I don’t know of anyone who defended a “divine command theory” in the sense this distinction suggests, pretty much every major defender of DCT either contemporary or historical defended something different from the “unmodified version”.

I take your points but don’t think they affect my argument. All I was trying to show by this example is the difference between ontological dependence and epistemological dependence. That the claim that one thing X ontologically depends on Y for its existence does not entail that one needs to believe in the existence of Y to know X exists. I think the example shows that one can know water exists without believing in atomic theory. This is enough to refute Loftus’s claim

As to your quibbles, I don’t think your examples effect this point. True there are certain details about water which we depend on atomic theory to know about and true there are certain uses of water which we cannot know about unless we know about atomic theory. But none of this shows we need to know about atomic theory to know that water exists or to recognise particular bodies of water lakes rivers etc exist or to engage in activities such as drinking or swimming.

In fact it could be argued that these features of water are analogous to the relationship between divine commands and moral obligations. I am quite willing to grant that one cannot know certain details about moral obligations unless one believes in divine commands. There are certain specific moral claims for example that religious conservatives and secular liberals disagree one and this is often due to differing theological judgements. Certain claims about the morality of blasphemy might be an example.

Recent blog post: Christian Blog Ranking Report for April 09 – HalfDone

You said:
“Take a straightforward example of identity; the property of being water is identical with (or constituted by) the property of being H20. As such, H20 and water are not ontologically independent. Yet people for thousands of years could perceive water, drink it, detect it and use it without knowing anything about atomic theory. Hence, our knowledge of the existence (of) water is not dependent on our knowledge of H20.” Maybe, for thousands of years, but that’s not true today, now that we know more about the stuff!

But what if the use you wanted to make of the water was to help you make an atomic bomb? Clearly, you would then have to know that not all water is the same thing (despite appearances) and some of it contains different isotopes of Hydrogen, whilst all of it is H2O. You would then have to know a little about atomic theory, wouldn’t you?

You would find that, despite appearances, the property of being water is not necessarily identical with (or constituted by) the property of being H20. It merely seems so, until we look more closely. Tap water just won’t do the job, whereas what we are after is heavy water, still H2O, still water, but with slightly different properties.

“I have the near equivalent of a Ph.D. in the Philosophy or Religion/Apologetics (three master’s degrees and Ph.D. studies). I majored under William Lane Craig and earned a Th.M. degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. I am the author of Why I Became an Atheist, and the founder of the Debunking Christianity Blog. I read all emails sent to me, but I can only respond to a few of them.”

However, it could be that Craig also has a policy of only debating PhD’s in the field unless they are highly influential and popular e.g. Hitchens. Loftus does not hold a PhD, though he comes close, and while he is a better argued atheist than Hitchens, he is not as influential or popular.

I think there is some truth to the idea that Christianity has a greater grasp on morality than atheism because it knows the moral giver, but that is secondary, and not the argument. As I would say in my more simplistic manner, it is the existence of an ought that is evidence of God, even if people disagree on what we ought to do.

I agree that sometimes refutation is about the onlookers and not who we are refuting. If someone is recalcitrant, then refuting them or showing their ideas to be foolish may only be to influence those who are watching from the sidelines.

I note that Holding takes on some of Loftus’ theology at tektonics.

Recent blog post: Conflict of interest