This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← W.L. Craig claims L. Krauss thinks child rape "may be morally acceptable".

W.L. Craig claims L. Krauss thinks child rape "may be morally acceptable". - Comments

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins

I have to be careful to avoid prejudice resulting from my almost visceral loathing of "Dr" Craig's odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice. But this piece of libellous logic-chopping almost deserves to be set alongside his notorious defence of biblical genocide and infanticide. Craig really is a truly disgusting person in the literal sense: he disgusts. After this, I'd have a hard time bringing myself to shake hands with him, let alone share a platform with him.

Sat, 28 May 2011 12:14:31 UTC | #631683

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 2 by Tyler Durden

Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins :

After this, I'd have a hard time bringing myself to shake hands with him, let along share a platform with him.

Sharing the planet with him ain't no picnic either. The man is toxic.

Sat, 28 May 2011 12:32:50 UTC | #631685

Andrew B.'s Avatar Comment 3 by Andrew B.

Wouldn't it be easier for Craig to come to the conclusion that child rape is morally acceptable? All God has to do is claim it to be just that and it would become so. For Krauss to claim it to be, our understanding of the psychological trauma that occurs when children are assaulted in this manner would have to change (new evidence would have to come to light suggesting that rape is generally harmless), as would our understanding of their ability to fully comprehend the implications of intercourse in order to competently give consent.

Sat, 28 May 2011 12:34:25 UTC | #631686

Teknical's Avatar Comment 4 by Teknical

Idiot + U tube clip = 6 wasted mins of your life

Sat, 28 May 2011 12:49:56 UTC | #631687

jel's Avatar Comment 5 by jel

I agree with Tyler Durden. Why oh why didn't the rapture happen last week so that people like this are no longer polluting our planet?

Sat, 28 May 2011 12:52:16 UTC | #631688

Bipedal Primate's Avatar Comment 6 by Bipedal Primate

Well, in my opinion there might be a lesson for our side in cases like this. It seems to me, at least, that it's directly counterproductive to use any form of humor in discussions with believers. It's probably the default position of literal minds to not just misunderstand but even go out of their way to actively misunderstand. I think it makes them feel smart, somehow. Ironically.

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:03:56 UTC | #631689

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 7 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 2 by Tyler Durden

Sharing the planet with him ain't no picnic either. The man is toxic.

Proof positive, if any was needed, that no god exists. That this vile human being is on the planet says it all to me, he is a feckin' oxygen thief of the highest order, whose morals he cherry picks to suit himself. Dirtbag!

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:09:49 UTC | #631692

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 8 by bendigeidfran

Ach, these moral dilemmas are the hardest. Could one be morally justified in waterboarding WLC, if by that action one might save five minutes strangling him? Only Sam can say.

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:29:40 UTC | #631697

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 9 by Ignorant Amos

The fact that Craig's position was so transparent that Krauss foreseen the statement 2+2=5 and he was certain enough so that he confidently wore the T-shirt, speaks volumes about Craig's arguments in the first place. The rest of WLC's claim is just a load of sh'ite. How can he make the statement that OMV can be suspended when his god sees fit on the one hand and then call someone out for the same thing even when they didn't actually say it ffs? I'm guessing the Muslims use the same ploy too? That old god business is a handy "get out of jail" free card isn't it? The RCC certainly know how use it to full effect anyway.

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:31:32 UTC | #631698

Layla's Avatar Comment 10 by Layla

Why does the video title say admit it's morally acceptable as though it actually was morally acceptable?

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:36:11 UTC | #631700

danconquer's Avatar Comment 11 by danconquer

A cat (as I later found out it was) once decided to crawl underneath my garden shed and die there. Everytime I went outside, there was that horrible fetid smell, bugging me. Subconsciously at first. And then very, very consciously. A constant pong that refused to be ignored and was a source of great irritation whenever one had to go near the shed.

Craig's name reminds me of that dead cat. I never took a particularly strong interest in religious matters until I joined this website, but seemingly everytime I did read a relevant book or article, there would be his name, lurking somewhere. No matter how hard I tried to ignore it, it just kept coming back again and again.

Just a couple of weeks ago curiosity finally got the better of me and I clicked a YouTube link. I was genuinely, I mean TRULY, perplexed as to all the fuss. He's just rather, er, rubbish frankly in every respect. I assumed that the one true skill he does possess must be in self-publicity and marketing, as it's the only plausible reason why the name of this utterly underwhelming charlatan should have become so ubiquitous.

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:48:38 UTC | #631702

The Plc's Avatar Comment 12 by The Plc

Any chance of a summary for someone who can't stand his nasal whine and self-congratulatory bragging?

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:53:51 UTC | #631705

danconquer's Avatar Comment 13 by danconquer

Comment 10 by Layla :

Why does the video title say admit it's morally acceptable as though it actually was morally acceptable?

Haha, well spotted Layla! And it's written by Craig himself apparently?!

#Bing-Bong#... Doctor Freud, please report to RDF, Doctor Freud to RDF, your analysis is required immediately...

Sat, 28 May 2011 13:55:01 UTC | #631706

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 14 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 12 by The Plc

Any chance of a summary for someone who can't stand his nasal whine and self-congratulatory bragging?

Annoy the shit out of you too does it?

Sat, 28 May 2011 14:15:17 UTC | #631708

seals's Avatar Comment 15 by seals

Krauss didn't appreciate what he himself was saying?

No, what he didn't appreciate was what a shit stirrer William Lane Craig is - a pathetic little sub-moron who shouldn't be entertained in civilised company.

Sat, 28 May 2011 14:33:11 UTC | #631712

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 16 by the great teapot

Aren't you guys forgetting this is one of america's leading philosophers. More respect please.

Sat, 28 May 2011 14:57:39 UTC | #631719

alexi's Avatar Comment 17 by alexi

Debating professional apologists is so infuriating... they give the most dodgy answers and lead you around in circles. I've been debating this one guy who idolizes Craig on a forum lately, its insane how they make lead you around if you actually try to argue with them.

Sat, 28 May 2011 15:00:11 UTC | #631720

snail-12's Avatar Comment 18 by snail-12

I was looking at WLC's Web forum the other day at their response to his debate with Sam Harris. The members there seemed to spend a lot of time criticising Sam's tone of voice just like people here criticise WLC's tone. I wonder if there is a correlation between disagreeing with someone's opinions and disliking their voice.

I don't think WLC is an idiot, he is very clever. Disingenuous maybe, he constructs very clever arguments arround simple fallacious assumptions which people contiually fail to correctly dismantle in debates. I wish someone experienced in formal debating and well versed in his arguments would take his so-called logic apart for everyone to see. However it definitely should not be Prof. Dawkins, as any debate would just be a game about point scoring and not In Prof. Dawkins' area of expertise. I Imagine WLC framing the debate which Prof. Dawkins would be wise to avoid. Thus they would argue past each other, both claiming victory: not worth Richard's time or worth giving WLC the credibility/publicity.

Sat, 28 May 2011 15:32:35 UTC | #631732

skiles1's Avatar Comment 19 by skiles1

If we are discussing Craig's dishonesty, we should also mention how he underhandedly dictates what the topic of debate will be and demands to have first argument, all without his opponents' understanding.

Sat, 28 May 2011 15:38:20 UTC | #631735

the lobotomizer's Avatar Comment 20 by the lobotomizer

Just for the sake of arguing...

If I awoke upon an alien ship, and the aliens told me that if I did not rape a child they would abduct the entire human race and subject everyone to unimaginable and unending torture, and the aliens were able to provide some sort of evidence that they were capable of this feat and that they would certainly follow through with their threat and that I was not simply hallucinating, I feel that raping a child would probably be the right thing to do.

So... a) is there something wrong with my own moral reasoning in this extremely contrived scenario? And b) do unrealistic thought experiments like this actually have any bearing on how we define our moral positions (or anything else for that matter)?

Please don't take this as a trolling attempt, it's something I've wondered about on my own but I've never been able to come to a solid conclusion and haven't shared my thoughts because they seem kind of obscure. I realize it is a bit of a derailment of the current thread, but seems to me like as good a time as ever to share.

Sat, 28 May 2011 15:57:14 UTC | #631741

DrewSerpa's Avatar Comment 21 by DrewSerpa

Comment 19 by skiles1 :

If we are discussing Craig's dishonesty, we should also mention how he underhandedly dictates what the topic of debate will be and demands to have first argument, all without his opponents' understanding.

I agree wholeheartedly. I take it as a strategy to strong-arm his way through the debate without really having to respond to any statements made by his opponent.

A Craig/X debate usually follows the same format.

Phase 1. Craig begins his opening statements by claiming A, B, C, etc. with massive pathos rhetoric. Craig then states that he will only defend those "basic contentions" and demands responses to them.

Phase 2. X beings their opening statements by claiming A,B,C, etc. and providing evidence to support their claims.

Phase 3. Craig responds by reminding us of his "basic contentions" and points out that in his opponent's last speech, they did not directly respond to each individual claim- therefore, the claims stand and are (for the remainder of the debate) to be universal truths. Craig then attempts to belittle and patronize his opponent's last statements with non-sequiturs and implications of dishonesty. Sprinkle with semantic confusion to distaste.

X responds to a few important statements made by Craig.

Repeat Phase 3 ad nauseam.

It's no wonder Dawkins refuses to debate the man. Dawkins would just be pushing Craig one step closer to God-hood in the eyes of the faithful.

Sat, 28 May 2011 16:07:50 UTC | #631745

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 22 by Jos Gibbons

The YouTube channel with this video also features William Lane Craig's Reaction to Richard Dawkins' Refusal to Debate Him , in which Craig says he hasn't been pushing for such a debate either.

As for the topic of this thread, I assume $ what Krauss was trying to say is that, just as summing two quantities has an error in it larger than the errors in the original variables (the variances add), so moral classification of quantities as above, below or on the "don't cross this" line can sometimes have error margins which are too wide for us to make confident sweeping judgements, especially regarding claims about what is always immoral. In particular, this means that what the sum of two quantities are has a surprisingly a posteriori aspect of it, just as morality might.

I have seen several frequently conflated definitions of what it would mean for morality to be "objective", of which all - with the possible exception of "being a matter of truth or falsity" - I consider unnecessary for ethics, one of which is a priori certainty. Could one imagine a logically possible world in which raping a child might be necessary for some larger reason? It's worth bearing in mind that merely being able to ask this question does not disqualify one from discussing ethics on an empirical basis. On the contrary; questions of this nature come up a lot; trading off horrors is common in arguments over what kind of war is permissible (though I personally never warmed to any examples). To my mind, morality is empirical, not entirely a priori. At any moment, we could have a surprise to our ideas about what is ALWAYS right/wrong as baffling as finding out the weak interaction doesn't obey as many rules as other forces do.

$ Only, however, if Krauss was responding to Ruse's comment AND Ruse said exactly what Craig quoted with no editing involved. And I freely admit those are pretty big assumptions. Does anyone know the exact context of the Krauss scene, or the exact words Ruse used?

Sat, 28 May 2011 16:13:41 UTC | #631747

green and dying's Avatar Comment 23 by green and dying

Comment 20 by the lobotomizer :

Just for the sake of arguing...

If I awoke upon an alien ship, and the aliens told me that if I did not rape a child they would abduct the entire human race and subject everyone to unimaginable and unending torture, and the aliens were able to provide some sort of evidence that they were capable of this feat and that they would certainly follow through with their threat and that I was not simply hallucinating, I feel that raping a child would probably be the right thing to do.

The aliens are the rapists here, not you, you're one of the victims. They forced you with threats, how is that your fault?

Sat, 28 May 2011 16:16:34 UTC | #631749

dust2dust's Avatar Comment 24 by dust2dust

I thought Krauss was a pretty lousy debater. I certainly don't side with WLC but he did present much better.

For me...it's all the stupid questions that the debates are put to.

Is there evidence for god?

Is Religion a Force for Good in the World?

Does god exist?

The debate simply dies on:

No. Thank you. Any questions?

Can we be good without god

The same

Yes. Thank you. Any questions?

I think we need to debate these religi-nuts on all the myriad of problems in their book. Make them defend all the insanities in their book. This would illustrate to some fence-sitter believers what is actually written in their book and perhaps they would be swayed to come to enlightenment. This would force them to try to defend such reprehensible conduct and demands that their faith requires of them that are written in their book.

Sat, 28 May 2011 16:25:20 UTC | #631751

Bipedal Primate's Avatar Comment 25 by Bipedal Primate

Comment 18 by snail-12 :

I don't think WLC is an idiot, he is very clever. Disingenuous maybe, he constructs very clever arguments arround simple fallacious assumptions which people contiually fail to correctly dismantle in debates. I wish someone experienced in formal debating and well versed in his arguments would take his so-called logic apart for everyone to see. However it definitely should not be Prof. Dawkins, as any debate would just be a game about point scoring and not In Prof. Dawkins' area of expertise. I Imagine WLC framing the debate which Prof. Dawkins would be wise to avoid. Thus they would argue past each other, both claiming victory: not worth Richard's time or worth giving WLC the credibility/publicity.

Exactly. He's not stupid. He's dangerous. He is a powertripping charismatic charlatan who sounds convincing to those who are easily swayed simply because he knows words like "ontology" and " epistemology" and can string them together in one sentence. It's similar to when Deepak Chopra plays with the vocabulary of theoretical physics. WLC is dangerous and he really needs to be dealt with by someone who knows to play this childish game of professional debating.

Sat, 28 May 2011 16:47:18 UTC | #631761

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 26 by Richard Dawkins

He is not dangerous and he is most certainly not charismatic. I had somehow picked up that illusion too, until I actually met him in Mexico and saw how deeply unimpressive he really is. He is a ponderous buffoon who brandishes impressive-sounding syllogisms from Logic 101 to bamboozle his faith-head audience into believing he is 'winning' a debate. He also possesses some stunningly unpleasant opinions, including his view that the massacre of the Canaanites was OK because God ordered it, and anyway they deserved it because they were sinful – topped only by his equally obnoxious justification for the massacre of their children: being too young to 'sin', they would go to heaven, you see. The classic, "Kill them all, God will sort them out" argument.

This latest slanderous attack on a distinguished physicist is par for Craig's nasty little course.

Sat, 28 May 2011 17:01:45 UTC | #631764

Czar's Avatar Comment 27 by Czar

Dr. Craig did not say he thinks Dr. Krauss thinks its morally acceptable to rape children. Dr. Craig said Dr. Krauss' brining out his 2+2=5 shirt in response to the Ruse quote had implications against the common sense position that rape is wrong. In fact, Dr. Craig claimed that he didn't think Krauss "appreciated" the implications of what he was saying.

Ruse: "The man who says raping a child is good is just as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5."

Krauss: Dr. Craig brought it up.......2+2=5.

There is nothing dishonest about Craig pointing out the implications. What is dishonest is to say that Craig thinks Krauss thinks it is morally acceptable to kill and rape.

Sat, 28 May 2011 17:02:40 UTC | #631765

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 28 by Richard Dawkins

Krauss was obviously making a joke, based on his t-shirt. Craig's fatuous grinding out of 'logical' implications was typically bumbling and pompous. He is simply not worthy to share a stage with Lawrence Krauss and I don't know why Lawrence flattered him by agreeing to be there.

Richard

Sat, 28 May 2011 17:12:42 UTC | #631769

Czar's Avatar Comment 29 by Czar

Actually, its not at all clear Krauss was joking. He used the shirt to exemplify the supposedly incorrect assumptions with which Craig's arguments functioned: the reliability of "classical logic." Even if the shirt was a joke, Craig was pointing out the implications of him using the shirt in response to a quote he brought up.

Again:

The man who says raping children is good is just as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5

2+2=5, classical logic and intuition fails

The two claims seem mutually exclusive. I, like Craig, do not think Krauss is an immoral man. I do, however, think Krauss unwittingly responded by tacitly implying that Ruse was wrong. Craig's argument from morality is premised on the moral intuition we all share, an intuition Krauss indicted.

Craig pointing out obvious implications is not the same as what the dishonest title of this thread suggests.

Comment 28 by Richard Dawkins :

Krauss was obviously making a joke, based on his t-shirt. Craig's fatuous grinding out of 'logical' implications was typically bumbling and pompous. He is simply not worthy to share a stage with Lawrence Krauss and I don't know why Lawrence flattered him by agreeing to be there.

Richard

Sat, 28 May 2011 17:22:14 UTC | #631773

Noble Savage's Avatar Comment 30 by Noble Savage

Comment 27 by Czar :

Dr. Craig did not say he thinks Dr. Krauss thinks its morally acceptable to rape children.

There is nothing dishonest about Craig pointing out the implications. What is dishonest is to say that Craig thinks Krauss thinks it is morally acceptable to kill and rape.

Here's a quote from Craig: "Well, Kevin, what he (Krauss) is suggesting there, is that it might well in fact be true that it is morally acceptable to rape litle children. That's what he's affirming!"

Yes, Craig does say "I don't think he appreciated what he was saying", but that doesn't matter to his followers and Craig knows it. He mixes it in with blatant slander and the end result is pretty nasty. His followers will eat it up.

Sat, 28 May 2011 17:25:05 UTC | #631774