Robert M. Price is a world-famous biblical scholar who (among other things) does the Bible Geek podcast where he takes questions from listeners about the Bible.
I sent in a letter (below) asking what he thought of William Lane Craig’s crazy explanation of the Caananite genocide. Here is my appearance on the Bible Geek:*
https://thebuddhaisnotserious.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bible-geek-vs-william-lane-craig.jpgHe finishes reading the question at 3:35, but skip ahead only if you are willing to miss Dr. Price doing Charlton Heston. He then covers the Canaanite evidence, and the high point begins at 5:53 when he turns to Craig’s words, calling them “horrifying ruminations.”
Note that Dr. Price accidentally attributes my quip “God’s morality is not our morality” to Craig, but it makes little difference since in the same article Craig says that God “is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.”
My letter to the Bible Geek follows.
O Geekiness Kurios,
On an apologetics website someone asked William Lane Craig about the slaughter (or genocide) of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 20:12-18:
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Dr. Craig began his response with the standard [Note: Price misreads, saying statement instead] “God’s morality is not our morality” line of argumentation, however I was astonished by what he said next:
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
I began to outline a response but I found the process too exasperating. Dr. Craig appears to be greatly respected among evangelicals, but more than ever I sense from him an aura of pure nuttiness (I almost said pure evil, which is pretty much how I feel about his reasoning and its implications).
What do you make of Craig’s response? Could you provide some background on these passages from Deuteronomy? I think you once discussed some archaeological findings on the Canaanites—would you mind mentioning them again?
Many Thanks,
Oedipus Maximus
[*] This is lifted from the May 26, 2010 Bible Geek podcast. You can find it online here but the player is clumsy and won’t let you jump to an unbuffered position. I recommend the podcast subscription route (free).
Extra bonus: Listen to Robert Price pillory Rick Warren in the September 29, 2006 Point of Inquiry podcast, starting at 10:33.
This work is licensed under a
The Buddha Is Not Serious 
Craig is a good example of prima facie serious, actual nuttiness.
For, when I first heard of Craig, it was his Kalam CA that attracted my attention. Tough he mixed up some things about infinities (which moved into sheer babble about his `metaphysical intuition’ in responses), he could at least be taken seriously.
Then, of course, I find him making ID arguments.
oh.
Then, of course, I hear his take on the historical evidence for the resurrection.
… uh what?
As for this, it’s nutty as hell, but it is the logical end of this kind of thought.
Problem with Craig Lane is that he appears serious. But he is actually very shallow. His logic isn’t syllogisms but rather formed of psychologically appealing statements.
Take just the beginning of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
“Everything that begins has a cause”
Well this is basically stating what he wants as outcome. There is no real grounding for this statement. Is this metaphysics? Physics? Emergence?
It’s easily revealed, in fact Craig Lane does it himself.
So he was challenged on this point stating that in contemporary physics there is no creation. Everything has cause and effect but by the 1st law of thermodynamics everything that exists is conserved and is neither created nor destroyed, just transformed.
Lane’s response, in a video he uploaded was to say this is silly.
Did he no come into existence, he argues.
Well that’s the key, so he uses a purely subjective psychological definition of what it means that something comes into existence and there is a cause (like his parent’s meeting up).
But of course that is not serious arguing.
He routinely misquotes physics and stuff. It’s painful if you actually know general relativity, contemporary state of cosmology and quantum mechanics. But his presentation makes it hard to challenge, because he has at least presented at a counter that again sounds solid, for people who don’t actually understand logical arguments.
Take the infinite regress argument. It’s basically constructs a paradox rather than taking the argument seriously. So he himself claims that everything that came into existence has a cause. He basically just claims that his god never came into existence. But the infinite regress is no proof that his god cannot have had a creator. In fact just one level more is enough and the procession can stop there. Nothing in the argument forces one to continue ad infinitum. Basically Craig postulates a specific case, namely that his god created everything but it was not created and then forms argument that are not sound to defend it. Nothing logically forces one to accept that his god does not have a creator.
It’s a lot of smoke screening that can be misperceived as competence. Well yes it is competence, in providing a legitimate appearing counter to challenges.
I’m amazed that he is taken so seriously and I’m not amazed that Dawkins is not interested in debating him. All you can do is either completely present your story and give a platform to pseudobabble that sounds legit. Or try to debunk it in a debate format will not make you look good, you’ll appear like nit-picking the others argument.
That guy should be largely ignored as far as I am concerned.
[…] The depravity of William Lane Craig’s apologetics on behalf of the genocides goes lower than I had ever imagined before and Robert Price just decimates him, from a moral and highly illuminating historical perspective, in audio which you can hear at The Buddha Is Not Serious. […]
I’m glad my aggregator caught this – since Dr Price moved to that blasted Ustream, (tell me how I can listen while I drive!) I’ve lacked his podcast, but after seeing this I checked iTunes and found his newer material. Now I have lots to listen to (ok, lots more to listen to).
Craig is mostly respected because he “wins” the debates, and by this I mean he wins in the sense of a high school debate. His arguments are usually shallow and in many cases ahistorical and nonsensical. His science is usually wrong, and even after he’s been corrected he still states the wrong “facts”. To me, that is lying. But that’s par for the course. He tosses his arguments out with a Gish Gallop, posts inane questions that have no answer, and declares victory like any other creationist. Arguing with him is hard because he’s all over the place trying to score points instead of laying out actual evidence and discussing that.
I’ve listened to a few of his debates and in terms of actually presenting an argument based on evidence and reasoning, he’s never won. I really have a hard time taking anyone who thinks he is great seriously.
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
– Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
[…] Price tears William Lane Craig a new one over his defense of Canaanite […]
Funny. Very nice post. Thank you.
“Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.”
What a strong Christian argument for being Pro-Choice, thanks Dr. Craig.
I noticed at Common Sense Atheism one of the commenters, “TV’s Mr. Neil”, pointed this out from the same page at Craig’s site:
What’s the point of this useless speculation? To draw Buddhists closer together or to run down Christianity? Neither is necessary and takes away from the moment.
“…takes away from the moment…”
What exactly IS it that can be “taken away from the moment”?