Posted on 03/21/2024 9:27:37 PM PDT by Morgana
In a recent discussion with Atheist Alex O’Connor, Christian apologist William Lane Craig’s suggested that abortion is not bad for the babies, but rather confers a great good upon them.
Frequently viewed as evangelicalism’s foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig’s name is most often associated with his ministry organization Reasonable Faith, the name of his most famous book and also weekly podcast. We last covered him after he made a number of startling claims about the origin of Adam and the nature of the bible, in our posts:
Apologist William Craig Denies Genesis 1-11: Says Adam was Caveman that Lived 750,000 Years Ago
William Lane Craig Mockingly Laughs at Thought of Talking Snake, Literal Adam
William Lane Craig Says Refusing to Consider Neanderthals the same as Homo Sapiens is ‘Dehumanizing’ and ‘Racist’
During a discussion about whether or not it was loving for God to command the killing of the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18) and in particular their babies, Craig offers that it was loving and just to do so.
So the burden here would be to show that in issuing this command God does something that contradicts his perfectly just and loving nature, and my argument is that that’s very difficult to show because he doesn’t wrong anyone I think in this, in particular. The difficult case here is the children and what I would say is first that God has the right to take anyone’s life whenever he wants to. Unfortunately children die all the time in infancy and so if God wants to end the life of these Canaanite children early, prematurely that’s his prerogative.
But then secondly on my theology, these children go immediately to heaven. They go to be with God and therefore come to know a life that is more glorious and more happy than anything conceivable and certainly far better than if they had been allowed to live and be raised in such a corrupt and evil environment as they were in.
So it was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed and go to heaven and be with God.”
Alex O’Connor responds to this with skepticism, offering that such a view is morally repugnant and revolting and runs against our intuitions, which Craig challenges him on.
Well does it Alex? I mean I think it runs against our naturalistic worldview where one doesn’t believe in an afterlife. But on a theistic worldview if these children go to a life more glorious and happy than they can imagine, then it is a great blessing. It’s just that modern man doesn’t believe that.
O’Connor brings up the comparison to abortion:
“Take the issue of abortion for example. Now you might think that it’s immoral to have an abortion because God has commanded that you shouldn’t take innocent life, you know, in the absence of some specific Divine command. But a lot of the time in this discussion people do talk in language which points to how this is this is bad for the child. You know, you’re taking away the life of a child, you’re committing some wrong towards the child. This position that you’re advocating here would seem to remove the ability to do that. You can still say that abortion is wrong if you like, but you can’t say that it in any way harms the child. In fact it seems like you’re committed to the view that it confers a great good upon the child when a parent has an abortion.
To which Craig rejoins:
Yes, absolutely. I mean what it would do, it would rob the child of the goods of this finite life that he would have enjoyed had he lived 50, 60 years or so. But in place of that, it gives him an eternal life of incomprehensible joy and and happiness which far outbalances the loss of those finite goods.
So the reason that abortion is wrong is not because it’s bad for the victims. The reason it’s wrong is because it transgresses a divine command. It’s homicide and God has commanded us not to commit homicide in the absence of some overriding moral justification like a policeman or a soldier who needs to take life in order to save life.
****VIDEO ON LINK
I’ve talked with him at conferences and have gone to dinner with him several times. I’m surprised that he believes this.
In all three of your examples the people being killed have lived some life, and they may be spiritually dead when they are killed and sent to Hell rather than to Heaven. This would never be the case with the unborn.
Since there was so much death in infancy for quite some time after the Crucifixion of Christ, I can see why so many churches favored infant baptism to remove one potential obstacle to those children going to Heaven.
The Catholic Church came up with the concept of Limbo for those humans, mostly babies, who died before they were baptized. Many non-Catholics believe this is a horrible concept no matter how nice Limbo is imagined to be. This, however, was an attempt to guess at a place for those without sin, but who didn't meet all the requirements for salvation (e.g. they didn't utter the magic words "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" while clicking their heels together three times.)
Unlike most atheists he doesn't treat his guests with derision or assume them to be intellectual idiots. O'Connor and Craig have met several times and had a number of discussions over various topics. He has put Craig on his heels a number of times. Craig seems to want to be philosophically consistent more than in line with the Bible. This may be his defense mechanism against O'Connor who will only accept philosophical arguments.
Craig also doesn't believe in Divine Simplicity. It is a very difficult concept to accept what with the concept of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. One Simple Being does not seem to equate to three Persons or two Natures. Once again, I think this is Craig being more concerned about being philosophically consistent than in line with traditional Christian thinking based on the Bible, and for those not into Sola Scriptura, tradition.
In his video he appears almost gaunt compared to his previous videos. I wonder if he is ill.
He has appeared a bit wobbly regarding his theology lately.
Maybe the two go together.
By his reasoning , he believes it would confer good to kill the child(all children go to heaven). He should believe that his being murdered would confer good on him also ( since he believes he is going to heaven).
Bizarre. Much learning doth make him mad.
No idea.
Well, that’s enough internet for today.
I’ve followed William Lane Craig for years. He’s a brilliant man but I’ve disagreed with him on a couple of things the last couple of years. He’s also coming across as a little too arrogant in recent years.
John 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease
Craig is preaching mass confusion, unlike James Tour and John Lennox, for example. The Gospel’s message is simple. Accept Christ as Lord and Savior, repent and follow Him. Craig sounds like he is lost in tall weeds.
There is no scriptural basis for his second and third points.
Well, I think Rev. 21:27, about nothing unclean entering Heaven, would support his third point, but the second point seemed obscure!
Using that logic, murder doesn’t harm drug addicts and thieves and adulterers and, frankly, every human being on the planet.
Still, I’m not going to murder anyone because I think it does do them a great harm. And more importantly, our creator tells us simply not to do that.
He didn’t. He merely said death is not the ultimate evil, disobedience to God is. The reason one shouldn’t murder isn’t just because it’s “bad” for the victim, but that it contradicts the will of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.