I can't BELIEVE that they cut out the intro to this video where Craig, Strobel, Wilson, Guthrie & Dennison did their ridiculous little dance before they took the stage!!!
This misconception, I think, stems from just a faulty definition of "humility." "Humility" doesn't mean letting others have their way, nor subservience, nor self-doubt, nor philosophical skepticism especially.
What it DOES mean is having a clear and thorough grasp of one's true place in the universe; alongside man, and below God, to whom one must by guided by faith and reason. So long as WLC uses faith and reason responsibly to reach towards God, he is humble.
How is it arrogant for WLC to simply state that none of his arguments supporting Theism had been challenged? It's perfectly appropriate for him to assert this...and any perjoritive statements regarding his 'arrogance' is clearly a smoke-screen to distract from the weakness of the Atheist position.
From the moment I first heard the first 15 minutes of hearing him speak until seeing his ass THOROUGHLY handed to him by Craig, I remain dumbfounded to understand why anyone would see Christopher Hitchens as being any more than a telegenic hack.
"Desperation" must be the primary reason so many atheists find him compelling. "Hitch" has found his "niche": and he's milking it all the way to the bank.
@howiboy. Nice try. "boring" as in: not new, not applicable, and repititious. The only head Craig is going over is his own. At his best, he leaves the door open a crack for deism, but his theistic assertions are down right silly. Yet, he continues to impress himself and others because he is a philosopher.
All of these claims are unsubstantiated, and unless you can establish any of this through evidence, logic or reason, I'm afraid you're not prepared to deal with the facts. -wink, wink.-
To everyone commenting- make sure you watch this entire event so as to understand the full context of this closing remark. Craig is off in his own universe somewhere, Hitchens is bored and so was I.
@belodeau Don't worry about it to much he's probably going over your head, I didn't find it boring but if you don't really understand his points I could see how it would get boring.
Everytime I hear Dr. Craig debate, he insists on creating his own criteria for what validates or falsifies an argument. You get the sense that you could best him a hundred times and he still wouldn't get it. He keeps saying that he's "given the answers and evidence" but all he does is keep the question mark aloft and then accuse Hitchens of not "engaging more specifically." Wow. Craig speaks like he read from a script he wrote before the discussion then took a nap during it.
1. The argument from contingency (why something exists rather than nothing): Our universe is a closed universe, which means it has a finite beginning and end. The fact that something can come out of nothing is as improbable as it becoming nothing, yet nobody contests the second point. In order to be rationally consistent we should also not contest a universe that began from nothing.
atheism (if atheism was a positive claim and for arguments sake, lets pretend it is) is absolutely falsifiable, that i agree with. show me god, and its falsified. nobody has done that, and atheism is actually not a positive claim. its "not buying what you're selling"
No doubt Hitchens is an engaging person, full of personality and an intelligent man. Overall though, and given his own personal earlier family tragedies, his bitterness towards God and Religion is prevalent and quite understandable. What better way to 'get back' if you will, at God than to deny his existence. He is way out his depth (for a change) with William Craig though.
When people say that atheism is the result of X or Y (in this case the dislike of the concept of God), I can immediately disregard the person, because I know full well why I am an athiest, and it was not rooted in a dislike of the concept.
Having seen Hitchen's closing statement here, this guy is a total shit dealer, whatever he believes in.
@ManOnTheMoon09; I just watched the entire interview and Christopher Hitchens didn't answer any questions, besides one. He didn't falsify any claim made, nor establish a more plausible explanation, rather he diverted the argument toward irrelevant premises that in no way shape or form can be used to defend the argument being discussed at hand.
Also, it's very clear that Evolution isn't very credible. You just need to search for the knowledge. There's actually alot wrong with it. Not only does the fossil record point the opposite way but there are no transitional figured. Also, on top of that the cell is irreducibly complex. Meaning that cell which the theory starts with is not the smallest thing. It goes past the cell. Which actually points to creation.
That he appears to be right and thus refutes the deeply held beliefs of the opposing side? Your question really comes down to a matter of emotions, I think. Some atheists don't just seem to disbelieve in God as a matter of the mind, they HATE God, or at least the proposed idea of (the Christian?) God anyway.
The fuss is where people are so dead set against anything pertaining to the idea of the unthinkable(insert whatever reason), that it drives them over the edge.
Actually you hit the nail on the head in that last comment. I didn't mean exclusively physical, but one that COULD be found in the physical universe (ie, more than just "interacts with"). Sloppy English on my part.
A view of god that is actually pretty modern. I'm pretty sure that the Christian model of god argued for until about 200 years ago WAS material. The argument was "if god isn't material, and outside of time, then how can we discern him from something that does not exist? an "outside of the universe" kind of god may as well be a non existant one".
Rather ironic that its now the secularists using this old Christian argument.
*Some cosmologists state (without necessary evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt, mind you)
As its not the only solution, and we've no way of working it out definitively for now, I shall entertain the possibility that this argument is valid, but I cannot accept it, which means that for now its nothing more than mere hypothesis.
I believe we've been through this before, so I'm going to leave it there.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
I'm assuming the word "begins" here functions as a way of making God exempt.
2) The universe began to exist.
Provide evidence. Physics has only shown that the universe in its current state expanded from a single point. That in no way says the universe DID begin at that time. That is just one possibility.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
Even if that were the case, its a big leap from "unknown cause", to YHWH.
@Lanter1000 He picks and chooses who he wants to listen to. He believes the very, very minute dissenters of evolution and takes for granted the physicists who support his notion of a creator. He's very picky regarding who he wants to listen to!
craig, he doth waffle lots, he is clever though, in the way he constructs his argument he knows how to make the most of a weak argument, but he is also using NLP or a variant, to command his audience what to think or what not to think.
he is tedious listening though, and jumps to conclusions left right and centre, dont like him or his snake oil
LOL. If you're under the impression that Hichens hasn't addressed most of those arguments, then you haven't seen much of his debates, or you simply weren't paying attention.
I'll send you a message since I don't think the commenting system will supply enough space.
Hitchens has, either in this debate or others, refuted almost every one of those pitiful arguments. But that aside, pick anyone of those arguments and I'll explain why it's petty and laughable.
Please be appropriately articulate in proposing them as well.
I think Dr. Craig did a superb job of summarizing the views of the participants and presenting his own views in response. It appears Hitchens wasn't really able to provide good reasons for believing that Christian theism is not true.
It seems the only vantage point Craig has is the supposedly accurate account of Jesus' resurrection, which is complete bollocks since historical accounts have trouble establishing that Jesus even existed.
Without that argument, Craig is presenting a case for all theism using arguments that can be addressed with rudimentary knowledge of each respective subject matter.
Great, surround him with 4 theists with the expectation he should answer all their questions. A discussion on those ten topics, with the appropriate counterarguments from the theists, would take days.
Furthermore, they are expecting Christopher to be a well versed physicist, theologian, philosopher, and biologists.
Furthermore, all of those arguments support only a Gap in our understanding and do not prove God in any way - except for the exceptionally inadequate ontological argument.
It was a long panel discussion (2 hours) and Hitchens actually spoke for the great majority of it so he had plenty of time to deal with the arguments.
I don't really agree with Craig on his theism or the alleged implications of his arguments, but he's right about Hitchens not really dealing with the arguments that're presented.
Hitchens makes some good points but a lot of the time he just goes off on a tangent.
Could it be that you're just parroting a lame, hackneyed stereotype of atheist dogma, which is to constantly make the unbacked claim that all Theists are somehow "arrogant?"
Give me break and just stick to the substance of the discussion... WLC is a very smart and articulate guy who also happens to an exceptional apologist when it comes to this issue... if you're having difficulty with that, just say so, but don't start name calling and avoiding the 'stuff' of what they're talking about.
edburg the problem with most atheists,they are stubborn and wont admit that they are wrong.Craig not only beat hitchens but trounced him in this debate, as craig said colorful personalities dont win debates, only logic and getting your point across does.Even towards the end of the video hitchens agrees with craig on the argument of objective morality.How much convincing do u need?That debate a huge blow to atheism.I love how WLC patted hitchens and told him to come better prepared next time.
And your equivalence of the meaning of objective and normative truth claims borders on the absurd. Let's be clear. Read the following two statements.
(1) The law of gravity is true.
(2) The law against murder is true.
Under your "moral epistemology" line of reasoning, both claims are true. But do you REALLY believe that both claims are TRUE in the same objective sense?Science is about being precise, exact, and as specific as possible. You simply can't equate apples and nuclear bombs.
You are not being consistent in your argument. It is the height of hypocrisy for you to be making scientific, objective claims about morality on the one hand, and then preclude atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens from challenging the OVERTLY scientific claims that Christianity makes about the origins of the universe because you claim that atheists don't have the "proper academic training" in what you call "the philosophy of religion" and thus aren't "qualified." Just ridiculous.
The more fundamental flaw in the "fine-tuning" argument, in addition to the fallacies of presupposing what it seeks to prove and being inherently question-begging, is that it is infinitely elastic and unfalsifiable. No matter what incredible scientific discoveries we make about the physical universe in the future, the "fine-tuning" crowd will just be able to sit back, relax, and say with every discovery, "Aha! See, we told you so! That God guy is just a whole lot smarter than we thought he was!"
Craig's second argument is that the beginning of the universe had to have a First Cause, and he assumes that Cause must be God. Again, God serves as the sufficient condition for the beginning of the universe, but He isn't a necessary condition. It might have happened that way; then again, it might not. Craig's third argument - the "fine-tuning" argument - is really the most pathetic of them all. In addition to assuming that an Intelligent Designer "fine-tuned" everything in our universe...cont.
The bottom line is that science offers human beings a more hopeful avenue to understanding things like how morality, compassion, and self-sacrifice evolved in us. You're right that science might not explain everything, but as Sam Harris says, "Human conversations are all we have to rely on. We're on our own in figuring ourselves out." That is, unless Jesus comes back, as theists have been promising us for centuries, and explains everything to us. I'm not willing to bet the farm on that. Are you?
I think science does deal with a lot and tells us a lot. I don't deny that. It can help us understand religious claims/beliefs. It can also prove CERTAIN religious beliefs wrong or right or support or disconfirm others. My only point is that science doesn't answer certain kinds of questions. It can't answer normative statements and it can't, strictly speaking, answer certain kinds of religious claims like whether God exists. It may lend support or not, but doesn't strictly answer the question.
Again, whether something exists or not is an epistemological question. It's not a normative one. It's either a "yes" or "no" answer, period. You can't weasel your way out of this by using some fancy semantics trick and call it "a religious claim" that cannot be scientifically evaluated. That claim is either true or it's false. That's as scientific and objective as it gets. And at the end of day, one side is really going to be right about that argument, and one side is really going to be wrong.
Normative statements can also be true or false. For example, is is true that you ought to kill those who aren't soccer fans? That's a true or false question. According to you though, this accounts as science when clearly anyone can see that it doesn't. Sorry, but I'm not the one confused here. You're confusing true science with epistemology when in fact epistemology deals with both normative and non normative claims whereas science doesn't.
"Is it true that you ought to kill those who aren't soccer fans?"
You're comparing apples and oranges. That is simply not a true or false question, nor does it lend itself to scientific verification or falsification. Just read that question again. Normative statements - by virtue of their inherently subjective nature - can NEVER be true or false. They can ONLY be right or wrong, depending which side of the argument you buy. This really is basic first day of class Philosophy 101 here.
I know it's not a scientific. It can be a true or false question though. There's nothing irrational or nonsensical about asking whether it's true or false that people ought to do certain things. The statement "it is true that we ought to help our neighbor" is a perfectly valid statement. Likewise, the statement "It is false that we ought to kill children for fun" is a perfectly valid statement. Both can be framed in a true or false manner. This is philosophy 101 here, and you're wrong on it.
You could not be more wrong. You really need some help understanding the basic elements of philosophical language. The fact that something "can" be turned into a true-or-false statement does NOT mean that it "should" be. The meaning of both of your statements becomes unnecessarily clouded when you use the words "true" and "false" instead of "right" and "wrong." Besides, the validity of a statement is completely separate from its intelligibility and meaning. That's Formal Logic 101. Go memorize.
Lot's of rhetoric, but no substance. This is about whether or not normative statements can be construed as true or false. You said the question of God's existence is a matter of truth vs falsity, and that that is science. But as soon as I do the same with normative statements you retract and make some lame excuse that it shouldn't be construed that way. Sorry, but you have to give an argument for that assertion, not just state it as so. Why not??
Actually, my arguments are all substance with no rhetoric at all. I am simply arguing that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. The question of God's existence is an objective epistemological question with a simple yes or no answer. It's either true or false. There's no "right" or "wrong" about it. You are tilting at windmills and trying to change the subject because you don't have very good scientific evidence to support your claim. Stop trying to cloud the issue and answer the question.
Again, normative statements can also be epistemological questions. Don't make me repeat myself. There is a right or wrong about questions concerning God's existence. The statement "God exists" could be answered "wrong" or "right". We do it all the time in fact. I'm not clouding the issue. I'm telling you specifically what science deals with and what it doesn't. It doesn't deal, strictly speaking, with God's existence. This question is answered by philosophy.
The question "God exists" can ONLY be answered with a "true" or "false" answer. Period. Normative statements can NEVER be epistemological questions. When they are, they are empty and pathetic rhetorical devices that carry no intellectual weight whatsoever. The only "right" or "wrong" component of God's existence is if by "right" you mean "true" and by "wrong" you mean "false." Bu then you aren't using "right" and "wrong" in the normative realm. They're just rhetorical devices. Get real.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Normative statements can be answered true or false. The statement "Is is true that we ought to love our neighbors" is a perfect, indisputable example of this.
Sorry, but I've seen this over and over again by philosophers in their books, so I know you're wrong on this. You're attempt to avoid the obvious by retreat to "rhetorical devices" is incredibly weak. It's not rhetorical devices. It's a perfectly valid way of putting a sentence.
"It's a perfectly valid way of putting a sentence."
It's only valid by the standards of Formal Logic. Not everyday, common-sense language standards. And the fact that something is "valid" in Formal Logic does not mean it translates into a prescription for normative ethical behavior. Here's an example.
Abraham loved Isaac.
God told Abraham to kill Isaac.
Abraham killed Isaac.
So is it "true" that Abraham should have killed Isaac? The language is completely misplaced. You don't make sense.
It's not misplaced. Truth speaks to existence and what is the actual case. Falsity is just the opposite. In the case of the example you gave of Abraham killing Isaac, we are asking is it an objectively existing fact that Abraham should have killed Isaac. In other words, is it the actual case that Abraham should kill Isaac. The same sense of truth we use for the question of God's existence applies equally here. Both are asking for the actual state of affairs of some question.
It's not the same in both cases, though. In the case of God's existence, either God exists or he doesn't. Period. In the case of Abraham, whether he "should" kill Isaac in theory OR in actuality are BOTH normative questions better answered in a subjective context than an objective one. Further, moral questions do not lend themselves to clear-cut "true" or "false" answers in the same fashion that the statements "God exists" or "God does not exist" does.
You can still answer the other question as an objective one. Compare (1) "Is it true that God exists" with (2) "Is it true that Abraham should have killed Isaac".
For (1) you can say it is true or false. For (2) you can also say it is true or false. If you regard the normative statement as wholly subjective then you answer "false" to (2). If you think it can be answered as objectively true you say "true". It's all the same however you look at it.
"You can still answer the other question as an objective one."
Sure, but the meanings are completely different in both answers. In the first question, a "true" or "false" answer ends the discussion. In the second question, a "true" or "false" answer immediately begs the question because the word "should" is included in the question stimulus. Also, you are claiming that the 2nd question could possibly lend itself to multiple interpretations. The 1st question doesn't do this. Apples and oranges.
...And it's irrelevant whether it's clear-cut or not. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a question. Many people think God's existence is not a clear cut question easy to answer. The point still remains that either God's existence is true or false. Likewise, the normative statement, as written above, is either true or false. There is no third way.
"The normative statement, as written above, is either true or false. There is no third way."
That's intellectually disingenuous. Normative statements such as the Abraham example - by their very nature - involve subjective "judgment calls" by human beings involved in extraordinarily complicated moral dilemmas. Answering a normative question with a "true" or "false" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than answering "true" or "false" to the question "Is it true that God exists?" It's apples and oranges.
"...And it's irrelevant whether it's clear-cut or not."
For scientific claims, this is quite true. By their very nature, scientific claims are either true or false. But that's not how moral choices work. Moral choices are hardly, if ever, diametrically opposed to each other. Circumstances always play a role in moral decisions. Read Sophie's Choice by William Styron. Absolute truth or falsity is completely absent from normative claims. Scientific claims are black and white. Ethics is gray.
Ok, I see what you're trying to do, but this doesn't change anything. I accept the point that right and wrong in this sense is construed as "true or false" and not "ought" or "ought not". But this doesn't change the fact that you can ask epistemological questions (ie. whether something is true or false) about normative statements. You can still ask whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact. The definition of true doesn't change here. It remains the same.
Sure. I would readily grant you that you can certainly ASK whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact. I just don't think it advances a debate very far by doing it, because you can't scientifically prove an "ought" or "ought not." That's why I don't give any credence to "moral epistemology," because it's basically people using words like "objectivity" and "true" and "false" in an ethical context. Ethics is inherently subjective, so epistemology doesn't help get us very far there.
The point is that asking whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact is essentially equivalent to the kind of truth we are asking when we ask whether God exists is an objective fact. Whether you think it advances the debate or not is irrelevant. Your original point was that science deals with epistemological claims only. But I showed that epistemological claims are extended to normative statements with giving statements and showing you the valid field of moral epistemology.
The problem is that NOBODY normally considers normative statements as objectively true facts. You are tilting at windmills again. That's all just pie-in-the-sky abstract classroom theory. That's why "moral epistemology" is bogus. You can't apply objective scientific inquiry to normative statements and ethical behavior. You're just engaging in linguistic gymnastics and high-falutin word games. There's no point to it.
Normative statements are NOT epistemological statements, and vice versa. You cannot equate the two. It is unnecessarily confusing at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Questions like "Is it true to murder your brother?" or "Is it false that we should lie to each other?" are distorted rhetorical devices whose language does not capture the essence of the inquiry because "truth" and "falsity" belong in the realm of facts and knowledge, not ethics and morality. You know better than that.
Normative statements can be construed as epistemological statements. I just showed utterly proved you wrong on moral epistemology (which deals entirely with normative ethical statements) so accept that you're wrong here as well. There is nothing distorted about it. It perfectly makes sense in English. You can ask, for example, whether it is an objective fact that murder is wrong. Professional philosophers discuss such propositional statements ALL THE TIME. You dont know what your talking about
"Normative statements can be construed as epistemological statements."
This is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. You did not prove me wrong in the slightest. On the contrary, you've only proved my point even further by conflating normative ethics and objective epistemology. The only thing I'll accept is victory in this debate, even though it's from an opponent who honestly believes that questions like "Is murder true?" and "Is stealing false?" are legitimate in intellectual discourse.
"....You did not prove me wrong in the slightest."
Yes I did, and you admitted as much when you just now recognized that moral epistemology exists. AGAIN MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY DEALS WITH NORMATIVE STATEMENTS and hence can be normative statements can be construed as such.
I evidently can't carry on a rational conversation with you anymore. You won't own up to the fact that you're wrong. This is obvious intellectual dishonesty on your part.
"The meaning of both of your statements becomes unnecessarily clouded when you use the words "true" and "false" instead of "right" and "wrong.""
It's not clouded. You just use it in a different and compatible way. The statements "Is it right to murder someone" is equivalent to "Is is true that we ought to murder someone". Both are perfectly acceptable statements and if one of them is wrong to construe it in such a way, then you need to give a good reason, one which you haven't provided.
A majority of Americans believe in a personal God because of their cultural surroundings and parental upbringing. When you start confronting religious believers about whether they REALLY believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days, and whether they REALLY believe that Adam and Eve existed in a garden with a talking snake, you start hearing all kinds of hilarious Monty Python-esque equivocations and hedging. Their is a broad range and depth of Americans' religious beliefs.
I don't care why Americans believe what they do. The point is that if the existence of God were really a matter of science then chances are they would teach it in the classroom. Thankfully, academics recognize that science and religion are distinct from one another and so they don't, for the most part, have God being taught in science classrooms.
You need to accept that science does not deal with everything. My mind is still going crazy realizing that you don't get this.
Today's theists have changed their tune toward science, deciding to embrace it rather than reject it. But they do not embrace science for the right reasons. Science - in its purest form - seeks to find truth, knowledge, and understanding about the universe. Religion, on the other hand, already claims to know everything there is to know about the universe, including how it's going to end, and wants to use science to help justify its view of the world and how we ought to be living in it. Garbage.
Sure, Theists embrace science, but they do it under philosophy. The claim that God exists is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. You can use science to support premises in a philosophical argument, but one must always remember that it is still, at the end of the day, a philosophical argument not a scientific one. Therefore, it's religious philosophy in this sense, not science.
Your claim that the existence of God is a "religious philosophical" question and not a scientific one is ludicrous. Every question - to one extent or another - is a scientific one at heart. Science is the only reliable method that human beings have of organizing our knowledge, of predicting future events, and of shaping our day-to-day behavior as inhabitants of planet Earth. We use science and scientific inquiry in every single domain of discourse except religion, where theists have banished it.
Common man. YOU ARE A PHILOSOPHER!! You should know this more than anyone. You cannot answer certain questions using science. For example, you cannot put moral values in a test tube, neither can you put beauty or ugliness in one either. Science doesn't deal with normative statements. Likewise, you can't prove scientifically that God exists or that he doesn't
Honestly, I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you have a Ph.D in philosophy. This is like the most undeniable point ever in philosophy
"You cannot answer certain questions using science."
Typical religious hubris. You might be right, of course, but you might be wrong, too. This is where the humility of science is so endearing. I believe that human beings have only developed a superficial scientific understanding of things like morality, beauty, and ugliness. But who knows? Maybe one day neuroscientists will discover a "moral" gene, or a part of the brain that appreciates "beauty" and abhors "ugliness." Continued...
Uh...that's the current secular position. And I am right. It's not hard to see how I am. The examples you give of maybe one day discovering a gene for beauty or morality shows that you don't understand the issue. It's about science proving normative statements, not discovering why we are moral. Tell me, can you prove scientifically that we ought to not commit murder? Science may be able to tell us why we generally don't, but it can't tell us if we should or shouldn't.
You are confusing epistemological claims with normative claims. Science - and the discipline of neurobiology in particular - does not aim to tell us how we ought to act. It only aims to try to account for why we act the way we do. Science isn't trying to provide an impetus for us to treat each other well. That impetus will come from deeply-rooted social mores, customs, and traditions that are passed on from generation to generation. This is what Aristotle's notion of morality is all about.
Thanks for proving my point that science does not deal with certain types of questions and claims. There's no difference here between epistemological claims or normative claims. In fact you can make normative claims or questions into epistemological claims or questions. For example, the statement "how do we know what is right or wrong" is a epistemological question about a normative question. Therefore it's not true that science only deals with epistemological questions. Far from it.
You're spinning in rhetorical circles. The field of epistemology deals with claims about knowledge and facts. These are claims that can be proven and disproven. Epistemology is not and never will deal with normative claims. Normative claims and questions fall under the rubric of ethics. Ethical claims are inherently subjective and can neither be definitively proven nor disproven. This is Philosophy 101. Epistemology is not ethics, and and ethics is not epistemology. There's a huge difference.
You obviously didn't get that Ph.D in philosophy. Epistemology CAN and DOES deal with normative claims. I'd 100% confident of that. Epistemology is about knowledge and how we acquire it. Therefore asking something like how we know right from wrong will be an epistemological question.
What do you think moral epistemology is? That is a well defined field of philosophy which deals precisely with ethical statements (ie. normative statements)
"You obviously didn't get that Ph.D in philosophy."
Well, the faculty of the Philosophy Department at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, would beg to differ with you, especially Professor Gregory Ganssle, against whom I defended my dissertation.
Moral epistemology? Let me ask you something. Did you just make that up? Seriously. Is that like "ethical metaphysics"? Or "moral existentialism"? I challenge you to find a single philosophy course with that title on an American college campus.
It doesn't sound offensive at all. It's pretty difficult to offend me, especially since I am comfortable with complexity and ambiguity in arguments and in discussions on science.
I just Googled "moral epistemology." Wow. The only academic "discipline" - if you can even call it that - with less intellectual legitimacy in the history of Western Civilization than "moral epistemology" is Scientology....or possibly herbal medicine. Good luck with that. Tell Tom Cruise and Andrew Weil I said hello.
Alright, well I kind of felt bad after I said that. Sorry about that.
I don't how and what your basing your conclusion on when you say moral epistemology is only above Scientology. Moral epistemology, if you looked closely at the pages in google, is featured on the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, Cambridge Collections online, books published by Cambridge University press, Blackwell publishing, and is discussed by such prominent philosophers of ethics as Walter Armstrong, Robert Audi etc
More importantly though, I proved you wrong when you stated that moral epistemology doesn't exists. I think you can see now that I'm the real deal now and I do know what I'm talking about on matters of philosophy, especially philosophy of Religion.
Actually, you never proved me wrong. I never said that moral epistemology does not exist. I just said I don't believe it's valuable philosophy because ethics and epistemology do not overlap. "Right" and "wrong" are in different categories than "True" and "False." And I remain extraordinarily unconvinced that you "know what you're talking about" when it comes to the philosophy of religion. Anybody can use Google. It's another thing entirely to digest Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Foucault.
Listen, I've heard of "moral epistemology." I've also heard of "moral existentialism" and "ethical metaphysics." I've also heard of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and your invisible, imaginary, nonexistent friend up in the sky, too. That doesn't mean I give any of them any credence. And Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche had NOTHING TO DO with "moral epistemology." They were both part of the existentialist movement. Time to get your facts straight....yet again.
If you've heard of moral epistemology then you wouldn't have asked if I made it up. Obviously not, since you heard of it before. I think you're just trying to do damage control. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Yes, obviously Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were existentialists but does that mean they never dealt with moral epistemological issues in their lifetime. No. For example, Kierkegaard deals a little with moral epistemology in his "concluding unscientific postscript".
The reason I asked you if you made up "moral epistemology" is that I regard it as junk philosophy. I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that it advances ethical debate one iota to apply scientifically objective words like "true" and "false" to the language of ethics and moral behavior.
Kierkegaard does not deal specifically with "moral epistemology" in the "Concluding Unscientific Postscript." His main focus in all his works is the radicalized individual experience of a human being on Earth.
I don't care what you think about it. The fact remains that this field exists, and it is a well defined field of philosophy. I still don't believe for one second that you knew the field exists. You also asked me to name a course taught at a University on moral epistemology. If you knew it existed you wouldn't say that. How do you respond to that?
Tell me, what's Kierkegaard's main focus on in his concluding unscientific postscript? This will be interesting.
The fact that the field exists doesn't lend it any credence or legitimacy. Scientology exists, too, and nobody but wack jobs take it seriously. We're back to sufficient and necessary conditions again. I don't know what you mean by a "well-defined field of philosophy." I'm not willing to concede that. I don't see a lot of philosophy's intellectual heavyweights emerging from the area of "moral epistemology." I'll get to Kierkegaard in my next post. He is my 2nd favorite philosopher.
"You also asked me to name a course taught at a University on moral epistemology."
You STILL have not done this, by the way.
"If you knew it existed you wouldn't say that."
That is a complete non-sequitur. I really am not following you. The fact that a tiny minority specialty strand exists in a wide-ranging discipline like philosophy does not mean that courses on "moral epistemology" are taught on college campuses on it. They did not even have a course on it at Yale...and for good reason.
If I remember correctly, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), Kierkegaard focuses mostly on what he regards as the differences between objective and subjective truth, and how he thought we perceived them. This essay was different from his previous works like Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death, where he explored complex moral quandaries, questions of religious faith, and the notion of despair, all of which intrigued him. This is what I remember. How's that?
I do respect the fact that Craig actually believes the truth claims of Christianity. So many theists I debate fall into immediate intellectual retreat when I challenge them on Christianity's truth claims. They use the cynical, utilitarian fallback position of "well, even if Christianity isn't true, it makes us behave better toward each other, so it's good for us to believe it." I'm sorry. That's pathetic. Either defend your arguments on the merits, or don't defend them at all.
One of the problem with the debates between atheists and Christian apologetics like Craig is that they don't speak the same "language." Craig always introduces theological argments to support his views - he just assumes that these are valid. It's a non-starter for any atheist. But I agree that Harris might be a better candidate than Hitchens since he's usually more willing to tackle an opponent's argument - whereas Hitchens simply dismisses these as white noise (though for good reason).
I think you are right about this. The inherent fallacy in virtually all of Craig's arguments is that they all assume what they set out to prove - the existence of God. All of Craig's "arguments" for the existence of God provide sufficient conditions for God's existence - NOT necessary conditions. There is a Grand Canyon-sized difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, but Craig just glosses over it and shrugs it aside like it's no big deal. This is intellectually dishonest.
Where does Craig assume the existence of God. And how are Craig's first 3 arguments sufficient conditions? I would like to hear that, especially considering that these are deductive arguments.
Are you actually being serious? You don't see the egregious fallacies he commits in these arguments? They couldn't be more glaring if they punched you in the face! The "argument from contingency" assumes that God is the reason there is "something" rather than "nothing." For this argument to be valid, God MUST be the sufficient condition for causing the "something," but it isn't necessary that he is. The second argument is a watered-down version of the ontological argument. Continued.....
I would really enjoy watching Sam Harris debate William Lane Craig. I have watched Hitchens for a long time, and he seems to use the same line of attack and same punch lines against every debater he takes on. Harris is much more thoughtful and deliberate in debate settings, and he actually addresses his opponent's arguments on their own terms instead of engaging in hyperbole, exaggeration, and oversimplification. I would respect Dr. Craig a lot more if he had the guts to take on Sam Harris.
What makes you think Craig doesn't have the guts to face Harris? Craig would debate Harris no doubt, but Harris charges a hefty price ($20,000+) for invitations to speak or debate. Interestingly enough, I've been thinking of possibly organizing the funding for such a debate (mostly to pay Harris' fee) so keep an eye out for this specific debate in the near future.
I agree that Craig would probably accept a challenge to debate Harris, but it would have to be on his terms or in friendly territory. I've been trying to organize a debate between Harris and Craig, too, at a neutral site, and under a more informal, free-flowing conversational format. Francis Collins and Dinesh D'Souza have both refused to debate Harris, and it isn't about the money. Harris is the most formidable debater of the so-called "new atheists," though he doesn't describe himself as one.
I find it hard to believe D'Souza refused a debate with Harris. I thought that guy prides himself on taking on the New Atheists. If Collins declined, I wouldn't be surpised
As for Craig, he'll debate on neutral territory. He does this all the time on secular University campuses. In fact he prefers it. I'm not so sure about the format, but I'd imagine Craig is fine with an informal conversational format. I'm not sure how far you are in your organizing. I'm planning on raising the actual funds.
If you don't believe me about D'Souza and Collins declining to debate Harris, go check out Sam's interviews on TSN. Some of them are even posted on YouTube. The interviewer asks Harris directly about his willingness to debate D'Souza and Collins, and he answers that he's personally invited both of them to debate and has not heard back from either one. I'm not surprised. Collins doesn't seem like a "debating" kind of guy, and I don't think D'Souza could hold a candle to Harris intellectually.
It's not that I think you're lying or anything, it's just hard to believe D'Souza would decline a debate. Maybe he just never got the message. A while ago I remember when Dawkins declined to appear on a news channel with D'Souza. Dinesh practically wrote a book on his blog about how he was so upset about it. Again, Dinesh prides himself on debating the so called "best" of the Atheists, so that's why I'm having a hard time seeing him literally decline a debate.
I think it was about the debate format. I've watched all of Dinesh's debates - several in person - and he thrives in a structured, timed format. He doesn't do so well in an informal, free-flowing conversational format. Dinesh always works from notes, and seems as if he is more comfortable rattling off bullet points rather than responding to the specifics of his opponent's argument. And, of course, in every dabate, he always finds time to blame atheism for every single crime of the 20th century.
As far as organizing a debate is concerned, I'm in contact with Harris's lecture agent now, and several student groups on my campus are interested in fronting some of the money needed to sponsor a debate. I think both men would be very well received, and I think Craig would enjoy sparring with an opponent who's completing a doctorate in neuroscience at Stanford, with a specialty in studying the neural basis of belief with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Sam Harris is not a dummy.
I agree Harris isn't a dummy. In fact, I think he's more sophisticated than Hitchens and Dawkins' combined, at least on matters of Religion. Plus he's articulate and calm when he speaks, rather than emotional and rhetorical. This is why I would love to see Craig debate him.
I must say I'm impressed that you've already gone ahead with this. Perhaps we could join forces in making this debate a real possibility. I'll send a message to your inbox shortly for more information.
Of all the so-called "New Atheists," Dawkins is probably the most intelligent. People rarely give him enough credit for his academic brilliance. And Hitchens is no slouch. My only problem with him is that I think he sometimes allows his utter hatred of the idea of God cloud his arguments for how unreasonable it is to believe in God. Harris does a much better job of making the case for religious doubt and skepticism. He's articulate, calm, and concise, and his arguments are cogent and persuasive.
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but when it comes to philosophy of Religion he's quite unremarkable here. Compared to Dawkins and Hitchens in this area, I think Harris just comes across as more sophisticated, less emotional/rhetorical than them which is why I prefer him over the rest.
I'm not sure Sam will even agree to debate Craig, especially after Craig went on the Michael Coren show and called all of the New Atheists "profoundly unsophisticated" and not very "intellectually bright." How Craig can say Sam Harris isn't "bright" is beyond me. On the show, Craig also used the old reliable trite and hackneyed ad hominem attack that the New Atheists are "angry" and "bitter." I would have hoped that Craig was above all that, but he wasn't on the Michael Coren show.
Craig went on the Michael Coren show and called all of the New Atheists "profoundly unsophisticated" and not very "intellectually bright."
I've noticed that whenever Craig's defenders run into trouble, they shrug and point to Craig's academic credientials. So they cannot address the logical fallacies or false premises that Craig relies upon, but they figure they don't have to. Craig simply MUST be smarter than his opponents. Arguments from authority are second nature to these theists.
Well, a lot of Atheists like to downplay the academic credentials of Theists so I'm not too surprised if Theists bring it up for Craig. Since Craig actually does hold an impressive academic resume, (a resume that far outweighs the New Atheists in the relevant area under discussion), it's probably legitimate to bring it up every now and then.
And I'm happy to discuss Craig's arguments. In fact, this is what I often try to get the Atheist to focus on. Perhaps we could discuss them a bit later.
I disagree with your claim that Craig has better credentials in the "relevant area under discussion." But I think that goes the heart of the matter. Theists inexpicably seem to imagine that religious philosophy (ie, theology) is the relevant area. Yet Craig (and all faith apologists) are constantly making claims about the natural world, but the only support they give for these are not found in philosophy and certainly not in science - but in Scripture. This isn't reason. It's rationalization.
Religious philosophy is the relevant area. The question of God's existence is recognized by most academics as a question of philosophy, strictly speaking. And both Theists and Atheists engage in philosophy of Religion. Daniel Dennett is a philosopher of Religion in addition to being a philosopher of science for example. Philosophy of Religion isn't theology. Theology tries to do exegesis and answer questions based primarily on the Bible. Philosophy tries to do recourse without it.
1. I've never seen Craig limit his arguments to philosophy.
2. Craig's philosophical arguments seem (to me anyway) indistinguishable from the ones Aquinas made 1,000 years ago. Same flaws.
3. Beyond the basics, philosophy isn't much of a tool for understanding the universe. The Baconian revolution did away with that notion a long time ago. You have to go out and observe and study the world if you hope to understand it.
I just cannot possibly agree with you on this. Religious philosophy is not the "relevant area" at all. The "relevant area" is science and the natural world. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either Jesus is coming back, or he isn't. If Jesus comes back, then Christianity will stand scientifically revealed, and all the theists can ridicule atheists like me and watch us eat crow. Until that happens, the truth claims of Christianity are nothing more than a fairy tale, as far as I'm concerned.
Wow, are you seriously disputing this? A person with a Ph.D in philosophy??
Science does not deal, properly speaking, with the existence of God. Virtually all academics recognize that today. God is to be "left out of the science classroom", as the saying goes remember? If you say this is a matter of science then you legitimize teaching creation in the classroom. You know, for a person who has a Ph.D in philosophy, it's quite remarkable that you don't know this. I can't understand that.
Of course I'm disputing it. And the debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution in the classroom is completely irrelevant to this debate. It's a red herring. Science, properly speaking, deals with the empirical study of the physical world around us. Modern theists, having had their religious truth claims mastered by advances in science, technology, reason, and secular thought over the past several centuries, are now doing a complete 180 on science....I'll continue in my next post.
No, it's not a red herring. Atheists love to claim that God should be left out of the classroom. They fail to realize by calling God a science question they legitimize teaching creation in the classroom. If God is science, then why not teach what most Americans believe which is that God created the Universe. It should be taught right in the science classroom, which is absurd.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Your argument is full of generalizations and oversimplification. SOME atheists claim that God should be left out of the classroom entirely. Others, like me, have no problem teaching creationism in the classroom, provided it is taught from a scientific perspective. As far as the beliefs of "most Americans," your argument is overly broad and questionable at best. A good case can be made that a majority of Americans believe in a personal God because of....Continued
Most Atheists think God should not be taught in the classroom. I'm surprised you think otherwise. More importantly though, the overwhelming majority of academics, Theists and Atheists alike believe the same thing. God and science are distinct questions. As the National academy of science puts it:
"Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious beliefs"
So, are you still interested in working together to organize a debate between Craig and Hitchens? From all the previous comments you just gave it would seem as if you're not so interested anymore. Let me know for sure though. I would love to know what Harri's lecture agent said to you.
I'm assuming you have me confused with someone else. I have no role in organizing debates.
But I am glad that you're willing to defend Craig's actual arguments. So far, I haven't encoutered many theists who willing to even try. To your credit, you attempted to do so earlier when you argued that atheists equate morality with the sort of indivudal preference as taste in food. An argument dispensed with by greater philosphers centures ago. (As if a deity is what gives morality meaning).
Yeah I apparently did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.
I would love to discuss the arguments with you. If you feel like I'm being slow in responding to you I apologize for that as well. I get quite a few responses to my comments everyday so it's somewhat hard respond to all of them. I try my best
About the morality issue, I never stated Atheists equate morality with food preference. I said on Atheism, it's hard to see morality anything more significant than food preference.
Sure, I'm certainly interested in organizing a debate. Sam's lecture agent told me that Sam is busy finishing his doctorate in neuroscience right now, as well as working on completing another book about reason, morality, and the neuroscientific basis of emotions like love, charity, compassion, etc. He wasn't specific about what it would cost.
That's fine, but we'll need some sort of price and date for future events that he is willing to do if this is going to happen. I can't set up a debate on a specific campus since I'm here in Canada. I was hoping to set up an account that people could donate too (and hopefully with the approval of RF and Harris' site). I know of a bunch of people who would donate a lot of money for this event.
Sam refusing to debate Craig over a simple insult would be truly amazing. That would be such a cop out. I can't help but feel your holding a double standard here. Over and over again I've heard the New Atheists (especially Hitchens) insult their opponents and no one makes a peep about it. But as soon as Theists make insults it's "ahhhhh....how could he" say such a thing". Atheists trying to complain about Craig's supposedly low comments are being hypocritical.
....Therefore, even if true, you wouldn't really have a complaint against Craig.
Of course, however, none of this is true of Craig anyways. Craig never said the New Atheists are "profoundly unsophisticated'. He said their books were unsophisticated. Craig also never said Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens aren't intellectually bright either. You're putting words into his mouth. Please watch the show again. You're evidently confusing a title of a video (by drcraigvideos) with what Craig actually said.
I would be a lot more impressed with Craig if he didn't just recite a laundry list of old, recycled arguments that have been refuted by atheists for hundreds of years. Come on - the ontological argument? Do any Christian apologists actually believe this argument still carries any intellectual weight? Even if we grant the existence of a Prime Mover via the ontological argument, that STILL doesn't get us to the Christian God. Prime Mover doesn't equal "all-loving, all-forgiving, all-merciful,"etc.
HAHA!! You tell um Dr. Craig!
MsPROOFthatGODexists 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't BELIEVE that they cut out the intro to this video where Craig, Strobel, Wilson, Guthrie & Dennison did their ridiculous little dance before they took the stage!!!
You can still see the clip here:
/watch?v=ZLtR8_qw_yM
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
What a slimy little weasel WLC is, Thought Christians were supposed to be humble yet this guy is supremely arrogant.
Unwin85 8 months ago
@Unwin85
This misconception, I think, stems from just a faulty definition of "humility." "Humility" doesn't mean letting others have their way, nor subservience, nor self-doubt, nor philosophical skepticism especially.
What it DOES mean is having a clear and thorough grasp of one's true place in the universe; alongside man, and below God, to whom one must by guided by faith and reason. So long as WLC uses faith and reason responsibly to reach towards God, he is humble.
mytruepower2 4 months ago
@Unwin85
How is it arrogant for WLC to simply state that none of his arguments supporting Theism had been challenged? It's perfectly appropriate for him to assert this...and any perjoritive statements regarding his 'arrogance' is clearly a smoke-screen to distract from the weakness of the Atheist position.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 3 weeks ago
From the moment I first heard the first 15 minutes of hearing him speak until seeing his ass THOROUGHLY handed to him by Craig, I remain dumbfounded to understand why anyone would see Christopher Hitchens as being any more than a telegenic hack.
"Desperation" must be the primary reason so many atheists find him compelling. "Hitch" has found his "niche": and he's milking it all the way to the bank.
EastofForever 1 year ago
Theres no way craig has never heard of the anthropic principal.....
speeches like this make me think they are keeping people dumb to sustain a living...
heeh2 1 year ago
@howiboy. Nice try. "boring" as in: not new, not applicable, and repititious. The only head Craig is going over is his own. At his best, he leaves the door open a crack for deism, but his theistic assertions are down right silly. Yet, he continues to impress himself and others because he is a philosopher.
belodeau 1 year ago
@belodeau
All of these claims are unsubstantiated, and unless you can establish any of this through evidence, logic or reason, I'm afraid you're not prepared to deal with the facts. -wink, wink.-
mytruepower2 4 months ago
To everyone commenting- make sure you watch this entire event so as to understand the full context of this closing remark. Craig is off in his own universe somewhere, Hitchens is bored and so was I.
belodeau 1 year ago
@belodeau Don't worry about it to much he's probably going over your head, I didn't find it boring but if you don't really understand his points I could see how it would get boring.
howiboy 1 year ago
Everytime I hear Dr. Craig debate, he insists on creating his own criteria for what validates or falsifies an argument. You get the sense that you could best him a hundred times and he still wouldn't get it. He keeps saying that he's "given the answers and evidence" but all he does is keep the question mark aloft and then accuse Hitchens of not "engaging more specifically." Wow. Craig speaks like he read from a script he wrote before the discussion then took a nap during it.
belodeau 1 year ago
1. The argument from contingency (why something exists rather than nothing): Our universe is a closed universe, which means it has a finite beginning and end. The fact that something can come out of nothing is as improbable as it becoming nothing, yet nobody contests the second point. In order to be rationally consistent we should also not contest a universe that began from nothing.
ammar6842 1 year ago
@ammar6842 what do you mean by closed? please define more, sorry
Cwizzy2012 1 year ago
atheism (if atheism was a positive claim and for arguments sake, lets pretend it is) is absolutely falsifiable, that i agree with. show me god, and its falsified. nobody has done that, and atheism is actually not a positive claim. its "not buying what you're selling"
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
No doubt Hitchens is an engaging person, full of personality and an intelligent man. Overall though, and given his own personal earlier family tragedies, his bitterness towards God and Religion is prevalent and quite understandable. What better way to 'get back' if you will, at God than to deny his existence. He is way out his depth (for a change) with William Craig though.
Teddybhoy32 1 year ago
@MrLogicalPositivist Thats what im picking up from listening to him.
eddo1983 1 year ago
That's called kicking ass.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Looks like atheist got OWNED with this one!
SmalltimR 1 year ago
When people say that atheism is the result of X or Y (in this case the dislike of the concept of God), I can immediately disregard the person, because I know full well why I am an athiest, and it was not rooted in a dislike of the concept.
Having seen Hitchen's closing statement here, this guy is a total shit dealer, whatever he believes in.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
atheism is dead
theamericandream1989 1 year ago
And yet none of this points to Christianity...except the historical account of the resurrection i.e. the Bible.
Keeban3 1 year ago
I cant believe that he actually believes everything he just said...What an idiot.
blackbeltste 2 years ago
Every of the ten arguments had been explained by hitch...
Very good example how self deluding christians can be...
ManOnTheMoon09 2 years ago
@ManOnTheMoon09; I just watched the entire interview and Christopher Hitchens didn't answer any questions, besides one. He didn't falsify any claim made, nor establish a more plausible explanation, rather he diverted the argument toward irrelevant premises that in no way shape or form can be used to defend the argument being discussed at hand.
dimic 2 years ago
what a fool
ManOnTheMoon09 2 years ago
The fat guy to Dr. Craig's left, whatever his name is, seems really angry. LOL!
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Oops! I forgot to say greasy and unkempt!
The greasy, unkempt fat guy to Dr. Craig's left seems very angry.
; )
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Also, it's very clear that Evolution isn't very credible. You just need to search for the knowledge. There's actually alot wrong with it. Not only does the fossil record point the opposite way but there are no transitional figured. Also, on top of that the cell is irreducibly complex. Meaning that cell which the theory starts with is not the smallest thing. It goes past the cell. Which actually points to creation.
steven082290 2 years ago
Fool. Everything you just said is wrong. Literally, everything.
blackbeltste 2 years ago 2
@steven082290 i totally agree with you. great point dude. God Bless
bfinkish 1 year ago
as an unbiased objector, Dr.Craig is quite clear. Very logical. What's the fuss about?
helpmetony 2 years ago 6
That he appears to be right and thus refutes the deeply held beliefs of the opposing side? Your question really comes down to a matter of emotions, I think. Some atheists don't just seem to disbelieve in God as a matter of the mind, they HATE God, or at least the proposed idea of (the Christian?) God anyway.
BrainCraters 2 years ago 4
As an opponent he has to refute the beliefs of the opposing side, it's a debate, isnt it?
The rest I agree with you, BC!
helpmetony 2 years ago 2
The fuss is that Craig's argument(though sound) does not coincide with a number of peoples feelings toward matters of life and origin.
Other than that, he makes very good use of the philosophical method in his presentation of the kalam argument.
SmalltimR 2 years ago
@helpmetony
The fuss is where people are so dead set against anything pertaining to the idea of the unthinkable(insert whatever reason), that it drives them over the edge.
SmalltimR 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens is a pseudo-intellectual when it comes to the respected fields that are: philosophy of science and Christian Theism, etc.
dimic 2 years ago
I would love to punch that smug cunt in the face.
ijustwannawatchshite 2 years ago
Actually you hit the nail on the head in that last comment. I didn't mean exclusively physical, but one that COULD be found in the physical universe (ie, more than just "interacts with"). Sloppy English on my part.
Brettah31 2 years ago
A view of god that is actually pretty modern. I'm pretty sure that the Christian model of god argued for until about 200 years ago WAS material. The argument was "if god isn't material, and outside of time, then how can we discern him from something that does not exist? an "outside of the universe" kind of god may as well be a non existant one".
Rather ironic that its now the secularists using this old Christian argument.
Brettah31 2 years ago
*Some cosmologists state (without necessary evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt, mind you)
As its not the only solution, and we've no way of working it out definitively for now, I shall entertain the possibility that this argument is valid, but I cannot accept it, which means that for now its nothing more than mere hypothesis.
I believe we've been through this before, so I'm going to leave it there.
Brettah31 2 years ago
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
I'm assuming the word "begins" here functions as a way of making God exempt.
2) The universe began to exist.
Provide evidence. Physics has only shown that the universe in its current state expanded from a single point. That in no way says the universe DID begin at that time. That is just one possibility.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
Even if that were the case, its a big leap from "unknown cause", to YHWH.
Brettah31 2 years ago
Craig will propably give you some book by Barrow and Tipler. He always uses them as a source when it comes to physics and the Big Bang. Always.
Lanter1000 2 years ago
@Lanter1000 He picks and chooses who he wants to listen to. He believes the very, very minute dissenters of evolution and takes for granted the physicists who support his notion of a creator. He's very picky regarding who he wants to listen to!
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 1 year ago
this guy leaves me cold, I don't trust him at all, a real scheister who jumps to stupid conclusions. fucking twat
freezatron 2 years ago
WLC?
Brettah31 2 years ago
Watery Leafy Closet ?
Wanking Little Cunt ?
freezatron 2 years ago
were you talking about William Lane Craig (WLC), or someone else in the comment thread you just replied to?
Brettah31 2 years ago
craig, he doth waffle lots, he is clever though, in the way he constructs his argument he knows how to make the most of a weak argument, but he is also using NLP or a variant, to command his audience what to think or what not to think.
he is tedious listening though, and jumps to conclusions left right and centre, dont like him or his snake oil
freezatron 2 years ago
LOL. If you're under the impression that Hichens hasn't addressed most of those arguments, then you haven't seen much of his debates, or you simply weren't paying attention.
I'll send you a message since I don't think the commenting system will supply enough space.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Hitchens has, either in this debate or others, refuted almost every one of those pitiful arguments. But that aside, pick anyone of those arguments and I'll explain why it's petty and laughable.
Please be appropriately articulate in proposing them as well.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
I think Dr. Craig did a superb job of summarizing the views of the participants and presenting his own views in response. It appears Hitchens wasn't really able to provide good reasons for believing that Christian theism is not true.
josephdc22 2 years ago 2
It seems the only vantage point Craig has is the supposedly accurate account of Jesus' resurrection, which is complete bollocks since historical accounts have trouble establishing that Jesus even existed.
Without that argument, Craig is presenting a case for all theism using arguments that can be addressed with rudimentary knowledge of each respective subject matter.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 2 years ago
I fail to see how Craig can put forth such horribly weak arguments and still be thought of as an intellectual.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
Great, surround him with 4 theists with the expectation he should answer all their questions. A discussion on those ten topics, with the appropriate counterarguments from the theists, would take days.
Furthermore, they are expecting Christopher to be a well versed physicist, theologian, philosopher, and biologists.
Furthermore, all of those arguments support only a Gap in our understanding and do not prove God in any way - except for the exceptionally inadequate ontological argument.
jmui011 2 years ago
It was a long panel discussion (2 hours) and Hitchens actually spoke for the great majority of it so he had plenty of time to deal with the arguments.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
@jmui011 -- The arguments do not support only a gap in our understanding. Many of them are deductive arguments. Not appeals to ignorance.
Jugglable 2 years ago
I don't really agree with Craig on his theism or the alleged implications of his arguments, but he's right about Hitchens not really dealing with the arguments that're presented.
Hitchens makes some good points but a lot of the time he just goes off on a tangent.
Zdrazy 2 years ago
Ha Ha. This is what inevitably happens when a true philosopher debates a sophist.
platonist83the2nd 2 years ago 7
MLP: Please share with us how you came to this bizarre conclusion. Are you a mind-reader, or did you come to it by some other unnamed method?
Please also explain why your mind in particular comes up with an analogy based on fecal matter -- is there some special affinity there?
I've seen a lot of his videos, and actually, he strikes me as very a humble and likable guy, and not arrogant at all.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Could it be that you're just parroting a lame, hackneyed stereotype of atheist dogma, which is to constantly make the unbacked claim that all Theists are somehow "arrogant?"
Purushadasa 2 years ago
Give me break and just stick to the substance of the discussion... WLC is a very smart and articulate guy who also happens to an exceptional apologist when it comes to this issue... if you're having difficulty with that, just say so, but don't start name calling and avoiding the 'stuff' of what they're talking about.
edburg49 2 years ago 5
edburg the problem with most atheists,they are stubborn and wont admit that they are wrong.Craig not only beat hitchens but trounced him in this debate, as craig said colorful personalities dont win debates, only logic and getting your point across does.Even towards the end of the video hitchens agrees with craig on the argument of objective morality.How much convincing do u need?That debate a huge blow to atheism.I love how WLC patted hitchens and told him to come better prepared next time.
backgammonnn123 2 years ago
" only logic and getting your point across does."
no, only demonstratable evidence wins.
SOAS007 2 years ago
And your equivalence of the meaning of objective and normative truth claims borders on the absurd. Let's be clear. Read the following two statements.
(1) The law of gravity is true.
(2) The law against murder is true.
Under your "moral epistemology" line of reasoning, both claims are true. But do you REALLY believe that both claims are TRUE in the same objective sense?Science is about being precise, exact, and as specific as possible. You simply can't equate apples and nuclear bombs.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago 2
You are not being consistent in your argument. It is the height of hypocrisy for you to be making scientific, objective claims about morality on the one hand, and then preclude atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens from challenging the OVERTLY scientific claims that Christianity makes about the origins of the universe because you claim that atheists don't have the "proper academic training" in what you call "the philosophy of religion" and thus aren't "qualified." Just ridiculous.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago 2
The more fundamental flaw in the "fine-tuning" argument, in addition to the fallacies of presupposing what it seeks to prove and being inherently question-begging, is that it is infinitely elastic and unfalsifiable. No matter what incredible scientific discoveries we make about the physical universe in the future, the "fine-tuning" crowd will just be able to sit back, relax, and say with every discovery, "Aha! See, we told you so! That God guy is just a whole lot smarter than we thought he was!"
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Craig's second argument is that the beginning of the universe had to have a First Cause, and he assumes that Cause must be God. Again, God serves as the sufficient condition for the beginning of the universe, but He isn't a necessary condition. It might have happened that way; then again, it might not. Craig's third argument - the "fine-tuning" argument - is really the most pathetic of them all. In addition to assuming that an Intelligent Designer "fine-tuned" everything in our universe...cont.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
The bottom line is that science offers human beings a more hopeful avenue to understanding things like how morality, compassion, and self-sacrifice evolved in us. You're right that science might not explain everything, but as Sam Harris says, "Human conversations are all we have to rely on. We're on our own in figuring ourselves out." That is, unless Jesus comes back, as theists have been promising us for centuries, and explains everything to us. I'm not willing to bet the farm on that. Are you?
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I think science does deal with a lot and tells us a lot. I don't deny that. It can help us understand religious claims/beliefs. It can also prove CERTAIN religious beliefs wrong or right or support or disconfirm others. My only point is that science doesn't answer certain kinds of questions. It can't answer normative statements and it can't, strictly speaking, answer certain kinds of religious claims like whether God exists. It may lend support or not, but doesn't strictly answer the question.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Again, whether something exists or not is an epistemological question. It's not a normative one. It's either a "yes" or "no" answer, period. You can't weasel your way out of this by using some fancy semantics trick and call it "a religious claim" that cannot be scientifically evaluated. That claim is either true or it's false. That's as scientific and objective as it gets. And at the end of day, one side is really going to be right about that argument, and one side is really going to be wrong.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Normative statements can also be true or false. For example, is is true that you ought to kill those who aren't soccer fans? That's a true or false question. According to you though, this accounts as science when clearly anyone can see that it doesn't. Sorry, but I'm not the one confused here. You're confusing true science with epistemology when in fact epistemology deals with both normative and non normative claims whereas science doesn't.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"Is it true that you ought to kill those who aren't soccer fans?"
You're comparing apples and oranges. That is simply not a true or false question, nor does it lend itself to scientific verification or falsification. Just read that question again. Normative statements - by virtue of their inherently subjective nature - can NEVER be true or false. They can ONLY be right or wrong, depending which side of the argument you buy. This really is basic first day of class Philosophy 101 here.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I know it's not a scientific. It can be a true or false question though. There's nothing irrational or nonsensical about asking whether it's true or false that people ought to do certain things. The statement "it is true that we ought to help our neighbor" is a perfectly valid statement. Likewise, the statement "It is false that we ought to kill children for fun" is a perfectly valid statement. Both can be framed in a true or false manner. This is philosophy 101 here, and you're wrong on it.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
You could not be more wrong. You really need some help understanding the basic elements of philosophical language. The fact that something "can" be turned into a true-or-false statement does NOT mean that it "should" be. The meaning of both of your statements becomes unnecessarily clouded when you use the words "true" and "false" instead of "right" and "wrong." Besides, the validity of a statement is completely separate from its intelligibility and meaning. That's Formal Logic 101. Go memorize.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Lot's of rhetoric, but no substance. This is about whether or not normative statements can be construed as true or false. You said the question of God's existence is a matter of truth vs falsity, and that that is science. But as soon as I do the same with normative statements you retract and make some lame excuse that it shouldn't be construed that way. Sorry, but you have to give an argument for that assertion, not just state it as so. Why not??
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Actually, my arguments are all substance with no rhetoric at all. I am simply arguing that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. The question of God's existence is an objective epistemological question with a simple yes or no answer. It's either true or false. There's no "right" or "wrong" about it. You are tilting at windmills and trying to change the subject because you don't have very good scientific evidence to support your claim. Stop trying to cloud the issue and answer the question.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Again, normative statements can also be epistemological questions. Don't make me repeat myself. There is a right or wrong about questions concerning God's existence. The statement "God exists" could be answered "wrong" or "right". We do it all the time in fact. I'm not clouding the issue. I'm telling you specifically what science deals with and what it doesn't. It doesn't deal, strictly speaking, with God's existence. This question is answered by philosophy.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
The question "God exists" can ONLY be answered with a "true" or "false" answer. Period. Normative statements can NEVER be epistemological questions. When they are, they are empty and pathetic rhetorical devices that carry no intellectual weight whatsoever. The only "right" or "wrong" component of God's existence is if by "right" you mean "true" and by "wrong" you mean "false." Bu then you aren't using "right" and "wrong" in the normative realm. They're just rhetorical devices. Get real.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I'm not going to repeat myself. Normative statements can be answered true or false. The statement "Is is true that we ought to love our neighbors" is a perfect, indisputable example of this.
Sorry, but I've seen this over and over again by philosophers in their books, so I know you're wrong on this. You're attempt to avoid the obvious by retreat to "rhetorical devices" is incredibly weak. It's not rhetorical devices. It's a perfectly valid way of putting a sentence.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"It's a perfectly valid way of putting a sentence."
It's only valid by the standards of Formal Logic. Not everyday, common-sense language standards. And the fact that something is "valid" in Formal Logic does not mean it translates into a prescription for normative ethical behavior. Here's an example.
Abraham loved Isaac.
God told Abraham to kill Isaac.
Abraham killed Isaac.
So is it "true" that Abraham should have killed Isaac? The language is completely misplaced. You don't make sense.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
It's not misplaced. Truth speaks to existence and what is the actual case. Falsity is just the opposite. In the case of the example you gave of Abraham killing Isaac, we are asking is it an objectively existing fact that Abraham should have killed Isaac. In other words, is it the actual case that Abraham should kill Isaac. The same sense of truth we use for the question of God's existence applies equally here. Both are asking for the actual state of affairs of some question.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
It's not the same in both cases, though. In the case of God's existence, either God exists or he doesn't. Period. In the case of Abraham, whether he "should" kill Isaac in theory OR in actuality are BOTH normative questions better answered in a subjective context than an objective one. Further, moral questions do not lend themselves to clear-cut "true" or "false" answers in the same fashion that the statements "God exists" or "God does not exist" does.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
You can still answer the other question as an objective one. Compare (1) "Is it true that God exists" with (2) "Is it true that Abraham should have killed Isaac".
For (1) you can say it is true or false. For (2) you can also say it is true or false. If you regard the normative statement as wholly subjective then you answer "false" to (2). If you think it can be answered as objectively true you say "true". It's all the same however you look at it.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"You can still answer the other question as an objective one."
Sure, but the meanings are completely different in both answers. In the first question, a "true" or "false" answer ends the discussion. In the second question, a "true" or "false" answer immediately begs the question because the word "should" is included in the question stimulus. Also, you are claiming that the 2nd question could possibly lend itself to multiple interpretations. The 1st question doesn't do this. Apples and oranges.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
...And it's irrelevant whether it's clear-cut or not. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a question. Many people think God's existence is not a clear cut question easy to answer. The point still remains that either God's existence is true or false. Likewise, the normative statement, as written above, is either true or false. There is no third way.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"The normative statement, as written above, is either true or false. There is no third way."
That's intellectually disingenuous. Normative statements such as the Abraham example - by their very nature - involve subjective "judgment calls" by human beings involved in extraordinarily complicated moral dilemmas. Answering a normative question with a "true" or "false" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than answering "true" or "false" to the question "Is it true that God exists?" It's apples and oranges.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"...And it's irrelevant whether it's clear-cut or not."
For scientific claims, this is quite true. By their very nature, scientific claims are either true or false. But that's not how moral choices work. Moral choices are hardly, if ever, diametrically opposed to each other. Circumstances always play a role in moral decisions. Read Sophie's Choice by William Styron. Absolute truth or falsity is completely absent from normative claims. Scientific claims are black and white. Ethics is gray.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Ok, I see what you're trying to do, but this doesn't change anything. I accept the point that right and wrong in this sense is construed as "true or false" and not "ought" or "ought not". But this doesn't change the fact that you can ask epistemological questions (ie. whether something is true or false) about normative statements. You can still ask whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact. The definition of true doesn't change here. It remains the same.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Sure. I would readily grant you that you can certainly ASK whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact. I just don't think it advances a debate very far by doing it, because you can't scientifically prove an "ought" or "ought not." That's why I don't give any credence to "moral epistemology," because it's basically people using words like "objectivity" and "true" and "false" in an ethical context. Ethics is inherently subjective, so epistemology doesn't help get us very far there.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
The point is that asking whether a normative statement is an objectively true fact is essentially equivalent to the kind of truth we are asking when we ask whether God exists is an objective fact. Whether you think it advances the debate or not is irrelevant. Your original point was that science deals with epistemological claims only. But I showed that epistemological claims are extended to normative statements with giving statements and showing you the valid field of moral epistemology.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
The problem is that NOBODY normally considers normative statements as objectively true facts. You are tilting at windmills again. That's all just pie-in-the-sky abstract classroom theory. That's why "moral epistemology" is bogus. You can't apply objective scientific inquiry to normative statements and ethical behavior. You're just engaging in linguistic gymnastics and high-falutin word games. There's no point to it.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Normative statements are NOT epistemological statements, and vice versa. You cannot equate the two. It is unnecessarily confusing at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Questions like "Is it true to murder your brother?" or "Is it false that we should lie to each other?" are distorted rhetorical devices whose language does not capture the essence of the inquiry because "truth" and "falsity" belong in the realm of facts and knowledge, not ethics and morality. You know better than that.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Normative statements can be construed as epistemological statements. I just showed utterly proved you wrong on moral epistemology (which deals entirely with normative ethical statements) so accept that you're wrong here as well. There is nothing distorted about it. It perfectly makes sense in English. You can ask, for example, whether it is an objective fact that murder is wrong. Professional philosophers discuss such propositional statements ALL THE TIME. You dont know what your talking about
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"Normative statements can be construed as epistemological statements."
This is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. You did not prove me wrong in the slightest. On the contrary, you've only proved my point even further by conflating normative ethics and objective epistemology. The only thing I'll accept is victory in this debate, even though it's from an opponent who honestly believes that questions like "Is murder true?" and "Is stealing false?" are legitimate in intellectual discourse.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"....You did not prove me wrong in the slightest."
Yes I did, and you admitted as much when you just now recognized that moral epistemology exists. AGAIN MORAL EPISTEMOLOGY DEALS WITH NORMATIVE STATEMENTS and hence can be normative statements can be construed as such.
I evidently can't carry on a rational conversation with you anymore. You won't own up to the fact that you're wrong. This is obvious intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"The meaning of both of your statements becomes unnecessarily clouded when you use the words "true" and "false" instead of "right" and "wrong.""
It's not clouded. You just use it in a different and compatible way. The statements "Is it right to murder someone" is equivalent to "Is is true that we ought to murder someone". Both are perfectly acceptable statements and if one of them is wrong to construe it in such a way, then you need to give a good reason, one which you haven't provided.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
A majority of Americans believe in a personal God because of their cultural surroundings and parental upbringing. When you start confronting religious believers about whether they REALLY believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days, and whether they REALLY believe that Adam and Eve existed in a garden with a talking snake, you start hearing all kinds of hilarious Monty Python-esque equivocations and hedging. Their is a broad range and depth of Americans' religious beliefs.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I don't care why Americans believe what they do. The point is that if the existence of God were really a matter of science then chances are they would teach it in the classroom. Thankfully, academics recognize that science and religion are distinct from one another and so they don't, for the most part, have God being taught in science classrooms.
You need to accept that science does not deal with everything. My mind is still going crazy realizing that you don't get this.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Today's theists have changed their tune toward science, deciding to embrace it rather than reject it. But they do not embrace science for the right reasons. Science - in its purest form - seeks to find truth, knowledge, and understanding about the universe. Religion, on the other hand, already claims to know everything there is to know about the universe, including how it's going to end, and wants to use science to help justify its view of the world and how we ought to be living in it. Garbage.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Sure, Theists embrace science, but they do it under philosophy. The claim that God exists is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. You can use science to support premises in a philosophical argument, but one must always remember that it is still, at the end of the day, a philosophical argument not a scientific one. Therefore, it's religious philosophy in this sense, not science.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Your claim that the existence of God is a "religious philosophical" question and not a scientific one is ludicrous. Every question - to one extent or another - is a scientific one at heart. Science is the only reliable method that human beings have of organizing our knowledge, of predicting future events, and of shaping our day-to-day behavior as inhabitants of planet Earth. We use science and scientific inquiry in every single domain of discourse except religion, where theists have banished it.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Common man. YOU ARE A PHILOSOPHER!! You should know this more than anyone. You cannot answer certain questions using science. For example, you cannot put moral values in a test tube, neither can you put beauty or ugliness in one either. Science doesn't deal with normative statements. Likewise, you can't prove scientifically that God exists or that he doesn't
Honestly, I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you have a Ph.D in philosophy. This is like the most undeniable point ever in philosophy
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"You cannot answer certain questions using science."
Typical religious hubris. You might be right, of course, but you might be wrong, too. This is where the humility of science is so endearing. I believe that human beings have only developed a superficial scientific understanding of things like morality, beauty, and ugliness. But who knows? Maybe one day neuroscientists will discover a "moral" gene, or a part of the brain that appreciates "beauty" and abhors "ugliness." Continued...
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"Typical religious hubris"
Uh...that's the current secular position. And I am right. It's not hard to see how I am. The examples you give of maybe one day discovering a gene for beauty or morality shows that you don't understand the issue. It's about science proving normative statements, not discovering why we are moral. Tell me, can you prove scientifically that we ought to not commit murder? Science may be able to tell us why we generally don't, but it can't tell us if we should or shouldn't.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
You are confusing epistemological claims with normative claims. Science - and the discipline of neurobiology in particular - does not aim to tell us how we ought to act. It only aims to try to account for why we act the way we do. Science isn't trying to provide an impetus for us to treat each other well. That impetus will come from deeply-rooted social mores, customs, and traditions that are passed on from generation to generation. This is what Aristotle's notion of morality is all about.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Thanks for proving my point that science does not deal with certain types of questions and claims. There's no difference here between epistemological claims or normative claims. In fact you can make normative claims or questions into epistemological claims or questions. For example, the statement "how do we know what is right or wrong" is a epistemological question about a normative question. Therefore it's not true that science only deals with epistemological questions. Far from it.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
You're spinning in rhetorical circles. The field of epistemology deals with claims about knowledge and facts. These are claims that can be proven and disproven. Epistemology is not and never will deal with normative claims. Normative claims and questions fall under the rubric of ethics. Ethical claims are inherently subjective and can neither be definitively proven nor disproven. This is Philosophy 101. Epistemology is not ethics, and and ethics is not epistemology. There's a huge difference.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
You obviously didn't get that Ph.D in philosophy. Epistemology CAN and DOES deal with normative claims. I'd 100% confident of that. Epistemology is about knowledge and how we acquire it. Therefore asking something like how we know right from wrong will be an epistemological question.
What do you think moral epistemology is? That is a well defined field of philosophy which deals precisely with ethical statements (ie. normative statements)
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"You obviously didn't get that Ph.D in philosophy."
Well, the faculty of the Philosophy Department at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, would beg to differ with you, especially Professor Gregory Ganssle, against whom I defended my dissertation.
Moral epistemology? Let me ask you something. Did you just make that up? Seriously. Is that like "ethical metaphysics"? Or "moral existentialism"? I challenge you to find a single philosophy course with that title on an American college campus.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Well, look, sorry if that sounds offensive, but I'm just blown away by the fact that you of all people wouldn't be aware of this.
Did I make up moral epistemology? lol. Try looking up moral epistemology in Google and see what happens. Then get back to me.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
It doesn't sound offensive at all. It's pretty difficult to offend me, especially since I am comfortable with complexity and ambiguity in arguments and in discussions on science.
I just Googled "moral epistemology." Wow. The only academic "discipline" - if you can even call it that - with less intellectual legitimacy in the history of Western Civilization than "moral epistemology" is Scientology....or possibly herbal medicine. Good luck with that. Tell Tom Cruise and Andrew Weil I said hello.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Alright, well I kind of felt bad after I said that. Sorry about that.
I don't how and what your basing your conclusion on when you say moral epistemology is only above Scientology. Moral epistemology, if you looked closely at the pages in google, is featured on the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, Cambridge Collections online, books published by Cambridge University press, Blackwell publishing, and is discussed by such prominent philosophers of ethics as Walter Armstrong, Robert Audi etc
Christianjr4 2 years ago
More importantly though, I proved you wrong when you stated that moral epistemology doesn't exists. I think you can see now that I'm the real deal now and I do know what I'm talking about on matters of philosophy, especially philosophy of Religion.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Actually, you never proved me wrong. I never said that moral epistemology does not exist. I just said I don't believe it's valuable philosophy because ethics and epistemology do not overlap. "Right" and "wrong" are in different categories than "True" and "False." And I remain extraordinarily unconvinced that you "know what you're talking about" when it comes to the philosophy of religion. Anybody can use Google. It's another thing entirely to digest Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Foucault.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"Epistemology is not ethics, and and ethics is not epistemology"
"Epistemology is not and never will deal with normative claims"
"Moral epistemology? Let me ask you something. Did you just make that up?"
Oh, you clearly, undeniably thought that it didn't exist. Sorry, but that just comes across as trying to save face.
Funny that you mention Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche when they have dealt with moral epistemology.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Listen, I've heard of "moral epistemology." I've also heard of "moral existentialism" and "ethical metaphysics." I've also heard of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and your invisible, imaginary, nonexistent friend up in the sky, too. That doesn't mean I give any of them any credence. And Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche had NOTHING TO DO with "moral epistemology." They were both part of the existentialist movement. Time to get your facts straight....yet again.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
If you've heard of moral epistemology then you wouldn't have asked if I made it up. Obviously not, since you heard of it before. I think you're just trying to do damage control. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Yes, obviously Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were existentialists but does that mean they never dealt with moral epistemological issues in their lifetime. No. For example, Kierkegaard deals a little with moral epistemology in his "concluding unscientific postscript".
Christianjr4 2 years ago
The reason I asked you if you made up "moral epistemology" is that I regard it as junk philosophy. I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that it advances ethical debate one iota to apply scientifically objective words like "true" and "false" to the language of ethics and moral behavior.
Kierkegaard does not deal specifically with "moral epistemology" in the "Concluding Unscientific Postscript." His main focus in all his works is the radicalized individual experience of a human being on Earth.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"I regard it as junk philosophy"
I don't care what you think about it. The fact remains that this field exists, and it is a well defined field of philosophy. I still don't believe for one second that you knew the field exists. You also asked me to name a course taught at a University on moral epistemology. If you knew it existed you wouldn't say that. How do you respond to that?
Tell me, what's Kierkegaard's main focus on in his concluding unscientific postscript? This will be interesting.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
The fact that the field exists doesn't lend it any credence or legitimacy. Scientology exists, too, and nobody but wack jobs take it seriously. We're back to sufficient and necessary conditions again. I don't know what you mean by a "well-defined field of philosophy." I'm not willing to concede that. I don't see a lot of philosophy's intellectual heavyweights emerging from the area of "moral epistemology." I'll get to Kierkegaard in my next post. He is my 2nd favorite philosopher.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
"You also asked me to name a course taught at a University on moral epistemology."
You STILL have not done this, by the way.
"If you knew it existed you wouldn't say that."
That is a complete non-sequitur. I really am not following you. The fact that a tiny minority specialty strand exists in a wide-ranging discipline like philosophy does not mean that courses on "moral epistemology" are taught on college campuses on it. They did not even have a course on it at Yale...and for good reason.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
If I remember correctly, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), Kierkegaard focuses mostly on what he regards as the differences between objective and subjective truth, and how he thought we perceived them. This essay was different from his previous works like Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death, where he explored complex moral quandaries, questions of religious faith, and the notion of despair, all of which intrigued him. This is what I remember. How's that?
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I do respect the fact that Craig actually believes the truth claims of Christianity. So many theists I debate fall into immediate intellectual retreat when I challenge them on Christianity's truth claims. They use the cynical, utilitarian fallback position of "well, even if Christianity isn't true, it makes us behave better toward each other, so it's good for us to believe it." I'm sorry. That's pathetic. Either defend your arguments on the merits, or don't defend them at all.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
One of the problem with the debates between atheists and Christian apologetics like Craig is that they don't speak the same "language." Craig always introduces theological argments to support his views - he just assumes that these are valid. It's a non-starter for any atheist. But I agree that Harris might be a better candidate than Hitchens since he's usually more willing to tackle an opponent's argument - whereas Hitchens simply dismisses these as white noise (though for good reason).
hazydavey 2 years ago
I think you are right about this. The inherent fallacy in virtually all of Craig's arguments is that they all assume what they set out to prove - the existence of God. All of Craig's "arguments" for the existence of God provide sufficient conditions for God's existence - NOT necessary conditions. There is a Grand Canyon-sized difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, but Craig just glosses over it and shrugs it aside like it's no big deal. This is intellectually dishonest.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Where does Craig assume the existence of God. And how are Craig's first 3 arguments sufficient conditions? I would like to hear that, especially considering that these are deductive arguments.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Are you actually being serious? You don't see the egregious fallacies he commits in these arguments? They couldn't be more glaring if they punched you in the face! The "argument from contingency" assumes that God is the reason there is "something" rather than "nothing." For this argument to be valid, God MUST be the sufficient condition for causing the "something," but it isn't necessary that he is. The second argument is a watered-down version of the ontological argument. Continued.....
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I would really enjoy watching Sam Harris debate William Lane Craig. I have watched Hitchens for a long time, and he seems to use the same line of attack and same punch lines against every debater he takes on. Harris is much more thoughtful and deliberate in debate settings, and he actually addresses his opponent's arguments on their own terms instead of engaging in hyperbole, exaggeration, and oversimplification. I would respect Dr. Craig a lot more if he had the guts to take on Sam Harris.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
What makes you think Craig doesn't have the guts to face Harris? Craig would debate Harris no doubt, but Harris charges a hefty price ($20,000+) for invitations to speak or debate. Interestingly enough, I've been thinking of possibly organizing the funding for such a debate (mostly to pay Harris' fee) so keep an eye out for this specific debate in the near future.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I agree that Craig would probably accept a challenge to debate Harris, but it would have to be on his terms or in friendly territory. I've been trying to organize a debate between Harris and Craig, too, at a neutral site, and under a more informal, free-flowing conversational format. Francis Collins and Dinesh D'Souza have both refused to debate Harris, and it isn't about the money. Harris is the most formidable debater of the so-called "new atheists," though he doesn't describe himself as one.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe D'Souza refused a debate with Harris. I thought that guy prides himself on taking on the New Atheists. If Collins declined, I wouldn't be surpised
As for Craig, he'll debate on neutral territory. He does this all the time on secular University campuses. In fact he prefers it. I'm not so sure about the format, but I'd imagine Craig is fine with an informal conversational format. I'm not sure how far you are in your organizing. I'm planning on raising the actual funds.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
If you don't believe me about D'Souza and Collins declining to debate Harris, go check out Sam's interviews on TSN. Some of them are even posted on YouTube. The interviewer asks Harris directly about his willingness to debate D'Souza and Collins, and he answers that he's personally invited both of them to debate and has not heard back from either one. I'm not surprised. Collins doesn't seem like a "debating" kind of guy, and I don't think D'Souza could hold a candle to Harris intellectually.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
It's not that I think you're lying or anything, it's just hard to believe D'Souza would decline a debate. Maybe he just never got the message. A while ago I remember when Dawkins declined to appear on a news channel with D'Souza. Dinesh practically wrote a book on his blog about how he was so upset about it. Again, Dinesh prides himself on debating the so called "best" of the Atheists, so that's why I'm having a hard time seeing him literally decline a debate.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I think it was about the debate format. I've watched all of Dinesh's debates - several in person - and he thrives in a structured, timed format. He doesn't do so well in an informal, free-flowing conversational format. Dinesh always works from notes, and seems as if he is more comfortable rattling off bullet points rather than responding to the specifics of his opponent's argument. And, of course, in every dabate, he always finds time to blame atheism for every single crime of the 20th century.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
As far as organizing a debate is concerned, I'm in contact with Harris's lecture agent now, and several student groups on my campus are interested in fronting some of the money needed to sponsor a debate. I think both men would be very well received, and I think Craig would enjoy sparring with an opponent who's completing a doctorate in neuroscience at Stanford, with a specialty in studying the neural basis of belief with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Sam Harris is not a dummy.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
I agree Harris isn't a dummy. In fact, I think he's more sophisticated than Hitchens and Dawkins' combined, at least on matters of Religion. Plus he's articulate and calm when he speaks, rather than emotional and rhetorical. This is why I would love to see Craig debate him.
I must say I'm impressed that you've already gone ahead with this. Perhaps we could join forces in making this debate a real possibility. I'll send a message to your inbox shortly for more information.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Of all the so-called "New Atheists," Dawkins is probably the most intelligent. People rarely give him enough credit for his academic brilliance. And Hitchens is no slouch. My only problem with him is that I think he sometimes allows his utter hatred of the idea of God cloud his arguments for how unreasonable it is to believe in God. Harris does a much better job of making the case for religious doubt and skepticism. He's articulate, calm, and concise, and his arguments are cogent and persuasive.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, but when it comes to philosophy of Religion he's quite unremarkable here. Compared to Dawkins and Hitchens in this area, I think Harris just comes across as more sophisticated, less emotional/rhetorical than them which is why I prefer him over the rest.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I'm not sure Sam will even agree to debate Craig, especially after Craig went on the Michael Coren show and called all of the New Atheists "profoundly unsophisticated" and not very "intellectually bright." How Craig can say Sam Harris isn't "bright" is beyond me. On the show, Craig also used the old reliable trite and hackneyed ad hominem attack that the New Atheists are "angry" and "bitter." I would have hoped that Craig was above all that, but he wasn't on the Michael Coren show.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Craig went on the Michael Coren show and called all of the New Atheists "profoundly unsophisticated" and not very "intellectually bright."
I've noticed that whenever Craig's defenders run into trouble, they shrug and point to Craig's academic credientials. So they cannot address the logical fallacies or false premises that Craig relies upon, but they figure they don't have to. Craig simply MUST be smarter than his opponents. Arguments from authority are second nature to these theists.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Well, a lot of Atheists like to downplay the academic credentials of Theists so I'm not too surprised if Theists bring it up for Craig. Since Craig actually does hold an impressive academic resume, (a resume that far outweighs the New Atheists in the relevant area under discussion), it's probably legitimate to bring it up every now and then.
And I'm happy to discuss Craig's arguments. In fact, this is what I often try to get the Atheist to focus on. Perhaps we could discuss them a bit later.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I disagree with your claim that Craig has better credentials in the "relevant area under discussion." But I think that goes the heart of the matter. Theists inexpicably seem to imagine that religious philosophy (ie, theology) is the relevant area. Yet Craig (and all faith apologists) are constantly making claims about the natural world, but the only support they give for these are not found in philosophy and certainly not in science - but in Scripture. This isn't reason. It's rationalization.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Religious philosophy is the relevant area. The question of God's existence is recognized by most academics as a question of philosophy, strictly speaking. And both Theists and Atheists engage in philosophy of Religion. Daniel Dennett is a philosopher of Religion in addition to being a philosopher of science for example. Philosophy of Religion isn't theology. Theology tries to do exegesis and answer questions based primarily on the Bible. Philosophy tries to do recourse without it.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"Philosophy tries to do recourse without it."
3 things:
1. I've never seen Craig limit his arguments to philosophy.
2. Craig's philosophical arguments seem (to me anyway) indistinguishable from the ones Aquinas made 1,000 years ago. Same flaws.
3. Beyond the basics, philosophy isn't much of a tool for understanding the universe. The Baconian revolution did away with that notion a long time ago. You have to go out and observe and study the world if you hope to understand it.
hazydavey 2 years ago
I just cannot possibly agree with you on this. Religious philosophy is not the "relevant area" at all. The "relevant area" is science and the natural world. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either Jesus is coming back, or he isn't. If Jesus comes back, then Christianity will stand scientifically revealed, and all the theists can ridicule atheists like me and watch us eat crow. Until that happens, the truth claims of Christianity are nothing more than a fairy tale, as far as I'm concerned.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Wow, are you seriously disputing this? A person with a Ph.D in philosophy??
Science does not deal, properly speaking, with the existence of God. Virtually all academics recognize that today. God is to be "left out of the science classroom", as the saying goes remember? If you say this is a matter of science then you legitimize teaching creation in the classroom. You know, for a person who has a Ph.D in philosophy, it's quite remarkable that you don't know this. I can't understand that.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Of course I'm disputing it. And the debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution in the classroom is completely irrelevant to this debate. It's a red herring. Science, properly speaking, deals with the empirical study of the physical world around us. Modern theists, having had their religious truth claims mastered by advances in science, technology, reason, and secular thought over the past several centuries, are now doing a complete 180 on science....I'll continue in my next post.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
No, it's not a red herring. Atheists love to claim that God should be left out of the classroom. They fail to realize by calling God a science question they legitimize teaching creation in the classroom. If God is science, then why not teach what most Americans believe which is that God created the Universe. It should be taught right in the science classroom, which is absurd.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
This is a complete non-sequitur. Your argument is full of generalizations and oversimplification. SOME atheists claim that God should be left out of the classroom entirely. Others, like me, have no problem teaching creationism in the classroom, provided it is taught from a scientific perspective. As far as the beliefs of "most Americans," your argument is overly broad and questionable at best. A good case can be made that a majority of Americans believe in a personal God because of....Continued
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
Most Atheists think God should not be taught in the classroom. I'm surprised you think otherwise. More importantly though, the overwhelming majority of academics, Theists and Atheists alike believe the same thing. God and science are distinct questions. As the National academy of science puts it:
"Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious beliefs"
Christianjr4 2 years ago
So, are you still interested in working together to organize a debate between Craig and Hitchens? From all the previous comments you just gave it would seem as if you're not so interested anymore. Let me know for sure though. I would love to know what Harri's lecture agent said to you.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I'm assuming you have me confused with someone else. I have no role in organizing debates.
But I am glad that you're willing to defend Craig's actual arguments. So far, I haven't encoutered many theists who willing to even try. To your credit, you attempted to do so earlier when you argued that atheists equate morality with the sort of indivudal preference as taste in food. An argument dispensed with by greater philosphers centures ago. (As if a deity is what gives morality meaning).
hazydavey 2 years ago
Yeah I apparently did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.
I would love to discuss the arguments with you. If you feel like I'm being slow in responding to you I apologize for that as well. I get quite a few responses to my comments everyday so it's somewhat hard respond to all of them. I try my best
About the morality issue, I never stated Atheists equate morality with food preference. I said on Atheism, it's hard to see morality anything more significant than food preference.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
No worries.
I get busy myself but I'll look forward to tackling some of these issues another time.
hazydavey 2 years ago
Sure, I'm certainly interested in organizing a debate. Sam's lecture agent told me that Sam is busy finishing his doctorate in neuroscience right now, as well as working on completing another book about reason, morality, and the neuroscientific basis of emotions like love, charity, compassion, etc. He wasn't specific about what it would cost.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago
That's fine, but we'll need some sort of price and date for future events that he is willing to do if this is going to happen. I can't set up a debate on a specific campus since I'm here in Canada. I was hoping to set up an account that people could donate too (and hopefully with the approval of RF and Harris' site). I know of a bunch of people who would donate a lot of money for this event.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Sam refusing to debate Craig over a simple insult would be truly amazing. That would be such a cop out. I can't help but feel your holding a double standard here. Over and over again I've heard the New Atheists (especially Hitchens) insult their opponents and no one makes a peep about it. But as soon as Theists make insults it's "ahhhhh....how could he" say such a thing". Atheists trying to complain about Craig's supposedly low comments are being hypocritical.
Cont...
Christianjr4 2 years ago
....Therefore, even if true, you wouldn't really have a complaint against Craig.
Of course, however, none of this is true of Craig anyways. Craig never said the New Atheists are "profoundly unsophisticated'. He said their books were unsophisticated. Craig also never said Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens aren't intellectually bright either. You're putting words into his mouth. Please watch the show again. You're evidently confusing a title of a video (by drcraigvideos) with what Craig actually said.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
I would be a lot more impressed with Craig if he didn't just recite a laundry list of old, recycled arguments that have been refuted by atheists for hundreds of years. Come on - the ontological argument? Do any Christian apologists actually believe this argument still carries any intellectual weight? Even if we grant the existence of a Prime Mover via the ontological argument, that STILL doesn't get us to the Christian God. Prime Mover doesn't equal "all-loving, all-forgiving, all-merciful,"etc.
NonSoccerFan 2 years ago