Saturday, August 7, 2010

L 2.1

Loftus refers to William Lane Craig when he says “Craig says that ‘if God doesn’t exist, everything is permissible’. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world..In other words, why don’t non-Christians act consistently? No one says to herself, ‘this is the reasonable or logical thing to do but I refuse to do it,’ unless she is mentally challenged. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged…that the overwhelming majority of us don’t live consistent lives with what we believe? The evidence is overwhelmingly against his claim.” (pp. 37-38.)

Wherever there is non-theism, there is great mayhem. The USSR under Stalin and communist China are good examples of this. The human rights violations in those two examples would require multiple supercomputers to calculate. So, we actually do see those people acting consistently according to Craig’s logic. However, that is not what Craig argued. Craig accurately pointed out that under atheism, everything is permissible. This means that the human rights violations committed by people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are justified logical outworkings of secular, non-theistic rationale. Even though some people unnecessarily do, there is no reason why people should restrict themselves to ethical action in a non-theist paradigm. The despot is equally justified in despotic actions as the philanthropist is in philanthropic giving because there is no absolute, transcendent moral anchor from which value judgments can be made.

No comments: