1) I agree his assumption that gays would be more likely to be abusive than heterosexuals was unwarranted, but that is a separate issue from whether Catholic agencies should be denied a religious conscience exemption and forced to arrange adoptions by homosexuals.
2) Bush is "widely considered" to be one of the most "immoral" presidents in U.S. history by people such as Keith Olbermann (great intellect that he is)--somehow I think Craig would not find that a persuasive reason to change his mind (as he should not). On the question of competence, that would seem to be entirely separate from whether Craig shared Bush's values--Bush could implement those values incompetently but Craig could still logically admire Bush's values and prefer his values to Al Gore's and John Kerry's.
3) On the absurdity of life, Craig is not saying that atheists necessarily FEEL their lives are absurd--but that all lives (including Craig's) are objectively absurd if God does not exist, and any subjective meaning we attach to them would be a game of pretending.
4) On point 4, were you going to present evidence or argument against this, or just your opinion against Craig's?
5) On hell, I'm not familiar with Craig's detailed views on this, although I don't believe he asserts that those in hell are "tortured"--just that they are eternally separated from God. Since those in heaven will be worshiping and praising God forever, why would an atheist want to spend eternity in heaven doing that even after he realized he was wrong about God's existence? In any event, I find Greg Boyd's "annihilationist" interpretation of hell to have the most scriptural support (see http://tinyurl.com/c44qws ) and in that case, those who reject God will cease to exist after death, which should give them no cause for complaint--since that is what, on atheism, they believe is going to happen to all people anyway.
toweltowel
· 9 months ago
"I agree his assumption that gays would be more likely to be abusive than heterosexuals was unwarranted, but that is a separate issue from whether Catholic agencies should be denied a religious conscience exemption and forced to arrange adoptions by homosexuals."
Right, those are two separate issues, which is why only one of them is being singled out for criticism.
Defending religious conscience exemptions due to horrifyingly loathsome bigotry about gays is like criticizing Israel due to horrifyingly loathsome bigotry about Jews: a legitimate position defended with the most odious and indefensible kind of prejudice.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
1) Yeah, my disagreement was with his assumption that gays are more likely to be sexual predators and child abusers than homosexuals.
2) Bush is widely considered to be one of the worst presidents ever by historians. Of course, Craig does (apparently) support the values of Bush - and I think the values of Bush are ugly. :)
3) Hmmmm... maybe. Sometimes he sounds like he's trying to say more than that.
4) Wow, do you really think homosexual sex is one of the most self-destructive and harmful behaviors one could engage in??? I can think of a pretty long list I'd put ahead of homosexual sex...
5) Annihilationism is certainly less ugly than Craig's views, yes.
anselm
· 9 months ago
1) Good, then we are in agreement, too :) Craig should not make such an assertion without anything to back it up; and religious organizations should get conscience clause exemptions
2) "Worst" and "immoral" are two different things. And historians are in no position to judge a president as "history" 2 months (!) after leaving office. Truman was considered a failure in 1953 and a great president 40 years later.
4) No, I didn't say I thought that, but the statement is not just self-evidently "ugly" unless we know he has nothing to back it up (maybe he doesn't)
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
2) Oh, I can certainly give an argument that Bush was immoral, but I'm sure you've heard it all before.
4) It's not self-evidently ugly, but I think it's not hard to come to that conclusion. We can all think of hundreds of things - murder, rape, female circumcision, self-mutilation, torture, terrorism, sexual molestation, child abuse, drunk driving, etc. - that are more destructive than gay guys blowing each other.
anselm
· 9 months ago
2) Well, sure, on the Christian view we are all "immoral" to some extent ("Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" as the bumper sticker goes); I just think it is very hard to argue that Bush was more immoral than all the other presidents (especially when you consider Nixon, Harding, LBJ, Clinton, etc., etc., etc.).
4) I think Craig said "self-destructive," so the self-mutilation would fit; other items would be things like drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc. Now that I consider it, promiscuity in general (not just homosexual promiscuity) tends to lead to self-destructive outcomes, so I guess we agree again :)
Brandon
· 9 months ago
<3) ... all lives (including Craig's) are objectively absurd if God does not exist, and any subjective meaning we attach to them would be a game of pretending.>
As if there's something fundamentally wrong with subjectively labeling your life as meaningful based on your relationships with others, for instance!
I will never understand the apologist assertion that "the meaning of life" is only worthwhile if it's objectively assigned to us as opposed to a meaning we derive from life on our own.
toweltowel
· 9 months ago
It's not even clear to me what the apologist assertion is supposed to mean. After all, claims about the meaning of life are very nebulous and very hard to understand. But here's my best interpretation:
* If there is no purpose bestowed upon humans by some higher power, then the most reasonable or appropriate sort of emotional life is one characterized by the following kinds of feelings or attitudes: despair, listlessness, melancholy, resignation, impassivity, indifference, detachment, anomie, maybe liberation from guilt or Sartrean "nausea".
But why should anyone accept this claim? If I knew someone who first became convinced that there was no higher purpose to life, and subsequently developed that sort of emotional life, I wouldn't admire that person or think of them respondingly appropriately to their beliefs. I'd think of them as immature and somewhat ridiculous. I strongly suspect common sense agrees with me on this, and I haven't encountered any reason to doubt what seems to be common sense on this point.
So the apologist assertion is implausible on its face and in need of strong support before it can be taken seriously.
MountainKing
· 9 months ago
I wrote a comment before on a similar remark by anselm but somehow most of my posts get lost somewhere. He (and other apologists) are correct to point out that theres no objective meaning of life if you define objective meaning to be applied from "outside". Then they "sneakily" interchange objctive meaning and meaning to prove their point that atheism can´t apply meaning to somebodys life even though it only can´t apply OBJECTIVE meaning. The problem is that they make a second, secret assumption: meaning has to be objective meaning to be the correct, real one. Without that they only prove that people who don´t believe in supernatural beings can´t give theor lives a meaning that only an existent supernatural being can give, that´s not much more than a tautology.
anselm
· 9 months ago
This issue was extensively discussed in the comments section to the March 18 post, if you want to check that out. Below is the main point I made there:
"The idea is that without God all life is objectively meaningless (regardless of the subjective meaning we invent to make us happy), because then humankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. All of our little projects are meaningless because after the heat death of the universe, it will ultimately make no objective difference whether we ever existed.
And indeed, some of the most prominent atheist thinkers who delved deeply into atheism's implications came to similar conclusions, e.g., Bertrand Russell:
"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built." (in "A Free Man's Worship").
That doesn't mean an atheist is not subjectively happy--who could judge that anyway from the "outside"? I can see how there would be a feeling of liberation in knowing there is no accountability to traditional moral standards and we are free to engage in the "transvaluation of values" as Nietzsche called it ("freedom from ancient prohibitions" as the original post put it). This feeling could certainly be called a form of happiness. But the question is whether Camus is correct that this feeling does not compensate for the objective meaninglessness of life without God (once that fact is fully and frankly confronted)."
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
This is like saying that a party, or a sexual encounter, or a marriage does not have objective value because it will come to an end. Well, if that 's what you mean by "objective", then fine, but that doesn't mean that a party or a sexual encounter or a marriage doesn't have meaning.
anselm
· 9 months ago
Well, of course you can define "meaning" however you like (e.g., the activity is "meaningful" if it gives a temporary boost of endorphins to the people participating), but if the human life in which the activity takes place is doomed to cease to exist, and the universe in which all humans live is doomed to cease to exist, then it ultimately has no significance and it makes no difference whether that life or that universe ever existed at all, as Bertrand Russell recognized. And as he said, the only logical response to that existential reality is "despair."
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Lol! How does the emotion of despair follow logically from anything?
Even if the universe is doomed to heat death, what we do here and now is significant in the only way anything can be significant: it is significant to sentient beings for whom certain things are significant! If you need your own actions to have eternal significance a trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now and beyond, that is awfully demanding!
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Yup!
anselm
· 9 months ago
"Lol! How does the emotion of despair follow logically from anything?
Even if the universe is doomed to heat death, what we do here and now is significant in the only way anything can be significant: it is significant to sentient beings for whom certain things are significant! If you need your own actions to have eternal significance a trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now and beyond, that is awfully demanding!"
Very Sisyphean attitude there! Camus would be proud of you :) (But Bertrand Russell agrees with the theists on this one).
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
And I disagree with Bertrand Russell, though he is entitled to his opinion. The universe is tremendously beautiful and amazing and meaningful and significant to me, and when you tell me it's all meaningless because it will end one day, that doesn't compute for me.
"And I disagree with Bertrand Russell, though he is entitled to his opinion. The universe is tremendously beautiful and amazing and meaningful and significant to me, and when you tell me it's all meaningless because it will end one day, that doesn't compute for me."
Since it's your blog, I think you deserve to get the last word :) Thanks for the opportunity for dialog
busterggi
· 9 months ago
I''ve argued with many true believers who still insist that Dubya was the greatest president since Saint Ronald, that Jesus made him president and that Obama was put into office by Satan.
There is no reasoning with these people.
Kevin
· 9 months ago
Regarding Craig's comment that life without god is meaningless: When he says this in his book Reasonable Faith, he isn't claiming that atheists live without meaning, but that they do so by borrowing meaning from the religious realm. Atheism alone, he says, can't provide meaning, so atheists unwittingly sneak it in from religion, religious concepts, ways of thinking, etc. This is the rough equivalent of what he and other apologists say about ethics--that atheists may behave well, but they can't justify their behavior without recourse to god.
Not that I agree with him, but let's avoid the Straw Men.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
Okay, then I misunderstood Craig. I'll remove that complaint.
marcion
· 9 months ago
"because gays are usually sexual predators and child abusers"
Only an idiot would think otherwise. If you are a freak enough to do it with another man, will anything really restrain you from raping a child? no. nor an animal! In fact, there is no such thing as homosexuality, but all homosexuals are really bisexuals or omnisexuals. they'll have sex with anything that moves. they pick up AIDS among their own sex then spread it to the opposite sex too, because they are nothing more than unrestrained immoral sexual orgyers. just look at the catholic priests. they're fags and they rape children.
lukeprog
· 9 months ago
I still don't know what you're doing, but you are certainly entertaining, marcion.
All Comments
1) I agree his assumption that gays would be more likely to be abusive than heterosexuals was unwarranted, but that is a separate issue from whether Catholic agencies should be denied a religious conscience exemption and forced to arrange adoptions by homosexuals.
2) Bush is "widely considered" to be one of the most "immoral" presidents in U.S. history by people such as Keith Olbermann (great intellect that he is)--somehow I think Craig would not find that a persuasive reason to change his mind (as he should not). On the question of competence, that would seem to be entirely separate from whether Craig shared Bush's values--Bush could implement those values incompetently but Craig could still logically admire Bush's values and prefer his values to Al Gore's and John Kerry's.
3) On the absurdity of life, Craig is not saying that atheists necessarily FEEL their lives are absurd--but that all lives (including Craig's) are objectively absurd if God does not exist, and any subjective meaning we attach to them would be a game of pretending.
4) On point 4, were you going to present evidence or argument against this, or just your opinion against Craig's?
5) On hell, I'm not familiar with Craig's detailed views on this, although I don't believe he asserts that those in hell are "tortured"--just that they are eternally separated from God. Since those in heaven will be worshiping and praising God forever, why would an atheist want to spend eternity in heaven doing that even after he realized he was wrong about God's existence? In any event, I find Greg Boyd's "annihilationist" interpretation of hell to have the most scriptural support (see http://tinyurl.com/c44qws ) and in that case, those who reject God will cease to exist after death, which should give them no cause for complaint--since that is what, on atheism, they believe is going to happen to all people anyway.
Right, those are two separate issues, which is why only one of them is being singled out for criticism.
Defending religious conscience exemptions due to horrifyingly loathsome bigotry about gays is like criticizing Israel due to horrifyingly loathsome bigotry about Jews: a legitimate position defended with the most odious and indefensible kind of prejudice.
2) Bush is widely considered to be one of the worst presidents ever by historians. Of course, Craig does (apparently) support the values of Bush - and I think the values of Bush are ugly. :)
3) Hmmmm... maybe. Sometimes he sounds like he's trying to say more than that.
4) Wow, do you really think homosexual sex is one of the most self-destructive and harmful behaviors one could engage in??? I can think of a pretty long list I'd put ahead of homosexual sex...
5) Annihilationism is certainly less ugly than Craig's views, yes.
2) "Worst" and "immoral" are two different things. And historians are in no position to judge a president as "history" 2 months (!) after leaving office. Truman was considered a failure in 1953 and a great president 40 years later.
4) No, I didn't say I thought that, but the statement is not just self-evidently "ugly" unless we know he has nothing to back it up (maybe he doesn't)
4) It's not self-evidently ugly, but I think it's not hard to come to that conclusion. We can all think of hundreds of things - murder, rape, female circumcision, self-mutilation, torture, terrorism, sexual molestation, child abuse, drunk driving, etc. - that are more destructive than gay guys blowing each other.
4) I think Craig said "self-destructive," so the self-mutilation would fit; other items would be things like drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc. Now that I consider it, promiscuity in general (not just homosexual promiscuity) tends to lead to self-destructive outcomes, so I guess we agree again :)
As if there's something fundamentally wrong with subjectively labeling your life as meaningful based on your relationships with others, for instance!
I will never understand the apologist assertion that "the meaning of life" is only worthwhile if it's objectively assigned to us as opposed to a meaning we derive from life on our own.
* If there is no purpose bestowed upon humans by some higher power, then the most reasonable or appropriate sort of emotional life is one characterized by the following kinds of feelings or attitudes: despair, listlessness, melancholy, resignation, impassivity, indifference, detachment, anomie, maybe liberation from guilt or Sartrean "nausea".
But why should anyone accept this claim? If I knew someone who first became convinced that there was no higher purpose to life, and subsequently developed that sort of emotional life, I wouldn't admire that person or think of them respondingly appropriately to their beliefs. I'd think of them as immature and somewhat ridiculous. I strongly suspect common sense agrees with me on this, and I haven't encountered any reason to doubt what seems to be common sense on this point.
So the apologist assertion is implausible on its face and in need of strong support before it can be taken seriously.
"The idea is that without God all life is objectively meaningless (regardless of the subjective meaning we invent to make us happy), because then humankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. All of our little projects are meaningless because after the heat death of the universe, it will ultimately make no objective difference whether we ever existed.
And indeed, some of the most prominent atheist thinkers who delved deeply into atheism's implications came to similar conclusions, e.g., Bertrand Russell:
"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built." (in "A Free Man's Worship").
That doesn't mean an atheist is not subjectively happy--who could judge that anyway from the "outside"? I can see how there would be a feeling of liberation in knowing there is no accountability to traditional moral standards and we are free to engage in the "transvaluation of values" as Nietzsche called it ("freedom from ancient prohibitions" as the original post put it). This feeling could certainly be called a form of happiness. But the question is whether Camus is correct that this feeling does not compensate for the objective meaninglessness of life without God (once that fact is fully and frankly confronted)."
Even if the universe is doomed to heat death, what we do here and now is significant in the only way anything can be significant: it is significant to sentient beings for whom certain things are significant! If you need your own actions to have eternal significance a trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now and beyond, that is awfully demanding!
Even if the universe is doomed to heat death, what we do here and now is significant in the only way anything can be significant: it is significant to sentient beings for whom certain things are significant! If you need your own actions to have eternal significance a trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now and beyond, that is awfully demanding!"
Very Sisyphean attitude there! Camus would be proud of you :)
(But Bertrand Russell agrees with the theists on this one).
Our discussion reminds me of this.
Since it's your blog, I think you deserve to get the last word :) Thanks for the opportunity for dialog
There is no reasoning with these people.
Not that I agree with him, but let's avoid the Straw Men.
Only an idiot would think otherwise. If you are a freak enough to do it with another man, will anything really restrain you from raping a child? no. nor an animal! In fact, there is no such thing as homosexuality, but all homosexuals are really bisexuals or omnisexuals. they'll have sex with anything that moves. they pick up AIDS among their own sex then spread it to the opposite sex too, because they are nothing more than unrestrained immoral sexual orgyers. just look at the catholic priests. they're fags and they rape children.