Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?

0

This is the first in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether science has "buried" God, making him unnecessary for explaining the world we observe around us.

This video starts with interviews with Prof Krauss and Dr Craig, in which they comment on their approach to these discussions.

The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.


Written By: City Bible Forum
continue to source article at vimeo.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. I watched it over at Jerry C’s place and it’s an ok debate, although I had tremendous trouble with staying awake while WLC talked. I don’t blame Dawkins for not debating him, but I do wish more philosophers were up to the challenge of debunking these pseudotheological arguments.

    • In reply to #1 by DHudson:

      I don’t blame Dawkins for not debating him, but I do wish more philosophers were up to the challenge of debunking these pseudotheological arguments.

      Look for Richard Carrier on YouTube.

      Craig works very hard to control the nature of the debates he participates in – and therefore the nature of the evidence presented. The most blatant example I have seen of this is his debate against Richard Carrier on March 18, 2009. One of his conditions was that they weren’t going to debate whether or not the Gospels record myth or history. Craig didn’t want to debate that… on a debate about, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” How on earth could you leave that out of the debate? Particularly when he knew he was debating a scholar whose primary focus in debates is whether or not Jesus is a myth? How convenient for him. Think about it… in the debate, he was trying to structure it so that the historicity of the Gospels (and Epistles) couldn’t be questioned, and then stunningly concludes that they are historically reliable!

      If you haven’t heard of Richard Carrier, you should YouTube him. He can be condescending, but has an amazingly strong mastery of the source material. I never seriously questioned that there was some kernel of truth to the historicity of Jesus, until I watched some of Carrier’s YouTube videos.

  2. I can’t view the video where I live but don’t need to. It’s a silly question, obviously posed by a theist. Science finished off the job that logic had already begun centuries before in demonstrating that God is comforting nonsense.

  3. Science has buried god but his acolytes have dug him up and insist on parading the corpse around,shamelessly declaiming the cadaver’s abilities and making pronouncements on his intentions.Science,on the other hand is vibrant and vital,dazzling us with it’s achievements.

    I have listened to Prof Krauss and delighted in his intelligence and wit.He makes perfectly good sense and I often find myself nodding in agreement.Listening to William L Craig on the other hand,is excruciating.I often find myself shaking my head in disbelief.

    The unpleasant,vindictive,bloodthirsty old scoundrel is dead and the decent thing to do is to move on and engage in worthy endeavours,which is what science is all about.

  4. “The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.”

    Professor Krauss wanting to limit the distribution of information? Hard to imagine.

    • In reply to #5 by godsbuster:

      “The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.”

      Professor Krauss wanting to limit the distribution of information? Hard to imagine.

      It’s a copyright issue.

  5. I was able to view this debate on YouTube. If it weren’t for the necessity of deprogramming the brainwashed, most intelligent people would tune out within the first five minutes.
    Krauss proudly promoted the superiority of science over religious fiction while proving scientifically how all religions fail miserably under scientific scrutiny. While, Craig wasted everyone’s time trying to give full credit for the hard work of human ingenuity and genius to his non-existent sky fairy. I scored it, science 100, religion 0.

  6. Well I sort of suffered my way through this and didn’t learn much.

    But I was left wondering why it is necessary to have a couple of self-important Australians performing introductions for twenty-one and a half minutes before either Krauss or Craig say a word?

    • In reply to #9 by Stevehill:

      Well I sort of suffered my way through this and didn’t learn much.

      But I was left wondering why it is necessary to have a couple of self-important Australians performing introductions for twenty-one and a half minutes before either Krauss or Craig say a word?

      Thanks for the warning Steve. I shall move the seek bar onto 21 mins before I watch…
      Mind you listening to WLM usually makes me ears bleed after a few minutes so whether I watch the whole thing is not certain. Without knowing anything about it I would put money on Craig spouting his usual ontological nonsense. “If a universe can exist where a maximum powerful being exists then a maximum powerful being must exist and exist in all universes. Poof! God exists”

  7. Christiana Magdalene Moodley:

    Science has buried god but his acolytes have dug him up and insist on parading the corpse around,shamelessly declaiming the cadaver’s abilities and making pronouncements on his intentions

    Dug him up Chrisitiana ? I thought he levitated to heaven all by Himself ? For so it is written !

  8. That Vimeo is limited not to play in Canada.
    “Dr” Lane is a waste of time. He just repeats the same non-sequiturs in every debate. Perhaps there is someone more imaginative to take the pro-creationist view.

  9. Not going to bother with this one. I’ve heard all of Craig I care to and then some. And Craig is not the only only trickster on their team. I’ve seen it repeatedly done that from the opening bell, the Xians and even Rabbi Wolpe refuse to debate the bible.

    The book cannot be defended but it does contain 100% of what they know of their god. Keeping it on the shelf is like having a debate over spelling and not allowing the doubter to check a dictionary.

  10. I watched most of it. Prof. Krauss made a good effort to represent what science really is and to prevent Prof. Craig from presenting science (rather impertinently) as something that could flourish only in the conceptual framework provided by Christian theology! It was a pity that Prof. Krauss seemed to be unfamiliar with Immanuel Kant, whose work in moral philosophy would have provided an excellent antidote to Prof. Craig’s claim that God and Christian theology constitute the objective conceptual framework for moral improvement in human conduct. Kant made it quite clear that morality, including the comprehension of objective moral principles, was a function of rationality itself and had nothing to do with a supreme being. Prof. Krauss was, I think, trying to make some such point but seemed to lack the precise philosophical concepts to do so clearly and effectively. Interestingly, Prof. Craig, who is reputed to be well versed in philosophy, also spoke throughout as though he had never heard of Kant, but this, I suppose, should not surprise me. Unlike an honest scientist, Prof. Craig would only avail himself of sources that support what he has already chosen to believe.

    • In reply to #16 by Cairsley:

      Prof. Craig, who is reputed to be well versed in philosophy, also spoke throughout as though he had never heard of Kant

      I never got the impression that Prof Craig is a philosopher. He’s a professor of Christian apologetics and his academic degrees begin with a B.A. in ‘communication’ and his higher degrees are in religious philosophy; As you suggest, he’s crippled as a serious thinker because he’s fundamentally dishonest. .

      • In reply to #23 by aldous:

        I never got the impression that Prof Craig is a philosopher. He’s a professor of Christian apologetics and his academic degrees begin with a B.A. in ‘communication’ and his higher degrees are in religious philosophy; As you suggest, he’s crippled as a serious thinker because he’s fundamentally dishonest.

        Dr Craig is most certainly not a philosopher. Until I watched this debate, I had only read of him occasionally, including that he, unusually for a Protestant fundamentalist, had studied mediaeval philosophy and theology in aid of Christian apologetics. I was appalled to hear him declaring that science grew out of the Christian culture of Europe (rather than out of any other civilization), when history indicates that science grew out of the rediscovered philosophical and scientific works of ancient Greece which had been suppressed by Christianity centuries before and were actively discouraged by both Catholic and Protestant religious authorities since their rediscovery. Perhaps Dr Craig is not well versed in history and is guilty not so much of mendacity as of ignorance. Ignorance, however, hardly fits the figure he projects of himself on the stage, and there is no doubt that his philosophical studies have been purposely selective of those concepts and arguments that can be used to promote and defend the particular superstitions to which he is in any case irrationally committed. Whether he means to be so or not, he is, as you put it, fundamentally dishonest.

  11. As usual waffle from WLC. To see this Christian apologist justifying the slaying of the Canaanites, with his clever word play, is just so depressing. Objective moral standard indeed ! “Thou shalt not kill”, but it’s OK for God to flood the world and destroy nearly everything in it ? One law for God, another one for humans !

  12. Craig gives me the willies. I can’t imagine getting trapped in close quarters with him, like on a plane. Yeck. Wouldst thou leave your children in his care? booowhaaaahahahahaha.

    But I have to add that Krauss started off well enough for me to have though “have we found a somewhat Hitchen’s voice here?”. Unfortunately by the end I found myself thinking of him as a bit of an asshole instead. Ridicule and attacks with facts are cool, simply being mean is not. Torturing a criminal gains them some measure of compassion when (at least in Craig’s case) they deserve none.

    • In reply to #18 by ThruTraffic:

      Craig gives me the willies. I can’t imagine getting trapped in close quarters with him, like on a plane. Yeck. Wouldst thou leave your children in his care? booowhaaaahahahahaha.

      But I have to add that Krauss started off well enough for me to have though “have we found a somewhat Hitchen’s voice he…

      I think Craig’s disingenuousness and dishonesty regarding The Unbelievers film had really pissed off Krauss and he was clearly still fuming from it during this debate. So I don’t think he was quite in the right frame of mind for a calm and civil discussion with the object of his annoyance! And it showed. He did get a bit personal and hysterical towards the end, but one can hardly blame him.

  13. I simply do not understand why this idea of “objective” morality is so important. WLC says it all the time, yet he is just transplanting a perceived divine morality with his own, thus it isn’t his, thus it’s objective.

    If I am told what to do verbatim, are my actions then completely objective? Are they subjective to someone elses morality.

    It sounds like this is just a workaround for WLC to justify murder in the bible as he does. Referring to the Jewish people as instruments of god in genocide rather than committers of genocide seems to be an attempt to sanitize what is obviously immoral.

    I guess my major issue is why no one calls him on this. Even Dr. Krauss seemed to shy away from it. I saw Hitchens shy away from it. I would just love to know what I am missing.

  14. William Lane Craig cv
    EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
    Wheaton College B.A. Communications 1971
    high honors
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School M.A. Philosophy of Religion 1975
    summa cum laude
    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School M.A. Church History 1975
    summa cum laude
    University of Birmingham, England Ph.D. Philosophy 1977
    Universität München, Germany D.Theol. Theology 1984

    The doctorate from Birmingham is descibed simply as ‘philosophy’. Wikipedia tells us ‘ He (W.L.Craig)earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham’ .

    John Hick was a religious philosopher. (John Harwood Hick (20 January 1922 – 9 February 2012) was a philosopher of religion and theologian. In philosophical theology, he made contributions in the areas of theodicy, eschatology, and Christology, and in the philosophy of religion he contributed to the areas of epistemology of religion and religious pluralism. Wikipedia)

    W.L. Craig is well-primed to deliver tendentious speeches in defence of Protestant Christianity but, with his academic record, it’s not surpring that he does not deal in facts or philosophical argument.

  15. I know that I’m late to the party, but I just have to make a comment about William Lane Craig:

    I honestly couldn’t care less what arguments he, or any other Christian apologist, has to make about “god”. If sitting on your ass and just rationalizing reality without actually performing experiments is anything worthwhile, we would never have discovered almost any of the scientific discoveries which we have discovered and then, the important part, tested to prove that they are true. Sitting on one’s ass and never performing a single test resulted in people thinking for hundreds of years that two objects of different weights fall at different rates – because of philosophy.

    Frankly, almost all of philosophy, and certainly all of religious philosophy, has entered the “complete and utterly useless bullshit” category at this point. If they really wanted to figure out how the universe works and where we get our morality from, they’d be scientists. But they aren’t. They aren’t interested in science save to nitpick at it and try to poke holes in the methodology which literally gave them everything they enjoy in the modern world – including longer lifespans.

    When it comes to Daniel Dennett and his likes, who are interested in philosophy more as a study of sociology, I can respect that. In fact, I think that’s the only branch of philosophy which even has any merit or bearing on anything productive and interesting today. But as for people who just try to posit that god exists because of some sort of bullshit “rational arguments” without anything more than that, I couldn’t give a piss for anything that they have to say. They’re a bloody waste of space and, frankly, I think that they’re all guilty of lying about what they think is real.

    If we only relied on what makes “sense” in science, we wouldn’t ever have discovered the rules which govern quantum theory. It took experimentation and thinking completely out of the realm of our senses to even try to grasp the reality of subatomic particles. So, forgive me for not even having to watch this video (as I’ve seen others with “Doctor” Craig) to declare him an utter ass and an arrogant piece of crap. The day that he can figure out how to prove his arguments outside of using mere arguments is the day I’ll finally be interested in what he has to say. Until then, he’s a bloody waste of time.

  16. There will be one day when an asteroid will hit the Earth and terminate the life as we know it (or it may happen by other more or less gradual natural reasons such as severe climate change, loss of magnetic shield, etc). So, instead of spending precious time and resources on supporting ancient unreasonable myths (which are also responsible for endless worldwide conflicts), it will be much wiser to invest into more secure future by promoting science, rational thinking and raising generation of skillful engineers, educators, scientists and thinkers that will eventually enable the humanity to handle or at least be more prepared to handle the extreme situations, overcome the internal problems that get in a way, like xenophobia and extremism, solve the hunger problems and eliminate conflicts by providing new technological means for higher levels of well being.

Leave a Reply