By Andrew Brown, Guardian
William Lane Craig
was last month's story, but I am still puzzled by one of the attacks on him. Let's suppose for a moment that Richard Dawkins was telling the truth when he said that it was Craig's attitude to genocide which meant he would not debate with him. Let's further move the debate away from the revenge fantasies of the book of Joshua – because I don't believe the stories there and can't see why I should. The world is full of real acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing without worrying about the probably fictional bits of the Old Testament. The question is whether it is morally outrageous to suppose that the innocent victims of such crimes go to heaven.
The attack on Lane Craig does not just maintain that he is wrong to believe in heaven, but that his belief renders him so morally repulsive that no decent person should share a platform or shake hands with him. And I don't see why.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.