldn't it have been, long before WLC?
Great interview! If anything it would be great if there's a longer discussion on this and get WLC back :)
I don't know if Alex is aware, but what he has achieved here is masterclass.
Masterclass in showing how inconsistent Alex’s views are
@@lovespeaks777 Not really. Maybe the conversation is too complex for you to understand. It can happen
Craigs argument about the Israelite soldiers suffering the most reminded me of how the Einsatzgruppen suffered mental trauma from killing so many Jews. Totally sick to make the claim that these kinds of people were the real victims
I don't know what that group was, but that would give me PTSD.
@danielfincher8439 nazis who were originally tasked with elimination of all the Jews
@@danielfincher8439 They were Nazi death squads
Didnt you listen? The Caanites were abhorent people, victims of something they brought onto themselves.
very apt analogy
Alex should have asked “can you give an example of a command God could give that would contradict his perfect goodness”.
Can a religious believer hear something like that and think how abhorrent that would sound to a nonbeliever who doesn't believe in a god(s) or an afterlife? There are probably quite a few religious folks who have issues with that story too.
“Yeah, if you just ethically cleanse yourself, no need to genocide you.” Bill Craig 2024
I guess it's not just the epistemic bar that's being lowered, huh?
Is genocide wrong according to your world view?
There's some extreme meme value with the title of this video in conjunction with the large smile on this guy's face in the thumbnail. Alex really knows his audience lmfao
exactly i don't even think half of the people in the comment even watched the video bruh like it has been only 1 hour
Yes, he has to be careful if he wants to maintain respect and continue to attract interesting thinkers. He doesn't want seem cynical and tabloidy
Which is a disgusting practice.
Instead of a nuanced title, it was basically fishing for controversy, hate and anti intellectualism on people.
@@danw5760 Which is a disgusting practice.
Instead of a nuanced title, it was basically fishing for controversy, hate and anti intellectualism on people.
@@Consciousness_of_RealityI think the title is quiet accurate.
Craig's defense is almost verbatim Nixon's defense in the Frost interview. "If the president does it then it's not illegal."
William isn't actually taking this seriously.
If William were to be among a whole tribe and take hand in this type of violence it would destroy him. This is mass murder with hand tools within arms reach. This is killing children by hand. I have a hard time believing he would take part in this if actually put to it but maybe I'm being too generous and assuming he's unserious rather than malicious.
Alex is playing chess with these interviews. I look forward to more!
I love how he "steel mans" his opponents so he can fully understand their position before deconstructing it.
@@bryanburbank7855 did... did you just invent a new term??
@@OhManTFE What term?
@@OhManTFEIf you're talking about their use of steelman, that is not new. It's the opposite of strawman. Steelmanning, I'll call it, is presenting your opponents argument in its strongest form.
@@OhManTFE Steel man is a pretty common debate term now. It's the opposite of straw-manning.
I'm imagining Alex calling Dawkings and saying: "And that's how you expose a lunatic. Did the job for you. You're welcomed".
😂😂😂
At the beginning WLC said "You destroyed Dawkins, without him noticing", Alex grinned quite visibly... now I ask, whether the case was, that he knew, he was going to do the very same thing again... right in this interview :D
Lol. 🤣🤣🤣
Alex didn’t have to do anything other than give Lane permission to score repeated own goals. Ouch!
36:33 - I get the point Alex is trying to make here, but ultimately what he's saying is "I don't wish to abandon my faith to take on yours."
Something I don't think I ever hear talked about is the "fact" that an All Power God, with seemingly no external constraints put on him, decided the best path of creating the Universe...is the one where Most people end up in Hell forever.
Completely irrelevant to the question of whether He exists or not. Use logic.
@@moroccandeepweb5880 It is relevant. Especially when one of the assumed qualities of the God is Love.
@@moroccandeepweb5880 its relevant to whether god is good, as christians so love to claim. Maybe this specific thing doesn't act to disprove god as a concept, but it does when stacked up against many religions and their interpretation of him as an omni powerful omni benevolent being.
Craig’s view on Divine command is the reversal of Dostoyevsky’s “Without God, then everything is permitted” - which was already pointed by Žižek.
Kinda, Craig’s argument is “For God, everything is permitted”. So Craig can reason, therefore there is no inconsistency.
There is so much wrong with this.
@@AaronHarvey86 I don't think it's inconsistent, I just pointed out that it's the opposite: by God's command, everything is permitted.
@@casaroli But ONLY if WE do it. Craig's logic is that morality comes from God and therefore God doesn't need to obey the same code. It's not consistent from our point of view, and it's irrelevant from God's point of view, therefor remains consistent.
To me, I believe humans naturalistic/secular morality is superior to God’s due to the fact that it has to remain consistent.
God on the other hand can change from black to white whenever he wants because God gets to decide what is good or bad, right or wrong at his own discretion with no justification, other than, I’m God, I can do what I want. (Oh and trust me, it's for the greater good, but you just can't see it because you're a silly little human.- God"
This is precisely why the secular world views are not only better, but needed.
💯 the secular worldview makes educated guesses for progress, religion makes uneducated guesses on how to go back to our "prime" lol
“Override what we understand as morality by a divine command” …… a difficult concept
Best evidence I've ever seen for the quote "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
The standard this sets is that anyone with conviction of their God should feel entitled to do whatever they want. The implication of this is far worse than any atheistic moral framework ever could be.
I had the exact same thought. Even more chilling for me is that the only requirement WLC placed on Divine Command is that it be "consistent".
Interesting that he wouldn't get into the epistemological argument. Because saying "how can one tell?" Seems to be yet another fundamental issue. After admitting that it's kosher for God to order the killing of children, he has to hide behind the "but you can't ever be justified in knowing you've been ordered!" so that he can avoid any responsibility for someone repeating that genocide today.
The funniest thing is that he keeps underlying the "just & loving nature" of Yahweh every time he talks about the divine ability to override our moral intuitions and slaughter innocent children. That's a pretty interesting way of interpreting love.
I had this thought too. Does he not hear himself?
It invites questions about how we can have a human perception of Heaven being pure good if the infallible divine dictator can freely perform acts we perceive as pure evil.
Yes, I think these types of arguments should really undermine Christian's unwavering belief that God has their best interests at heart. Let's just grant the Canaanites were utterly depraved and wicked. It is literally Christian doctrine, and I am relatively sure one that is accepted by Craig, that due to original sin we are ALL depraved and wicked, unworthy of any redemption or mercy from God.
If this depravity does indeed justify God in taking any action against us due to our wickedness and failure to live up to his standards of perfection, God is perfectly justified in lying to all Christians that they will have an eternal life in joy if they trust in Jesus, and then torturing them forever for being so arrogant and prideful as to believe they would be treated better just for those beliefs. Lying and torturing people is only immoral if people are unjustly harmed, and is it justice for all humans to suffer eternally, so it does not go against God just and loving nature to do so. Terrifying stuff that Craig's brain just blocks out because obviously God wouldn't do anything bad to HIM, it is the other horrible wicked people that God will righteously burn for eternity.
@@davegold
Maybe the problem doesn't lie with God per se, but with our own interpretation of reality?
If God exists and God is omniscient, then who are we to question his judgement?
Maybe we've become completely obssessed with power these days - the power to control our own destiny, the power to control each other in all sorts of tyrannical ways - the power to give life and to take it away?
Science can make us feel like gods at times, but it's an illusion, if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos & King Charles are gods, then we're obviously screwed for all eternity, aren't we? :)
Why would anyone want to live in a world that devalues their worth to the level of a mere commodity/lab rat?
Naw, it's us - not God, we're drunk on power, simple as that.
"People are crazy,
and times are strange,
i'm locked-in tight,
i'm outta range,
i used to care but...
things have changed!"
- Bob Dylan
I'm just glad that this dude became a "philosopher" and not a politician or general or anything else with power.
Absolute psychopath.
are you pro abortion?
@@rocketsurgeon1746 the fuck does that have to do with anything
@@shrekiscool4743 basics: you can't be mad at God for killing babies if you support killing babies. Simple logic
@@rocketsurgeon1746 foetuses you mean? Because I personally don't think it's particularly fair to force people to deal with and raise children that they aren't prepared to care for.
"Then don't have sex" Ok sure but what about things like rape? In that case the person *literally* had no choice and now they have to deal with a child despite the fact that they didn't do anything to deserve it. Does that sound fair to you?
@@shrekiscool4743 you bring up rape, so can we agree abortion should never be used to kill an unborn baby except for rape?
As a Christian I have to say that I love Alex O'Connor's demeanor and ability to conversate instead of ridicule and mock his Christian guests.
Amen brother
Even my ADHD brain cannot keep up with the pinball level of mental springboarding being done here. The slaughter of children being painted as a blessing to them is a stomach-churning take in my opinion. I'm not sure I would be able to sleep at night if I held such a view.
Existence itself is mental springboard, yet you say “I cannot keep up”
You’ve kept up you’re whole life
Yet when faced with a grinning theist you say “I cannot keep up”
I thought atheists were supposed to be ahead of the curve
If you can’t make EVERY paradox harmonious, you aren’t based and redpilled yet
If you can’t entertain Craig, then you allow him to expose your intellectual ego
You’re valid, given your context, but you are lacking Self awareness, to rebut so reflexively and shallowly
I absolutely could be wrong because I know almost nothing about you but I’m /assuming/ (because I’m a fool) that you support the mass infanticide of pre-born indefensible humans? The irony here runs thicker than the nectar of Eden.
@@jacksonelmore6227I never said that I was unwilling to entertain him. It's not reasonably based to assume that the expression of an opinion from a subjective position is evidence of egotism or mental inflexibility. Furthermore, I did not see it prudent to compose support or rebuttal in its entirety via a RUclips comment.
@@FrostyK1414 subjectivity and ego are metaphysical fractals, yet you’d deny this
@@jacksonelmore6227you have foul spirits inside you for justifying the murder of children. Please get help.
Masterfully done, Alex. He said everything we needed to hear. I'm horrified.
What is interesting is how WLCraig simultaneously defends the notion of a holocaust directed at the Canaanites while saying he is certain that the holocaust Hitler did was wrong.
@@rizdekd3912exactly. What if god told hitler and the Nazis it was right but told them not to tell anyone. Craig’s logic demands that possibility be considered
@@ballisticfish1212 It is interesting how often the holocaust is thrown out as a 'well if there is no objective morality then who's to say the holocaust is wrong?' But...as we see they can't answer who IS to say it was wrong...certainly not someone referring to the Bible for their basis of morality. They call it mass murder...but in another context (a context BTW that I don't agree with) it was mass execution of enemies of the state...that is how Hitler saw them. And there seems to be no moral repugnance for executions...at least from the Abrahamic religions/God. So it's down to subjective basis for saying the executions Hitler oversaw were wrong while other mass executions are right.
@@ballisticfish1212Horrified of what? Do you believe morality is objective? If morality is subjective, God can’t be immoral
@@lovespeaks777 can’t even tell if you’re actually responding to me.
“But let’s not confuse this with saying it’s ok to go kill children” … 48:00
Concerning 59:33, If Dr. Craig was a Canaanite, in Joshua 2:8-11, Rahab, a Canaanite hides two Israelite spies and explains why "Now before they lay down, she came up to them on the roof and said to the men, “I know that Yahweh has given you the land and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. For we have heard how Yahweh dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. Indeed we heard it, and our hearts melted, and a courageous spirit no longer rose up in any man because of you; for Yahweh your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath."
The Canaanites knew of the miracles God performed for the Israelites, knew how God had given them victory over the Amorites, and knew that God had given the Israelites the land. When they resisted the Israelites, they were purposefully resisting God's proven will, so it was not justified "epistemically" for the Canaanites to fight back. Epistemic means relating to knowledge, the Canaanites had the knowledge to decide to flee, fight, or join the Israelites. Based on their knowledge it would have been more logical not to fight, so the fact that they did, shows their decision to fight back wasn't based on logic, but on their own pride and rejection of God. Rahab was spared because she knew the truth and chose to accept God's will instead of fight against it. I wish more Canaanites had been like her.
Joshua 6:25 says "However, Rahab the harlot and her father’s household and all she had, Joshua preserved alive; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho." The truth is, if you humbly admit that God is real and He is right, and admit you have broken His law, then trust that He died on the cross for your sins, and turn from your sins, you will be saved and you will be one of God's people. You will join Rahab in an everlasting, perfect life forever if you humble yourself before God.
I make it a point of not worshipping any god that requires me to justify genocide.
@@cosmicmuffin322 Humans have justified genocide for countless other reasons than God. You don't get to stand on the high horse of atheism and outright reject genocide when your entire ideas around good and evil revolve around whatever the modern sensibilities suggest.
Nazism convinced an entire country of normal people that the genocide of a particular race was the right thing to do. Imagine if they were successful and this view became mainstream in the modern day, you wouldn't be able to say that genocide as bad is common sense because in this hypothetical example, genocide as good would be the common sense.
@@cosmicmuffin322pretty sure atheism has caused way more geonocides then religion. Also what is your standard for why taking human life is wrong? I have an external and self validating standard with reasoning but atheism cant provide that.
@@cosmicmuffin322 can you provide a rebuttal or not make an argument based on pure emotion