One of the first posts I made on this blog was regarding the theologian Douglas Wilson and things he said in the documentary film 'Collision' with Christopher Hitchens. Basically from what he said in that film it seemed his answer to the Euthyphro dilemma was what we consider morally good is so because it is commanded by God. Fullstop, end of discussion.
Now another fairly well known and respected theologian has said the same, and has gone even further. What William Lane Craig has to say in this article just shocks me and beggars belief. Please do go and read it to see what I mean.
Basically he is saying that God created the moral laws we have to follow, but God himself is not bound by those laws. Actually more than that, he is saying anything God decides to do, or demands anyone to do, is by definition a moral act. Hence Willian Lane Craig is able to believe and voice the opinion that murdering children is absolutely fine if it is what God wants to happen. This is a mainstream Christian theologian who has only recently had high profile debates with Sam Harris and physicist Lawrence Krauss.
Time after time I hear criticism levelled at Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchen, Sam Harris et al for attacking a caricature of religion, the worst fundamentalism rather than the kind of religion the majority follow. These cases of Douglas Wilson and William Lane Craig show that to be false. But let's say the criticism is true, and most believers don't agree with what these two say. I hope that's true, to be honest - and I also think most people who would say they were Christian (certainly in the UK) would think of what Jesus taught as the moral part of their religion, inasmuch as they think much about it at all. Given that, where are the criticisms of such horrendous beliefs from 'moderate' Christians?
Also, what can someone like William Lane Craig say when a devout Muslim (to refer to an obvious example here), who is a certain about his faith and as educated about his religion as WLC is about his, decides it is God (or Allah's) will and therefore a moral thing to do (a moral obligation in fact) to fly an airliner full of innocent people into a skyscraper, killing thousands? What can WLC say to that, other than they believe in the wrong god? He used that very line to answer a similar question from the audience in his debate with Sam Harris.
Do theologians like WLC realise that if they had been born into an Islamic culture, chances are they would be Muslim? Do they realise that they reject other religions for exactly the same reasons that their religion is rejected by others? Do they realise that schizophrenia is commonly related to hyper-religiosity? If a mentally ill person believes they are right to murder hundreds of people because God willed it they are taken out of society and treated. If a perfectly normal 'sophisticated' theologian says if God commands it, it is moral - that doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow outside of critics of religion. Staggering.
One of the most annoying things about William Lane Craig's view of morality is that he defines morality as commanded by God. He may not actually say it in so many words, but that's clearly what he believes, and that any attempt to ground morality in something other than God is inherently flawed by definition — and that's why his debate with Sam Harris was so frustrating. It was as if Craig had his fingers in his ears.
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians
ReplyDelete2:10 God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 2:14 The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Romans
9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 9:15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 9:16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 9:17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 9:18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.
9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” 9:20 But who indeed are you – a mere human being – to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 9:23 And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory – 9:24 even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 9:25 As he also says in Hosea: “I will call those who were not my people, ‘My people,’ and I will call her who was unloved, ‘My beloved.’”
2 Corinthians
4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, 4:4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. 4:5 For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 4:6 For God, who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” is the one who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ.
Romans 10:
8. But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9. That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. 12. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13. for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Christopher Hitchens:
ReplyDelete"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
none - I'm an atheist and as such I don't believe what the Bible says proves anything. Quoting scripture at me is a futile effort I'm afraid ;)
ReplyDeleteBesides - you do know the Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, right?
Neil Davies said... Besides - you do know the Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, right?
ReplyDeletesure it is for you just as 2 Corinthians says
4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, 4:4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. So with Out the Spirit God this Book for you, is just a bunch of jumbled words.
That is why i post scripture, your discussion is really not with me but with the book that makes the statement that it is the Word of God and that God does exist. My knowledge of God comes only from Scripture, not from me saying i believe God is like this or that. No human can reveal or prove God exist only God can reveal Himself to you or anybody else and for some reason He has not to you, or any other atheist that continues to deny the existence of God. but he has revealed Himself to atheist in the past and they have come to faith in the Living uncreated God of the Jewish bible.
The Jewish Bible Old&New Testament makes that claim,as being God's Word,and so if that is the case. Then there is the evidence of God and not only evidence of God but evidence and illustration of His love for us.
Psalms
12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.
2 Timothy
3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every scripture 23 is inspired by God 24 and useful for teaching, for reproof, 25 for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God 26 may be capable and equipped for every good work.
2 Peter
1:12 Therefore, I intend to remind you constantly of these things even though you know them and are well established in the truth that you now have. 1:13 Indeed, as long as I am in this tabernacle, I consider it right to stir you up by way of a reminder, 1:14 since I know that my tabernacle will soon be removed,because our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this to me. 1:15 Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things. 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur. 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.” 1:18 When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 1:19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
"The Jewish Bible Old&New Testament makes that claim,as being God's Word,and so if that is the case. Then there is the evidence of God"
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't accept that claim, and so I don't accept the Bible as evidence for the existence of God. Besides, you're using a circular argument. Saying "The Bible is the word of God, therefore it is evidence that God exists" assumes the conclusion in the premise.
none, you won't convince an atheist that the Bible is the inspired word of God until you present some convincing evidence that God exists and is capable of inspiring words. You admit that you're aware that an atheist won't be convinced by Bible quotes, so why quote the Bible? Would you be convinced by quotes from Shakespeare?
ReplyDelete"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." (Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28)
And personal revelation is only valid for the person who experiences it. To anyone else it's an anecdote without evidence.
Neil Davies said...
ReplyDelete"The Jewish Bible Old&New Testament makes that claim,as being God's Word,and so if that is the case. Then there is the evidence of God"
Well, I don't accept that claim, and so I don't accept the Bible as evidence for the existence of God. Besides, you're using a circular argument. Saying "The Bible is the word of God, therefore it is evidence that God exists" assumes the conclusion in the premise.
Is not your point (that there is no God) just as circular where is your evidence for the, there is no God belief, you hold.
at least in Christianity there is the Jewish Scriptures(which contain revealed prophecy that has been fulfilled and that will be fulfilled/future)and also the existence of the Nation of Israel again after being dispersed through out the world 70 a.d until 1948 the Bible speaks of the dispersion and also of the regathering of the nation in unbelief(as most Jews are today).
PaulJ said...
none, you won't convince an atheist that the Bible is the inspired word of God until you present some convincing evidence that God exists and is capable of inspiring words. You admit that you're aware that an atheist won't be convinced by Bible quotes, so why quote the Bible? Would you be convinced by quotes from Shakespeare?
I admit an atheist can not come to a belief in God solely on my statements or any Christian's intellectual statements by proving this or that. Without God personally intervening and reveling Himself to that person. God does not need my help at all or really any Christian. If God eventually wants you to believe in Him you will and if He does not you will remain in your unbelief. It will be from scripture that brings a person to belief. It always has been the Word of God that brings about belief as it will be in the future.
Is the statement that an atheist makes. That there is no God. a relative statement or does that statement fall in to absolute truth.
thank yall for your reply's.
I just spent 10 mins writing a reply and Blogger lost the lot - arrghh!
ReplyDeleteShort version:
None - you are saying "God exist and wrote the Bible and the Bible proves God exists" - its circular, your conclusion (God exists) is the premise you start with (God exists). See?
I am not starting with a premise about God, I simply look at the universe and see what evidence there is that it was created. The Bible is just a book, it says nothing about this question - no book could. There is nothing about the universe that suggests it was created, or that it needed to be created. All the mysteries ever solved about it have turned out to be due to natural laws, not magic or god. I have no belief in God because there is no positive evidence that convinces me I should. Nothing circular about that at all.
The existence of the universe proves nothing but itself. If you then say something must have created it and that is God, I say what created God? You say God by definition requires no further explanation. I could, if I wished, use the same tactic and declare the quantum jitters from which the universe may have sprung to not require further explanation. As yet there has not been a need to invoke God to explain anything about the universe, so there's no reason to believe in one. I'm not making any statements about absolute truth - that's what believers do. I'm comfortable with the fact that I don't know for certain.
The last two comments have disappeared it seems, Blogger has been down for a day or two and no it's back they've gone... apologies for that :(
ReplyDeleteI was going to ask a question but can not exactly remember. I do remember a comment about the universe self creating I am guessing that was close to the statement. it think what i wanted to ask was, that for atheist or at least people here what theory do you subscribe to, for the creation of the universe. Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict with known scientific truths. If there is conflict, it is only between Genesis and certain scientific theories.
ReplyDeleteNow i remember what i wanted to ask. 500 years ago my Belief is God would be based on the same as today. The foundation of The Bible (Jewish Old&New testament).
ReplyDeleteWhat would have been the foundation of your atheism 500 years ago.
Ok, well second question first - 500 years ago I would almost certainly have been religious. The fact that I am able to be one (and allowed to be one) is down to the massive progress in understanding of the universe and how it works over that time - that's actually a huge plus point in the column of atheism I'm afraid! I wouldn't be proud of the fact as you seem to be that my world view isn't much different from people living half a millennia ago.
ReplyDeleteAs for the creation of the universe - I don't subscribe to any one theory, because we simply don't know. The big bang theory seems pretty solid but it only goes back to a fraction of a second after the beginning. If there even was one, some theories state it could be eternal, going through cyclic phases. So I don't know. Two points though - just because science doesn't know yet, doesn't mean that God did it. You can't simply point to a gap in knowledge and claim God must fill it because it's logically nonsense, and because over centuries we have shown that the gaps God has been used to explain have always been found to not require any supernatural explanation. No reason why that shouldn't continue. Secondly, you refer to it as the 'creation' of the universe. Because there is no reason, as I described, to assume a creator, there is no reason to assume the universe is a 'creation' of any kind. It would be more correct to refer to it's existence as that doesn't imply anything.
(First bit is meant to say - "the fact I am able to be an atheist" of course)
ReplyDelete"Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict with known scientific truths. If there is conflict, it is only between Genesis and certain scientific theories."
ReplyDeleteSuch as the theories that comprise cosmology, astronomy, geology and biology, to mention a few, most of which would have to be totally wrong in order for Genesis to be treated as scientifically true.
The Bible is not a science textbook and shouldn't be treated as one. That way leads to the nonsense that is creationism.
Is matter eternal if it is, then it had no beginning and does not end. But if it is not eternal then matter had a beginning. So you would be saying that nothing caused matter to begin and also being that there is order to the universe. That the noting that began matter, also was the same nothing that organized matter so that it precisely functions. Genesis 1:1 offers refutations of human theoloies1. it refutes atheism, because Genesis postulates the existence of God, postulates a personal God, and teaches that the universe is neither the result of a big bang nor the result of matter eternally existing. 2. it is a refutation of agnosticism, because agnosticism teaches that one cannot know whether there is or is not a God. Neverless, God has revealed Himself in what He has done. 3. It refutes pantheism, because God is also transcendent to what He creates. 4. It refutes polytheism, because only one God created all things. 5. it refutes materialism, because there is a clear distinction between God and His material universe. It teaches that matter had a beginning, it is not eternal. 6. refutes naturalism, because nature itself has origins. 7. it refutes dualism because God was all alone when He created 8. it refutes humanism, because it is God and not man who is the ultimate reality. 9. and finally, it refutes evolutionism, because God is viewed as the instantaneous creator of all things. God program concerns man, who is found only on this planet. God is self-existent. He is unknowable except where He chooses to reveal Himself, and is answerable to no one.
ReplyDeleteNone - that is just total nonsense. Genesis doesn't refute anything. Repeatedly asserting it does doesn't make it true, I'm afraid. It takes more than just an assertion to refute something.
ReplyDeleteMatter doesn't eternally exist, anyway. I'd suggest you go and read some books on cosmology (A Brief History of Time maybe).
"None - that is just total nonsense."
ReplyDeleteI have to agree. None, your latest comment makes no sense. It's generally accepted that the Universe began with the Big Bang, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it came from nothing. We can only speculate about the actual mechanism, because if both space and time came into existence at that point we cannot talk about causality, which requires that the cause comes before the effect. Without time there is no before, so asking what "caused" the universe to come into existence is a question that can't be answered with our current logic.
(But if you ask me, I think it was magic pixies what did it.)
Again your belief/statements are based off of theories. If they are not, name a scientific truth about the creation/beginning/coming about of the universe.
ReplyDeletewhat is yall's thought on Higgs boson do you believe that exist.
None - you're making the wrong assumptions about what science is. There are no scientific 'truths' about the beginning of the universe, all we have are the best theories based on the available evidence and experiment. Science doesn't claim to know for certain how the universe came to be. Maybe, one day in the future, one theory will come to the fore and match new as-yet unperformed experiments and it will be able to say that in all probability, this is how it happened. But it will always be provisional. Only religion claims to know 'The Truth' about the universe, and it isn't based on reality, it's based on myth, superstition, fear, wishful thinking and fairy-tale.
ReplyDeleteAs an atheist I am comfortable with the fact that I don't know the secrets of the universe, and probably never will. I am constantly amazed and awed by what science has so far managed to find out about the universe. The reality of what is actually going on out there is FAR more amazing than any religious creation myth. Just look at the origin of the elements, for example. I have a gold ring on my finger (maybe you do too) - that gold was created by an exploding star billions of years ago. Is that not amazing? You really don't need a god to be totally blown away by the universe.
Re: the Higg's boson - I don't believe it does or doesn't exist, I don't know yet. Experiments being carried out at the LHC have yet to find it, so maybe it is there and yet to appear, maybe it isn't there at all and the theories of physics will need to be adjusted. 'Belief' doesn't come into it.
Neil Davies said...
ReplyDeletethat gold was created by an exploding star billions of years ago. Is that not amazing? You really don't need a god to be totally blown away by the universe.
Ok to me this sounds like you are stating this as a fact or truth. but if you are basing this statement about the star and gold on scientific information would this not fall into the theory category.
Neil Davies said...
Only religion claims to know 'The Truth' about the universe, and it isn't based on reality, it's based on myth, superstition, fear, wishful thinking and fairy-tale.
you have a great misunderstanding between religion and Christianity base on faith in Christ (which is not a religion). i do not know what religion claims, as i am not a religious person and do not practice a religion but i do know what the Bible Old & New Testament says about God, life, death, this world, the universe, the heavens. So that statement(Only religion claims to know 'The Truth') correctly should be stated as The Bible claims to know 'The Truth' no religion knows the Truth as religion is based on mans idea about God. Where the Bible is Gods revelation (communication) to man of the truth he must know in order to be properly related to God, so inspiration deals with the preservation of that revelation so that what was received from God was accurately transmitted to others beyond the original recipient.
None "Ok to me this sounds like you are stating this as a fact or truth. but if you are basing this statement about the star and gold on scientific information would this not fall into the theory category."
ReplyDeleteNucleo-synthesis in stars is a scientific theory. The word theory is defined differently in terms of science than in everyday use. It is not a guess, or rough idea, or the result of someone just wondering what might be going on. It's the result of observation, experimentation, revision, on a continuous cycle. Read here for more information: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-as-a-way-of-knowing.html
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
To become a scientific theory a concept has to constantly pass tests and agree with new observations, and endure scientists constantly trying to prove it wrong. If it survives, it can still be called a scientific theory. There are many, many scientific theories that are for all intents and purposes 'facts' in the everyday way. Take the Earth being a globe - that's a scientific theory that today is regarded as a fact (because it is a fact, even though you can still find people who think the earth is flat!). Would you say that that isn't true? Am I stating that exploding stars produce gold as a fact? Yes, to the best of our knowledge it is a fact. It is true. Is it 'The Truth' - no, because in the future it could conceivably be found to be wrong (although staggeringly unlikely given the weight of evidence). This is how knowledge is built - by observation, experiment, hypothesis leading to more observation, experiment etc etc - until you get a scientific theory that has great explanitory power. None are 'The Truth' because however successful they may be, there is probably a deeper truth beneath it. Newton's theories of motion are true, to a point - Einstien's theories of relativity extended our knowledge and to date are also passing all tests. Beneath that may be other levels of truth yet to be fully understood (quantum gravity, string theories etc). The scientific method is a never-ending revision and improvement of what we know about the universe - it never claims to have found 'The Truth'. As a comedian once said - science knows it doesn't know everything, if it did it would stop!
Christianity is a religion, however you want to define it. If you believe in a supernatural creator God on faith then you are a religious person. You say the Bible claims to know 'The Truth' - well, there you go. If that's what you believe, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
What about the billions of years how is that determined by science saying that this star is x amount of light years away so it takes that light billions to reach us so the universe is billions of years old. what about gravity wells and gravitational time dilation, do not gravity wells distort time. and stellar redshifts are they a doppler effect phenomenon, whereby radiational wavelengths (starlight) lengthen as they move farther away from an observer. do stellar redshifts indicate that the universe is expanding. By extrapolating this expansion backwards, it becomes apparent that the primordial universe was somewhat denser, more compact than it is today.
ReplyDeleteIn a bounded universe wherein matter has a center and an edge, the material compression as described above would serve to deepen the gravity well caused by the combined mass of the universe. This would intensify the GTDE, causing time to pass much more slowly near the center of the universe (deeper in the well) than near its edge (nearer the surface of the well).
The implication is paradoxical: even if the entire universe was created all at once in the beginning (and should therefore be the same age), some parts can be substantially younger than others due to the relativistic nature of time. Light could travel billions of light-years over billions of years in some parts of the universe in what we on Earth would perceive to be a much shorter period of time. As the universe expands and matter spreads out across space, the universal gravity well would gradually even out, lessening the rate of time difference across the universe.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers reject the idea of a bounded universe with our galaxy, the Milky Way, near or at its center. But is this not a philosophical presupposition, and not a scientific conclusion founded upon empirical data.
Could not a person construct a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and scientist cannot disprove it based on observations... they can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
I have not asked this do you see the people of the Bible (Moses, David, Jesus, Paul etc..) as fictional people. Characters created for the Bible or do you believe they actually were real people.
Look, I'm not here to do your science homework for you, if you're really interested in cosmology, astronomy etc (and you sound like you might be, sp that's good) then go and learn about it. I could maybe suggest a few good books you could read if you want. (Assuming all that stuff you posted isn't just a copy/paste from somewhere).
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the academic consensus on the people you mentioned in the Bible are that Moses, David are fictional, Jesus probably existed (can't remember about Paul, probably real I would expect). But even if I accept Jesus was a real person, that doesn't prove a) that he was or b) that anything written about him actually happened or c) he was some incarnation of the creator of the universe. There's no point in looking at the Bible and expecting it to 'prove' any of those things, because it can't.
Excellent books to read:
ReplyDeleteA Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking
About Time - Paul Davies
From Eternity to Here - Sean Carroll
Decoding the Universe - Charles Seife
Why does E=mc²? - Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
And pretty much anything at all by Richard Feynman.
:)
and for you and others i would say watch the nation of Israel they will be the center of future events that have been listed through out the Bible, Old and New Testament. also have enjoyed looking through your artwork, all the best
ReplyDelete