What Christian Apologist William Lane Craig Has in Common with Hamas Terrorists

Killing innocent people is moral if God orders it

Two months ago, Alex O’Connor had a conversation with Richard Dawkins. During their talk, Dawkins shared his strong dislike for William Lane Craig’s views on the ancient Israelites’ slaughter of Canaanites narrated in the Old Testament. Dawkins said that no well-informed theologian believes such a terrible event actually happened, nor could it ever be morally acceptable if it did. But Craig, a well-known Christian apologist, told Dawkins the event was real and could be morally justified.

Prompted by this, Alex decided to interview Craig to hear his side, especially regarding Dawkins’ harsh critique. This interview was uploaded on YouTube just a few days ago.

Watching it, I couldn’t help but feel really uncomfortable and upset. Craig’s view on the Canaanite situation reminded me of a very recent, real tragedy when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing over a thousand people.

To understand why I made this connection, stick with me to the end. Let’s start by breaking down and debunking Craig’s points.

Canaanites were evil so they deserved to be annihilated

Craig’s first point was about the Canaanites being really evil people, mentioning they practiced outrageous sexual immorality and even sacrificed their own children. This isn’t a new claim; I’ve heard it from many Christians before and even tackled it in my previous article, “Mass Killings in the Bible” (check out the link at the bottom).

The big problem with this argument is this: if the Canaanites were wrong for killing innocent kids, it doesn’t make much sense to say part of the right punishment was to kill all their kids and babies, too.

Plus, if we’re saying such a terrible act means Canaanites should be wiped out, shouldn’t that rule apply to any tribe or civilization doing something just as awful? If a crime is so bad that it means you deserve to die, that should be the same for everybody, right?

If you think “yes” is the right answer, then how come the Israelites got a pass? They also worshipped idols, practiced sexual immorality, and even sacrificed their children to false gods. Even God pointed out that what they did was even worse than the Canaanites.

Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the Lord had destroyed before the Israelites. (2 Kings 21:9)

Ahaz … followed the ways of the kings of Israel and also made idols for worshiping the Baals. He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. (2 Chronicles 28:1–3)

Sure, the Israelites were punished. God let their enemies attack and rob them, but that was all. It seems like God played favorites, especially since God says as much in Deuteronomy 7:6–8.

Does this seem like the actions of a just and fair God?

Those Canaanites didn’t have to stay to be killed

Craig suggested that the Canaanites could have just run away. Since they chose to stay and fight, he argues, it’s not on the Israelites that their women, children, and babies ended up stabbed or beaten to death.

No one had to be killed if these tribes would simply retreat and flee in the face of the advancing Israeli army. It was only those who tried to stay behind and resist who were to be completely exterminated. (25:00)

This argument is so awful that I’m almost reluctant to even argue against it. If you don’t immediately see what’s wrong here, my explanation might not make much sense to you either.

But let me try with a comparison. Imagine during World War II, as the Western Allies fought to defeat the Nazis by invading Germany, they ordered their soldiers to kill all German kids and babies. Would we ever say that was okay? Probably not. And if the Allies justified it by saying Germans could have just left the country or the war zones to keep their families safe, how would you feel?

I’d be lost for words.

Divine command theory

Craig then brought up what he called divine command morality. He believes that since all goodness comes from God, and God is the ultimate example of moral goodness, we must follow His commands as a moral obligation.

If I were in Alex’s shoes, I’d have a couple of questions for Craig: “If divine command morality holds true, and God told the ancient Israelites not to let Canaanites escape, but instead round them up and kill them all, that still wouldn’t be considered immoral, right? Or if the sins of the Canaanites weren’t particularly great, but God still wanted the Israelites to have Canaan’s land and told them to exterminate the Canaanites, that’d still be okay, right?”

Following Craig’s logic on divine command theory, he’d have to say yes, it’s not immoral in either scenario. If God commands it, it’s morally right, because the perfectly moral God he talks about can’t give immoral commands.

If God had commanded ancient Israelites to violate the Canaanite children in the most unthinkable ways before stabbing them with swords and spears, according to Craig, that would still be a moral duty. If God had instructed them to do something as horrifying as forcing parents to eat their own children, Craig would argue it’s still morally justified.

How is it not moral bankruptcy?

It leads me to think that perhaps all the explanations Craig offered earlier were just distractions. In fact, Craig himself admitted that if these actions were decided by humans alone, they would be wrong:

… had this been undertaken by human initiative alone, that it would have been immoral (27:48)

I would say that it is wrong in the absence of a Divine command, but that God has the ability to override that by issuing a Divine command, which then becomes our moral duty. (33:22)

Basically, Craig is saying that an action seen as wrong in regular circumstances can suddenly be okay if God says so. This suggests there are double standards: one that people use every day, and another that kicks in if God gives a specific instruction, overruling the everyday rules.

This idea throws the concept of objective moral standards out the window. Is it always wrong to kill innocent children? According to Craig’s argument, no, not if God orders it. Without such a command, it’s wrong, but with it, it somehow becomes right.

However, would Craig openly acknowledge that Christian ethics lack consistent moral standards? Probably not. Since he argues that all goodness derives from God, admitting to these conflicting standards would mean accepting that God’s moral guidance is unpredictable and arbitrary. In fact, in the interview, he explicitly maintained that Christianity teaches objective moral standards. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

The innocent ones went to heaven

Craig’s most unsettling argument, in my view, is his claim that the mass killing of Canaanites didn’t wrong anyone. He argues that the adults deserved their fate due to their sins. As for the innocent children who were killed, he says they weren’t harmed either because they ended up with God.

So it was actually a tremendous blessing for these children to be killed and go to heaven to be with God. (38:17)

Hearing Craig make this argument left me feeling sick. It reminded me of the deep discomfort I felt when I first heard about Hamas’ unexpected attack on Israel, especially a video clip where a Hamas fighter was trying to comfort an Israeli boy after his sister had been killed.

The boy: “My sister died.” Hamas fighter: “Relax. She went to heaven.”

It’s the same argument, the same justification.

I am not the only one who made the connection. In the comment section of the video, someone posted this comment:

I am from Afghanistan. I remember Taliban when beheading civilians say if they are guilty it is just to kill them, If they are innocent, they should not be worried as they will go to heaven.

Needless to say, even if children and babies are believed to go to heaven after they’re killed, that doesn’t make the act of killing them right. They are still harmed by being killed, and that fact doesn’t change, even with the claim that God commands it.

Craig likely condemns the killing of innocent people by Hamas fighters, but the only valid reason he could give is that the real God (which happens to be his God) did not command those acts. However, if he were convinced that his God had indeed ordered such actions, he would defend it by arguing, “God wrongs no one in issuing such a command” (31:46).

Conclusion

Craig’s stance on morality isn’t complex at all. It boils down to this simple idea: if God says it’s right, then it is. We don’t need to think or make our own judgments. Just follow the divine imperative, even if it means ignoring our own sense of right and wrong.

How can this not be moral bankruptcy? Richard Dawkins had every reason to criticize Craig. His reaction makes total sense.

Moreover, Craig’s claim that Dawkins lacks training in philosophy is ironic. Being schooled in philosophy hasn’t made Craig any sharper or wiser in his judgments. Instead, it seems to have merely equipped him with more elaborate ways to express his shallow arguments. It’s quite disappointing.

Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

If you found this article helpful, please consider leaving a tip to support my writing.