Craig responds to some criticism on his argument here. Craig agrees the question is theologically neutral, and then defends the existence of God through the standard Moral Argument, by appealing to the fact that atheists do not have a basis for moral obligations to animals (including humans), which is, of course, false.
I think that should clear up some of the misconceptions about what Craig thinks his argument is really doing—it’s not proving God directly, but rather answering an objection to Christianity based in the Problem of Evil, and responding with the Moral Argument.
...
That being said, I’d like to mention something else: there was something in his second response that really interested me. Craig says:
I’ve been surprised by the emotional reactions I’ve received to last week’s Question! It almost seems as if some atheists would actually prefer that animals experience terrible suffering than have to give up the objection to theism based on the problem of animal pain!
To me, this seems to suggest that if whether or not animals actually suffer is dependent upon our personal beliefs about the issue—if we give up the objection to theism, then animals won’t have to suffer! I was wondering if anyone else saw this same belief creates reality approach.
Which is oddly contrasted by this other quote:
but what we find comfortable can’t be allowed to be a ring in the nose of science pulling it in the direction we prefer.
Yeah, he’s trying to solve theodicy rather than go straight to “and therefore, God”- removing an objection. That his followup is nonsensical doesn’t help, though. He appears to be rather better at real-time debate rhetoric than argument on paper where his opponent can consider and respond.
Craig responds to some criticism on his argument here. Craig agrees the question is theologically neutral, and then defends the existence of God through the standard Moral Argument, by appealing to the fact that atheists do not have a basis for moral obligations to animals (including humans), which is, of course, false.
I think that should clear up some of the misconceptions about what Craig thinks his argument is really doing—it’s not proving God directly, but rather answering an objection to Christianity based in the Problem of Evil, and responding with the Moral Argument.
...
That being said, I’d like to mention something else: there was something in his second response that really interested me. Craig says:
To me, this seems to suggest that if whether or not animals actually suffer is dependent upon our personal beliefs about the issue—if we give up the objection to theism, then animals won’t have to suffer! I was wondering if anyone else saw this same belief creates reality approach.
Which is oddly contrasted by this other quote:
Yeah, he’s trying to solve theodicy rather than go straight to “and therefore, God”- removing an objection. That his followup is nonsensical doesn’t help, though. He appears to be rather better at real-time debate rhetoric than argument on paper where his opponent can consider and respond.