William Lane Craig’s silly views 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:



Video is not by me, btw.


Here is my earlier post on this subject.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity
Religious Experience – Recognizing God
Rape them Atheists!
Geisler & Turek Rebuttal, Part 7: Chapter 8
About Stephen Law
  • http://twitter.com/UncredibleHallq Chris Hallquist

    Nothing to say about this post specifically, just wanted to say it’s good to see you blogging at Patheos!

  • Probably Wrong

    See this debate with Austin Dacey. William Lane Craig says, at the 1:16:50 mark, “Clearly all kinds of animals have the capacity to suffer.” It seems that he is contradicting himself.


    • http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/ Angra Mainyu

      He seems to be talking about the metaethical argument at that point in the debate. Maybe I got the wrong format?

      In any case, regarding suffering, I guess he might say that he says that all kinds of animals have the capacity to suffer, but not to suffer in the way we would suffer; so, that would be suffering, but allegedly less suffering.

      Even so, his argument contains significant mistakes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Carr/100001542808342 Steven Carr

      Of course he does.
      He has now taken to complaining that naturalism cannot explain intentionality, while making videos explaining that only a frontal cortex can explain how an animal is aware of being in pain.

  • http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/ Angra Mainyu

    While one could nitpick on a couple of issues, the video does expose some serious errors in Craig’s arguments regarding animal suffering. Nicely done.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Harris/100000793669786 Kevin Harris

    There is a recent podcast at Reasonable Faith responding to this video.

    • http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com/ Angra Mainyu

      Do you have a link, please?

      (I’ve not been able to find any reply by Craig other than his reply to the first video, to which this second video is a reply).

  • http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

    Ouch. It will be interesting to listen to his response.

  • Mark Jones

    For anyone following this thread, you may be interested in these links.

    WLC posted a response from Michael Murray:


    I commented briefly here on Craig’s few words:


    In defending his proposal that animal pain might not count as evil, Michael Murray cited a paper by Lau and Rosenthal on higher-order theory of mind. I contacted David Rosenthal for any comments he had on that and he was good enough to give me a quote, which is published here:


    Takeaway extract:

    “Anybody who insists that pain and its attendant effects are not very bad for the creature even when the pain is not conscious pain seems to me to be looking for an excuse not to bother with what is plainly a significant case of suffering. There is no sound empirical reason nor any or valid theoretical reason to count pain as suffering only if the pain is conscious. This is simply a matter of defining suffering away by stipulation.”