Topic: Craig's defense of the slaughter of Canaanites - Rebuttal?

[Desert Fox]

I know I have seen or heard a rebuttal to this
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.


On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

[Desert Fox]

---deleted- -double post

[klintistvud]

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

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Then he argues that:

our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are

How are we to determine the existence of objective moral values without presupposing God's own existence?

[Anders]

There's no reasoning with him. He has lost rights to be taken seriously and has become a moral monster.

[Belgarath]

There's no reasoning with him. He has lost rights to be taken seriously and has become a moral monster.

My response to that would be to list all of the mass murderers and criminals who were commanded 'by God' to commit their crimes.  How do we know that God didn't command David Koresh to do what he did?

[Traveler]

There's no reasoning with him. He has lost rights to be taken seriously and has become a moral monster.

My response to that would be to list all of the mass murderers and criminals who were commanded 'by God' to commit their crimes.  How do we know that God didn't command David Koresh to do what he did?

Relying on one person's self proclaimed revelation of God's will is obviously unreliable. I think online polls are the way to go. Shall we start one asking if WLC's logic is an abomination in the sight of God?

[Desert Fox]

On another forum, running into a person who I only believed as a Poe but does not appear to be a Poe.
He seems to take the bible as literal while accepting that there is no evidence for it.
He used Craig's defense of the slaughter of Canaanites.
Reading it, I have trouble taking it seriously

I actually suggested that he call "The Atheist Experience" because I have to wonder if Matt could figure him out

[Neon Genesis]

think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving dictator. Since Hitler doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But Hitler has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing Hitler.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to Hitler.Hitler is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that Hitler has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.

[Johnny Slick]

Roffle. Did we miss this:

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

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

That is awesome and amazingly awesome.

[Neon Genesis]

And Christian apologists try to claim atheism is a slippery slope to nihilism...

[klintistvud]

Roffle. Did we miss this:

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

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

That is awesome and amazingly awesome.

The argument is valid.

It's in the form of modus tollens. The second premise is the negation of the consequent of the first premise.

[Johnny Slick]

Yeah, I just looked over this again and was about to correct myself. Still, I have major issues with the premises.

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

Why is this the case? Pretend for a minute that I don't believe in gods. Please describe for me why it is *necessary* for "objective morality" to not exist if there aren't any gods?

2. Objective moral values do exist.

What would the converse look like? What does "objective moral values" even mean? Do you mean "don't kill people", because a. that is highly subjective and subverted by Christians for a variety of subjective reasons all the time, and b. doesn't require the existence of gods to agree in? Do you mean "when you drop a ball from the side of a building it will fall until it hits the ground"? Because that doesn't seem terribly "moral" to me, is technically subverted by quantum-level physics, and at that is only really true on the planet we live on.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Well, congratulations. It's easy to make a non-fallacious argument when you base a conclusion on two false premises. After all, the only time an argument is ever fallacious is if it's possible for a premise to be true but the conclusion false. In this case, both the premises are "not even false", if you know what I mean.

1. If there were no William Lane Craig, UFOs would be fake.
2. UFOs are real.
Therefore, there is William Lane Craig.

[ting-bu-dong]

The argument is valid.

It's in the form of modus tollens. The second premise is the negation of the consequent of the first premise.

From the Wiki it looks like modus tollens means

If P is true, Q has to be true.
Q is not true.
Therefore P is not true.

But WLC seems to be arguing the opposite (Q is true, therefore P). Am I missing something?

[Johnny Slick]

1. If !God then !Morals
2. Morals
Therefore, God.

It's due to a specific way if-then works in logic. An if-then statement is one where, if the antecedent is true, the the consequent is. The consequent could be either true or false if the antecedent is false. However, the flip side ot that is, if the consequent is false, the antecedent can't be anything but false.

It *does* work on a purely deductive level... but your inclusion of "has to" is one huge reason why deductive reasoning is a piss-poor way of actually finding truths.

[klintistvud]

The argument is valid.

It's in the form of modus tollens. The second premise is the negation of the consequent of the first premise.

From the Wiki it looks like modus tollens means

If P is true, Q has to be true.
Q is not true.
Therefore P is not true.

But WLC seems to be arguing the opposite (Q is true, therefore P). Am I missing something?

His argument is the same form only with double negations.

You can take "objective moral values do not exist" as Q, then "it's not the case that objective moral values do not exist" will be ~Q which is the same thing as "objective moral values do exist".