William Lane Craig weighs in on the Newtown shootings

You’d expect something stupid from this repulsive man, but this is even worse than you could imagine. In the video below, Craig argues that the Newtown shootings actually remind us of the Miracle of Christmas (e.g., the “Massacre of the Innocents“: Herod’s murder of Bethlehem’s male children when he  discovered he was tricked by the Wise Men—a prophecy of Jeremiah). Apparently the recent slaughter is God’s way of reminding us of “what Christmas is for, what it’s all about.” And it’s almost as if Craig thinks that God engineered the murders to that end.

For Craig, the shootings reassure us that God takes the world’s sufferings on himself, entering into the world to do so. If asked why God didn’t enter into the world to prevent the killings in the first place, Craig would almost certainly reply that this were God’s will—an argument he made to justify the Biblical slaughter of the Canaanites. Remember that Craig is one of the few theologians who accept the “divine command” theory of morality, whereby whatever God dictates is good by virtue of his dictation, no matter how odious it seems to us.

In the end, it all convinces Craig that “there is hope, and that God has provided it for us.”

How. . . theological of him to glean such a message from this tragedy! Does the Holocaust also bring him such reassurance?

Craig should rot in hell.

via: A Tippling Philosopher

293 Comments

  1. Posted December 19, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    William Lane Craig: A self-righteous, smarmy robot equipped with a turbo asshole module filled with pious turds.

    Merry Xmas, you psychopathic automaton.

  2. Susan
    Posted December 19, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    This is a man referring to fairy tales to make vague connections as though he was referring to literal claims that point us towards his particular god.

    The story of Herod, as far as I know, is not only irrelevant here, but has no historical foundation.

    He might as well be using the story of Hansel and Gretel.

    It irks me from the get go that he claims Yaheweh is “God” and that he refers to the slaughter of the innocents under the reign of Herod as though that story is historically valid and that it is a relevant example of Yahwheh’s “hope” despite the fact that Yahweh is just one more unsupported god and the story of Herod has no evidentiary foundation.

    This is how they make their living. They talk about their god as “God” and their book as though it’s a history book.

    They use words like “evil” as though “evil” is an entity, and fling their myths at it as though their delusional commitment to a particular myth makes them experts on anything.

    WLC want to talk about Yahweh as though this god is relevant to anything. And he wants to talk about the mythology of Herod’s baby slaughter as though it actually happened.

    Meanwhile, people’s babies are dead at the wrong end of some very efficient weapons and back here in reality, we need to figure out how to do everything we can to make sure we fix things so it can’t ever happen again,if possible.

    The moral implications of Craig’s argument are certainly worth addressing and have been well-addressed here by many, including Professor Coyne.

    But I don’t think it’s pedantic to wish we stopped referring to Yahweh as though HE had some special “God” status. Or not call out these theologians for talking about their stories as though they are historically valid.

    This is what theologians do. William Lane Craig in his most famous work has recycled a bad argument for deism into an equally bad argument for deism.

    And here he is, talking about “God” and Herod as though it has any relevance to anything, let alone the unspeakable tragedy that will be suffered by family and friends for a life time.

    People are dead. Most of them six-year olds.

    Fuck Yahweh. Fuck Jesus. Fuck Herod.

    What a pile of crap. If “evil” is a useful word, I would say it is evil to detract from real discussion by pointing at myths as though they are real.

  3. AnnoLoki
    Posted December 19, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Think you’ve misunderstood what he’s saying. He’s not saying that god caused the massacre, and he’s not calling the massacre a miracle. He’s saying that killing children is evil, and it’s precisely the reason that there is such evil on this planet that is why god sent jesus to save us.

    You’re mixing up what he’s said with what Gingrich et al have said, which is more that god caused the shooting to happen as punishment blah blah blah. This guy isn’t being judgmental, he’s saying that even in the face of such evil, there is hope in jesus (even if it is a deluded hope)

  4. gravelinspector
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    Now, I may be getting my “nativity” story wrong – it’s a foreign religion, so I’m not too sure on the details – but didn’t the “Massacre of the Innocents” take place a couple of months after Jebus’ birth. So this guy, whoever he is, is putting his seal of approval on the school massacre that will take place in February or March?
    Or have I misunderstood the way that prophets like this turn prophets into profits?
    I suppose I should go and read enough biblical bile to find out when the (alleged) massacre took place, but I’d rather have my breakfast.

  5. Ken Kukec
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    Those, like Craig, who ascribe to the “divine command” approach to morality, are certainly in no position to question the actions of the 911 hijackers on moral grounds.

    They may object that the hijackers had embraced the wrong scripture, or that they had employed erroneous hermeneutics in interpreting their chosen scripture, but they are without moralgrounds to contest that, if circumstances had been as the hijackers thought them to be — if they had the right scripture and if, under the proper interpretation of that scripture they understood God to be directing them to fly fuel-laden jets into occupied buildings on 9/11/01, then it would have been the hijackers ineluctable duty to follow those directions — that it would have been as immoral for them to refuse to follow God’s command, as it would have been for Abraham to refuse to raise his sword, on the Lord’s command, to sacrifice his son Isaac.

    It is repugnant, especially given the available insights of the Euthyphro dilemma, that there continue to walk among us believers espousing this demented “divine command” approach.

  6. Posted December 20, 2012 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    Hatred inc. This man makes me want to commit murder – him. Where is his empathy? his humanity?

  7. pilgrimpater
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 2:50 am | Permalink

    Apologetics at it’s finest. Just like the inconvenience that facts present to the Young Earth Brigade, there necessitates a shoe horning of excuses to defend the indefensible (or should i say the invisible?).
    Just like there be now explanation as to HOW “Jesus died for our sins” actually works, WLC’s apologies make absolutely no sense.

  8. Posted December 20, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Sarvodaya and commented:
    See the video and judge its implications for yourselves. Personally, I think is something very odious about trying to twist something this senseless into something presumably beautiful.

  9. Stephen Lawrence
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    “Craig should rot in hell.”

    Jerry I realise this is emotive language with little thought and so not meant to be taken too seriously.

    But still it’s worth pointing out that the whole point of getting the reason why not having Libertarian Free Will matters is things like that are not true and that we can make moral progress by understanding that.

    • Dermot C
      Posted December 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      Eh???

      We can make grammatical progress by rephrasing it, Stephen!

  10. DV
    Posted December 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    I have not heard a more odious piece of apologetics. Disgusting.

  11. Posted December 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Craig’s Kalam is such a failure!

  12. Andy
    Posted December 21, 2012 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    You guys are just looking for reasons to be offended. I watched this video expecting to see some HORRIBLE sentiment from some fundamentalist nut, and what I got was “This was a heinous evil action, but there is hope in the midst of tragedy.”

    Um….ok.

  13. Posted December 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Talenin.com and commented:
    Disgraceful. Typically William Lane Craig “morality” coming to the fore here.

  14. Ruan Reid
    Posted January 10, 2013 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    I’d love to know what Christopher Hitchens would have made of this. I suspect a fine Hitchslap would have been delivered.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] Craig’s interpretation of this is so simple-minded, it’s hard to think of the man as a scholar of some repute. I’m not sure I’d go as far as Jerry Coyne, though, in his interpretation of what Craig has to say. Here’s what Jerry says over at Why Evolution is True: [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,065 other followers

%d bloggers like this: