franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

IS WILLIAM LANE CRAIG BEING DISHONEST?

10/22/2015

0 Comments

 
Well-known Christian philosopher William Lane Craig maintains that if there were no God, objective moral values would not exist – and as a way of backing up this claim, he likes to quote atheists who supposedly agree with him. For example, on page 17 of God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (co-authored with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong), he quotes Bertrand Russell and Michael Ruse.

Russell once said that “ethics arises from the pressures of the community on the individual,” and made many other statements showing that he did not consider values to be objective. And Ruse put it even more bluntly: “Morality is a biological adaptation,” he tells us. “Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.” Craig then goes on to say that, like Russell and Ruse, he doesn't “see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective.” (p. 18)

Does this mean that these two well-known philosophers agree that the non-existence of God implies the non-existence of objective morality? After all, they are both atheists, and they do both say there are no objective values.

But the problem is that one can be an atheist and reject the objectivity of values without, however, agreeing with Craig – and Craig almost certainly knows this. So could it be he's being dishonest here?

While it is true that both Russell and Ruse deny the objectivity of values, it doesn't follow that they do so because of their atheism. Russell most certainly did not: his reasons for becoming a subjectivist about values had nothing to do with God (in fact, he rejected theism long before he abandoned belief in objective morality). And I suspect as much in the case of Ruse, since most philosophers who disbelieve in objective values do not do so as a result of of their atheism.

I for one agree with Russell and Ruse about the nature of morality – and I would do so even if I became convinced there is a God. When it comes to the nature of ethics, God's existence or non-existence is simply irrelevant.

(On the next post I will say something about why the rejection of moral objectivity does not mean the rejection of morality – and why Craig's criticism of Dawkins, among others, on this point is therefore all wrong.)
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon