Skip to main content

William Lane Craig's silly comments on animal pain further debunked

This brand new video exposes in some detail the absurdity of William Lane Craig's ongoing attempt to defend his silly, unscientific views regarding animal pain (his view is that animals other than higher primates are unaware they have it - which is a great comfort to animal lovers like himself).

This video responds to Craig's response to the original video exposing the sheer ridiculousness of the argument he used against me in our debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuEbbDi-tQ&list=UUtOgKmAM4MeFu-jd-HB3_cg&index=1

Video is not by me, btw.

Here is my earlier post on this subject.

Comments

sam said…
At 1:25-- “Even if an animal has higher-order access to 1st-order pain, it would lack any moral disvalue if the animal didn’t find the state undesirable. Such a mental state might bear some similarity to the conscious experience of persons with a damaged or absent PF cortex.”

Is this why Craig defends yhwh’s orders to slaughter infants (1SA 15:3-8, PS 137:9) & unborn babies (HO 9:11-16) & rip up ‘women with child’ (HO 13:14-16)? Because inflicting pain on those with underdeveloped or absent PFCs “lacks any moral disvalue”?

According to Craig, atheists secretly know that his xian god exists, & we willfully reject it out of emotion, not intellect. It is one of his many statements of sophistry that poisons any good-faith effort to give the benefit of the doubt to one's interlocutor.

And yet, I can't help but feel the same way about Craig the more I read painstakingly detailed rebuttals to his disingenuousness, like this video. He is simply not an honest man.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
Unfortunately Craig has not stopped using this argument. He recently re-proposed it(with insignificant changes) in a recent lecture of his on Creation and Evolution.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist