I recently wrote about the justifications for disasters and misery perpetuated by religious apologists, and how lame they were. In fact, I thought I’d seen every justification for ‘acts of god’ and barbarism in the name of god. Until this.
In this blog, PZ Myers references a blog post by William Lane Craig, who defends the slaughter of people in the name of his god. In his post, Myers marvels at the utter hypocrisy of the likes of Craig, who on one hand claims that there is absolute morality in order to ‘prove’ the existence of his god, while then going on the explain why it is ok to slaughter men, women and babies because they will ‘quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy‘. Clearly there are absolute morals, unless it suits the bible otherwise.
Here’s how Craig proves the existence of god, using objective morality, which, by the way, demonstrates the type of reasoning which is widely deployed by even those less fundamentalist than Craig:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Leaving aside that this is not valid deductive reasoning by any stretch, the whole notion of objective morality is one designed to imply the existence of god – think about it: how do you get anything which does not involve human subjectivity? You need and external agent. And so this little con trick simply has the desired outcome built into the premises.
Is there no depths to which such apologists will descend to defend the indefensible? Don’t they realise how contorted their ‘reasoning’ is in order to make the observed world consistent with their myth?