Have the militant atheists met their match? One of them has already been converted to Deism through debating with this guy? They can’t be that convinced can they?
Of course what he argues regarding morality becoming little more than a social convention (or mere consumer choice/personal taste) without some form of divine/natural authority behind it is a very real question. I posted previously the article by an ardent “post-moralist” which shows the logical culmination of such thinking.
The arguments attributed to Stephen Law too, arguing that God does exist but must be evil also strike a chord. Is this not what the Gnostics held and, in empirical terms, is the only rational excuse that can be given to explain a God who intervenes at Evangelical rallies to cure toothache but did not intervene to prevent Auschwitz or famine in Ethiopia can be regarded? Either that, of course, or the whole God of that particular faith sector is simply the product of collective hysteria and (as the former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, writes in his “God, Miracles and the Church of England”) a “cultic idol”?
It is, of course, little wonder that Dawkins, Hitchens and company depend so much on invective rather than rational argument. After all, according to Kant’s theories, it is impossible for an individual to prove its own objective existence let alone the existence of a transcendental other. Given that we cannot get beyond our own sensory apparatus and, therefore, what we appear to be may not actually correspond in anyway to the objective reality that exists seperated from us, all that can be said concerning objective existence questions is “for me, that does not/does exist”. Beyond that, as Kant points out, everything can only be speculative.
For me, however, the most intriguing thing about Craig is his Conservative Evangelical outlook. In particular how it is that one so learned and intelligent can still subscribe to such an anti-intellectualist outlook.