Onto this post: while strolling down the halls of my school, I happened upon a poster asking the question "DNA: DESIGN OR CHANCE?" Of course, immediately I knew this was an advertisement for some sort of religious organization - who but a creationist would pose this false dichotomy (natural selection works on chance mutations, but of course this means there is selection involved as well, which is the very opposite of chance)? In the bottom left of the poster, there was the logo for Campus for Christ, possibly the biggest and best funded Christian club on campus (out of the dozen or so that there are). The only other information on the poster was a website: ultimatequestions.org
Apparently William Craig is going to be coming to the University of Waterloo, and debating Christopher diCarlo. I had heard months ago that William Craig was going to be in Waterloo, and that Campus for Christ was interested in hosting a debate with him against an atheist. Someone had left an email address with one of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo. I emailed the address, showing an interest in co-hosting this event. I never got any information about what was going on, and no one else attempted to contact me, so I didn't know that the debate was still going to happen. Apparently it is, and quite soon, too (for those interested, see the "Ultimate Questions" site and click the "Events" tab).
While browsing the Ultimate Questions site, I checked out the articles they had. While two of the three articles seemed to just be a rehash of the same old design argument garbage, one, by William Craig, was entitled "What Does It Matter?" This is the article that made me decide I need to finally write another blog post.
The article is extremely short, so I will just quote it in full here (if you want to read it without my commentary, go to the Ultimate Questions site and click "articles"). The article outlines three reasons why it makes a difference whether God exists or not. While I don't think I would disagree that it matters whether God exists or not (if a Christian god exists, for example, I would be much more concerned about making sure I get into heaven), Craig's article is actually just an attack on atheism:
The following are three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists:This is his first reason. I read this and am shocked. Is he actually saying that alleviating suffering doesn't matter? If we have finite lives, doesn't alleviating suffering and promoting the good just become more meaningful? I have trouble even understanding what he is trying to say here. Simply, he is not seeing people as ends in themselves. I fail to see how, if no one is an end in themselves, any meaning is added if we live forever.
1. If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If there is no God, then it makes no ultimate difference whether you ever existed or not. True, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.
Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.
Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.
2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. First, there is no hope of deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man’s own inhumanity to man.Craig seems to be very confused here - he seems to think that God is the only possible thing that can save us from any evils. This is one of the things which worry me about theism - the idea that we don't have to work to try to achieve justice, since in the end God just tips the scales and makes everything right again anyways. A simple quote from the Humanist Manifesto II is sufficient to rebut Craig's "point": "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century’s naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.
Moreover, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Given atheism, there is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.
Finally, Craig's last point (quoted more for completion than anything else):
3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then there is meaning and hope, and the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want you to be His personal friend. This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.
5 comments:
I'm rather looking forward to Dr. Craig's visit to Waterloo. It'll be the first time I'll be able to see him debate and speak live. Plus it's not everyday you get to have such an eminent Christian philosopher and apologist at your University.
I wanted to respond though to your remarks on Dr. Craig's article.
You said:
"I read this and am shocked. Is he actually saying that alleviating suffering doesn't matter? If we have finite lives, doesn't alleviating suffering and promoting the good just become more meaningful?"
The argument (which is just an expansion on the moral argument) is more sophisticated than you let on. What Craig is saying here is that if God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't even be anything called good, or evil. It all becomes relative and subjective without God. Thus, alleviating suffering doesn't really matter, at least not in any objective sense. Any significance we give to that thought is really reduced down to a preference, like one's preference for certain foods over others. And you can't say that because we have finite lives, it therefore becomes more important to alleviate suffering. Why? Well because you're presupposing the very thing that is in question on an Atheistic worldview, namely, that it's objectively valuable to alleviate suffering.
Basically, what it all comes down too is this: if God doesn't exist, then Nihilism would be true. This is what Dr. Craig is really saying.
I have no doubt that when Dr. Craig comes to debate this question with Dr. Dicarlo, he'll be promoting that idea. And I think he'll have the upper hand in doing so, because it seems so manifestly true in my opinion. I do come at this from a Theistic perspective, but even if I weren't one, I know for a fact that I'd still agree with him, as do a great many Atheists already.
Jeremy - If what you say is true, that Craig was just building on the moral argument, it seems odd that he would throw in the parts about the heat death of the universe. I still think my interpretation coheres better with what was in the article.
As to your interpretation, I guess I am obligated to respond to it. Quite simply, I don't see how, if you don't believe in any sort of morality, positing a god bails you out. Due to the Euthyphro Dilemma, we know that a god cannot be the foundation for morality, so if there is no foundation for morality, adding a god in doesn't change anything. So this utterly fails as both an argument against atheism and as an argument for why it matters that god exists.
You wrote:
"If what you say is true, that Craig was just building on the moral argument, it seems odd that he would throw in the parts about the heat death of the universe."
Dr. Craig just throws in the "heat death of the universe" in order to highlight the fate and nothingness to which mankind is destined toward. It highlights the meaningless of our existence.
You wrote:
"Due to the Euthyphro Dilemma, we know that a god cannot be the foundation for morality, so if there is no foundation for morality, adding a god in doesn't change anything."
The Euthyphor dilemma isn't the be all and end all for founding morality in God. You can clearly just say that God's nature is just everything that is morally good, (even if you can't really define what is good). Hence, morality doesn't exist before God and therefore presents no formidable objection to Divine Command Theory. The point is, if God's nature is a certain way, then it plausibly provides the basis for what is considered objectively morally good or evil. His nature, would be the standard. Now granted, there may still be problems with this view, but it is far more plausible than Atheism, which can't even begin to offer an account for objectivity.
"The point is, if God's nature is a certain way, then it plausibly provides the basis for what is considered objectively morally good or evil. His nature, would be the standard."
So if God's nature happened to be that of a rapist, raping would be okay?
I fail to see how adding a god really adds anything to morality. Is it because there is one big daddy who says what is right and wrong, and will keep score and punish you if there is more wrong then right?
"[Atheism] can't even begin to offer an account for objectivity."
Atheism is simply a rejection of a particular set of beliefs. As such, of course it can't offer accounts of really anything.
There are plenty of secular philosophers who believe in objective morality. For example, Austin Dacey believes that, though there is no "moron" (a fundamental particle with moral properties), we can nonetheless define what is moral objectively. First, note that if you were in a better state of knowledge about your own situation, you could decide what was best for your own interests. If you had perfect knowledge, you could know exactly which decisions would promote your well being the best - there would be some things which were objectively better for you. Now expand this to all people and their interests - there are certain actions which are, objectively, more in the interests of all parties than others. So there are certain things which are, objectively, morally better than others.
dude (jeremy) this is actually very simple..
if i am not mistaken, you are implying that (or craig, that is), if god exists there would be objectivity (since you said it all becomes relative and subjective without god), and that good and evil are inherent traits of objectivity (you said: if God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't even be anything called good, or evil) when in reality they are not!
good and evil ARE actually subjective and relative. objectively, there is no good nor evil. then are they unimportant? not really. when you act out of love one another true morality is shown. i mean the existence/nonexistence of god doesn't have anything to do with good or bad/morality.
my idea of 'morality' is (for example) when you don't kill one another not because the law says so, or because god commands you not to . you don't kill because you sincerely value other beings, now that is true morality for me.
so yes i agree that putting god in this context does not help the morality argument
i'm an agnostic btw.
Post a Comment