Here I'll review a debate between a Jesusianismist and a Muhammadanismist concerning which of the two religions' mutually incompatible doctrines of salvation is true. On the side of Jesus is Doctor William Lane Craig, a prominent Jesusianismist apologist, who in spite of having multiple graduate degrees and at least two Ph. D.'s, is a fellow of both the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. If that is not a clear sign that getting degrees in theology is a waste of time, I don't know what is. On the side of Muhammad is Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, who also has a few useless religion-oriented degrees.
Throughout the debate, both speakers make various assertions of fact without providing any sort of support at all, apparently assuming that the entire audience simply agrees with them. As I will show, some of these statements are just too preposterous to be accepted without some sort of defense. Also, both speakers make numerous egregious mistakes of reasoning that go absolutely unchallenged by anyone. These unsupported assertions and flawed arguments cannot stand, and any claims based on them must be rejected pending better support.
Dr. Craig's Opening Statements
God must be the greatest conceivable being.
Where does this notion come from? Is it based on knowledge, observation, experiment? No. It’s an assertion, based on nothing. Some may say that it’s based on centuries of theological investigation. Exactly; just as I said, it’s based on nothing. How can theology be considered viable when its students do more diverging than converging? This is how we know that science is right: when everyone performs the experiment the same way, they all get the same answer. But consider two hypothetical religious people: first, a Jesusianismist who seeks god with all his heart, fasting, praying, humbling himself, sincerely and confidently believing that he has a rich, personal relationship with the Supreme Being of the universe, and concludes that Jesusianismistism is the way of salvation; second, a Mohammedanismist who seeks god with all his heart, fasting, praying, humbling himself, sincerely and confidently believing that he has a rich, personal relationship with the Supreme Being of the universe, and concludes that Muhammadanismistism is the way of salvation. The fact that there are millions of such Jesusianismists, and millions of such Muhammadanismists proves one of two things: either all religion is utter bullshit, demonstrated by the fact that sincere students of it do not generally converge on the most important concepts, or Yahweh is real and it intends to throw at least one of these sets of millions of people, who seek it with all their hearts, fasting, praying, humbling themselves, sincerely and confidently believing that they have a rich, personal relationship with it, into everlasting torment. My best guess is that Yahweh intends to throw all of us into hell, given that it has (deliberately, because Yahweh doesn’t make mistakes) made its message of salvation impossible to decipher, even for those who work desperately to understand it.
Because god is the greatest, then it must be all-loving, because it's obviously morally better to be loving rather than unloving.
I'll grant you, with no argument whatsoever, that its is morally better to be loving than to be unloving. I'll even grant your assertion that your claim obvious, with only a bit of a raised eyebrow. Not because I find it non-obvious, but because this is just sloppy debating. Support your claims. You spend an awful lot of time unnecessarily quoting the bible; you could have used that time explaining the philosophical and ethical foundation of your claim. Still, to avoid getting bogged down, I'll grant you this claim. What I can't grant is that it is equally obvious that it is morally better for hell to exist than for it not to exist. Or morally better for mostly decent people who reject this disgusting god to burn for eternity than for them not to burn for eternity. Or morally better to drown, immolate, starve, and put to the sword countless innocent babies, toddlers, pre-teens, teenagers, young men, young women, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, than not to do so. If we can rely on what's obviously morally better, then Dr Craig has handily proved either that his god doesn't exist, or that it is incalculably evil.
What would you think of a parent who said to his kids, “If you live up to my standards and do as I say, then I will love you”? You who have such parents know the emotional scars you bear as a result.
Dr. Craig is repeating the mistake he made in my last point: making a statement that when applied consistently, rules out any possibility of his god being good. What would you think of a parent who said to his kids, "If you don't buy my fire insurance, I'll torture you brutally while keeping you alive for continued torture for as long as possible"? We'd think that such a parent was evil incarnate, I would expect, or at the very least, psychotic, not fit to be a parent, and in need of treatment.
If god were to allow some sin to go unpunished, it could not be considered just and holy. Every sin must receive its just due, or god’s justice is compromised.
According to the Evangelists Matthew and Mark, Jesus himself said, "With God all things are possible." All things. Except, apparently, "blinking" at sin. Was Jesus merely speaking metaphorically here? If he was, then what other things are not possible, even with god? Dr. Craig seriously undermines the credibility of the bible as a life-instruction manual, if we can't even take Jesus' factual assertions as such. As though the bible needed any help in undermining its own credibility.
The Islamic doctrine of salvation makes salvation virtually unobtainable.
Dr Craig is implying that the impossibility of receiving salvation means that that particular doctrine of salvation must be invalid. Applying this principle consistently, I find that the Jesusianismist doctrine of salvation makes salvation by just being a decent person actually unobtainable. Therefore, by Dr. Craig's own argument, the Jesusianismist doctrine of salvation cannot be valid.
Shabir's Opening Statements
God's mercy will be given only to those who try to be good.
Good according to what standard? The Islamic standard, where it's ok to beat your wife, own slaves, amputate limbs as a punishment for crimes, kill people for abandoning the faith, lie for the purpose of advancing the faith, cut off the clitorises of little girls? Or maybe you mean those who treat their wives and children well, who are honest and open, who fight for the rights of the oppressed, who make YT videos spotlighting the extremely low quality of Jesusianismist and Muhammadanismist apologetics? No thanks, I'd rather not spend eternity with that god; it's contemptible.
“God does not love” doesn’t mean “God does not love.” It means that god is saying something harsh to sinners to get them to repent.
So the Qur'an can be interpreted metaphorically too? Does that perhaps mean that I can be saved by intoning, "There is no god but no god, and Muhammad was epileptic"?
Even human parents sometimes say, shape up or you’re not my son.
This is only slightly more horrible than Dr. Craig's statement about bad parenting. What makes it more horrible is that Shabir seems sincerely to believe that this is perfectly acceptable behavior.
All you have to do for salvation is “believe in god” (Q41:30)
Funny, out of seven translations on the QAC website, only one suggests that all we must do is "remain steadfast to their belief" in order to be eligible for this blessing. One of them cops out entirely and just leaves the Arabic word, "istaqamu". According to the other five translations, we must "remain on a right course," "afterward [be] upright," "stand straight and steadfast," "continue in the right way," "go straight." Shabir, are you suggesting that the Muhammad Sarwar translation of the Qur'an holds a special place among translations? Or are you suggesting that it's ok to use all the translations and for each verse just choose the translation we like best?
Dr. Craig's First Rebuttal
Any doctrine of salvation must be compatible with the essential attributes of god. If incompatible, then it can’t be true because that god can’t exist, because they’re logically incompatible.
Logically incompatible? You mean like the various logical contradictions enumerated by Victor Stenger in his book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis"? Consider:
- A Supreme Being by definition cannot be virtuous, as explained by Douglas Walton in his essay on cardinal virtues and divine attributes.
- No being can be a fitting object of worship, as explained by James Rachels in his essay, "God And Moral Autonomy".
- The problem of evil, as discussed by Martin and Monnier in The Impossibility of God.
- Three points explained by Theodore Drange in his essay on incompatible properties: a perfect creator cannot exist, a transcendent being cannot be omnipresent, and a personal being cannot be non-physical.
- The paradox of omnipotence, as explained by J. L. Cowen in his essay, "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited".
I can't figure out for the life of me where Dr. Craig comes up with this one, especially considering that the vast, vast majority of all humans who ever existed will indeed be condemned. This fact is made obvious not only by the fact that Yahweh's followers have split into literally thousands of sects with flatly contradictory doctrines (Dr. Craig's religion vs Shabir's religion, as an obvious example), but also by the words of Jesus himself in various places, such as Matthew 22:14, "...many are invited, but few are chosen." The so-called "good news" of the entire New Testament is indeed, by Dr. Craig's measure, a doctrine of condemnation, not salvation.
Christianity says that it is impossible to make oneself deserving of infinite love.
Ok, so how is it that anyone can make oneself deserving of infinite torture? In fact, according to most Jesusianismists, it seems that we haven't made ourselves deserving, but rather Adam's one transgression in the garden made every one of us deserving of infinite torture. How can that be? Or is Dr. Craig suggesting that we don't actually deserve infinite torture, but it comes to us through Adam just as salvation comes through Christ? So we'll be tortured forever although we don't deserve it. Nice god you have there, Dr. Craig.
Shabir, in his opening statements, had tried a common Muhammadanismist tactic, saying in effect, "Our god is no worse than yours!" Referring to Dr. Craig's point that the Qur'an drills it into our heads that god does not love sinners, Shabir points out Psalm 5:5, which he quotes as saying that god hates evildoers. Dr. Craig's response is that the referenced passage is in the poetic books, and everybody knows you can’t base doctrine on poetic expressions.
This is probably the most egregious error in Dr. Craig's entire presentation--no, let's admit it: the man has multiple degrees in theology and therefore knows better; he is simply lying. Consider the statement that Craig is labeling "doctrine": "god hates evildoers". Now consider these doctrinal points from the New Testament book known as Hebrews:
- Jesus is far superior to angels (though why we should care is anyone's guess), 1:1-14
- Everything is subject to Jesus, 2:8
- Jesus calls his followers "brothers", 2:11
- Unbelievers will never enter god's rest, 3:7-19
- There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of god, 4:9
- Jesus is designated by god to be the high priest for the saved, 5:10
- Because of god's oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant, 7:22
- God has set aside the old covenant and replaced it with the new one, 10:9-10
In Dr. Craig's opinion, the fact that god's love must be earned is "morally reprehensible."
Wow, so we get to interpret the bible based on our own morality? Human morality is qualified to pass judgment on religious texts? Well, I have quite a few moral objections to the bible, too many to mention here. Check out all my bible series on my YouTube channel if you're interested. An easy summary of all my videos would go like this: Yahweh itself is morally reprehensible.
Shabir, in his opening statements, had mentioned that the original followers of Jesus were Jews, and their doctrines were far closer to Islam than is Jesusianismistism as it's known today, because early Gentile Jesusianismists, having adopted the heretical Pauline views of Jesus, overpowered and silenced the Jewish sects. Dr. Craig responds by bringing up the book of Hebrews (for which we've already seen Dr. Craig has zero respect, in spite of it being the infallible word of his god), pointing out that it was written not by Paul, but by an unknown, but Jewish, author.
I can't imagine what point he is trying to make here. Paul was a Jewish author too. Is he trying to say that the facts that this author was Jewish and was not Paul suggest that the author was more likely a member of one of the non-Pauline sects? I can't figure out why Dr. Craig, the expert debater, would even bring this up, except, as an expert debater, to draw attention away from the fact that his entire argument is bullshit, that he doesn't even believe in any god, but makes all these public appearances for the money.
Shabir's First Rebuttal
Shabir, with no comment whatsoever, completely abandons his earlier claim that all of the Qur'anic verses saying that god hates sinners were figurative. He switches over to the idea that god is loving in general, and is therefore all-loving, in spite of the fact that it does not love sinners.
Wait a second, what kind of debate is this? You present points that you're willing to concede with no comment at all? Doesn't that suggest that you knew in the first place that the point was worthless, and you were just hoping that Dr. Craig (or at least your audience) would let it slide? This is a terrible way to debate, and it really dishonors the god that you claim to be glorifying.
Shabir tries to explain that god's love is manifested in the way it treats each object of its love. It loves everyone, but it loves the righteous in a "more special way." He points out that even Jesusianismists believe that god will condemn many to hell, that this terrible punishment shows that god cannot possibly love the condemned as much as it loves the saved.
This is perhaps the only good point made by either speaker in the entire debate. This is something that has bothered me about Jesusianismistism for a long time: god "loves" everyone, but treats some unspeakably badly. How can that be called love? There is a serious cognitive dissonance associated with this god. At least Muhammadanismistism is honest: god hates certain people and will punish those whom it hates.
Shabir points out that if Dr. Craig is allowed to say that the Psalms are poetic and therefore open to unbridled interpretation, then Muhammadanismists are surely allowed free reign with the Qur'an, given that the entire thing is written as abstruse Arabic poetry.
Shabir is freely admitting here that all of his points are worthless. He disowns all of them and pulls out this appalling suggestion that the Qur'an can be interpreted however one likes, given that it's all one big poem.
Dr. Craig's Second Rebuttal and Closing Comments
Dr. Craig takes aim at Shabir's earlier statement that "God is loving and merciful." He tears into it by asking a very legitimate question: "What does this mean?" He answers that the meaning is that god's grace is selective and conditional.
Ok, I can agree with Dr. Craig here. But I want to apply this technique to the claim that God loves us all. What does this mean, given that a very tiny percentage of us will escape eternal torment? This is a strange kind of love, at at least the same level of strangeness Dr. Craig is imputing to the love of Shabir's god.
Dr. Craig challenges Shabir to find any verse in the Qur'an that supports Shabir's earlier claim that salvation is easy.
I challenge Dr. Craig to find any verse in the bible that says, "Jesus is god."
Dr. Craig closes with an account of his conversion experience, attempting to use the fact that it was very moving for him as an indication of the validity of his interpretation of it.
It makes no sense at all to attempt to connect the profundity of an experience with the validity of one's interpretation of the experience. Sure, it was profound; that's great. But how can that possibly prove that you're right when you say that it was god causing you to have that experience? It can't. All you can say is that you had a profound experience.
So let me tell you about a profound experience I had once. I met this woman years ago. I fell madly in love with her. When she told me that she loved me, I started to love myself for the first time in my life. I started to feel like I was more than just some contemptible piece of shit in the gutter. My life took on meaning, purpose, direction, because of her love. That experience lasted for about 18 months, longer than the ecstasy I've ever seen in any Jesusianismist, until she left me for reasons I still don't understand (that is, she is quite mysterious, just like your god). Shall I say that she is god? Shall I claim that the depth of that experience is proof of the validity of any baseless claim I choose to make?
God, if you're out there, I strongly recommend that you institute a quality assurance department, because these bozos are really making you look bad.