Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Friday, December 5, 2008

Debate:"Is God Necessary for Morality?"


Debate :William Lane Craig (Christan Philosopher of religion)vs.Louise Anthony( philosophy of mind, the theory of knowledge)
Summary of debate:
Opening:
Craig:
Craig defines morality( some relativists might not agree with his definition but Dr Anthony appears not to be a relativist so she has no problem.)
He presents 3 aspects of morality
1)objective moral truths
2)moral duties
3)moral accountability
and explains how theism makes sense of these things.He calls Dr. Anthony to account for these things also.He gives examples of how we can see sharks forcibly copulating and lions killing gazelles and how we don't describe these thing as having moral dimensions.He says that under atheism there is no reason why these things would be different should they happen to humans.Morals might just be a convention evolved within a species but are ultimately illusory. He kind of goes all over the place and attack hard determinism and materialistic reductionism.
Anthony:
Presents a good critique of divine command theory. She invokes the age old question of Plato and Euthypro's dilemma( the main crux of the argument).
"Is what what God commands moral because of some secular standard that exists independently of God, or because of of the fact that he commanded it?"
If the former then God is not necessary for morality and we can use a secular standard. If the latter then God's commands are arbitrary.
Rebuttals:
Craig: Takes Anthony to task on not accounting for the 3 aspects of morality he provided and only attacking his position.
He invokes Aquinas' response to the Euthrypo question and calls it a "false dilemma".
God , by definition is the greatest conceivable being and perfectly moral. God's perfectly moral nature is by definition just, loving...etc. Thus God's nature is the standard of moral goodness. God's will is but an expression of his perfect nature.
He uses the analogy with animals again.
Anthony:
Anthony appears not to be able to account for the first 2 aspects of morality(and seems not to care). She critiques the 3rd aspect as just looking at self-interest.Presents Euthypro's argument again.She says we are different from those animals in the sense that we are conscious and intelligent.
Craig:
Takes her to task with not being able to account for them. Accuses her of confusing the ontological/semantic distinction in her critique of his position on Euthypro. Says that she does not show why these things (intelligence, conciousness...) are morally significant. He also asks what we should do to retarded people.Accuses her as being "biased to her own species"
anthony:
Closes and talks about contrition and her experience as she became an atheist.

Overall it was a good debate.



11 comments:

  1. Posted by Obsidian about the Craig debate:

    He presents 3 aspects of morality
    1)objective moral truths
    2)moral duties
    3)moral accountability
    and explains how theism makes sense of these things.


    How to refute that:
    go here and note the arguments this guy uses.

    "moral accountability"?
    Why does God create children who will be kidnapped, raped and tortured and then murdered by a serial killer?

    Because God will do as he please with His creation and has a purpose in even these things.
    Nope. Not much moral accountability here.

    "objective moral truths"?
    If God knew Adam would eat the fruit, why did create him?

    Because God's purpose was that Adam fall into sin, so that we may be redeemed and He may be glorified.
    Think about that: He "knew" adam would eat the fruit, so that he could come in and "redeem" us later. If Adam had not eaten the fruit, we wouldn't need "redemption" in the first place. A whole honkloadof people are going to hell (obviously, not everyone is going to be "redeemed") just so god can show how "glorious" he is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stew,

    Cool.


    It sounds like the Christian won this debate from the summary you gave. Would you say that theists have an advantage in a live debate due to the beneficial opportunity for emotional appeals? (not saying that is what happened.)

    It seems that evolution/creation debates in particular are weighted towards creationists when undertaken live instead of written.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds to me like she either is not good at debating, came ill prepared for the debate or perhaps both.

    None of the above mean that Craig is correct, only that his opponent argued shabbily.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Craig isn't one to really make emotional appeals.Anthony didn't really make any (unless you count her testimony at the end) appeals either.
    I was rather disappointed with Anthony not going into how objective morals could exist within atheism. She kind of said something to the effect of 'I don't know why they're here'.She mostly attacked Craig's position without making an affirmative case for her own position.For example she tried saying that we had no obligation to obey God's authority by pointing out an example of a tyrant God.However she never showed why people have any obligation to obey moral laws within atheism.She did OK but Craig's counter to Euthypro voided several of her arguments

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obsidian,

    Interesting.

    However she never showed why people have any obligation to obey moral laws within atheism.

    Maybe the reason she didn't argue that is because there is not any objective obligation to obey moral laws within atheism. Is is certainly advantageous for one to do so, as it is advantageous for everyone to do so as it makes for a more stable and smooth running society; it is certainly ethical for one to do so, but no one is obligated to do so.

    I would argue that within the Christian religion no one is obligated to follow any moral laws either. If a person breaks some sort of moral code, they simply ask for forgiveness from their deity and continue on their way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. nonmagic sez...
    "Maybe the reason she didn't argue that is because there is not any objective obligation to obey moral laws within atheism."

    But why condemn people when they don't do something they weren't obligated to do?
    For example ,I think any person would condemn a thief.But the thief has no obligation to not steal, so we have no reason to condemn him if there is no obligation.

    'If a person breaks some sort of moral code, they simply ask for forgiveness from their deity and continue on their way.'
    But that is a bit like littering and paying the fine later isn't it? It doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation not to litter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MFT,

    But why condemn people when they don't do something they weren't obligated to do?
    For example ,I think any person would condemn a thief.But the thief has no obligation to not steal, so we have no reason to condemn him if there is no obligation.


    You think any person would condemn a thief? You think wrong, MFT. Depends on why the person is stealing. If it is a mother stealing baby formula to keep her infant alive, then no I do not condemn that. If it is a sick person stealing medicine because they can not afford it, then no also. A person stealing a car for a joyride is a different story.

    But that is a bit like littering and paying the fine later isn't it? It doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation not to litter.

    But you don't necessarily have to pay the fine. You aren't obligated to do so. Only if you want to see Da Jebus make a smiley face.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reynold

    Because God will do as he please with His creation and has a purpose in even these things.
    Nope. Not much moral accountability here.


    Wrong. God would say that the rapist is objectively morally evil even though he might believe that he is doing good, if for nobody else but himself and God will condemn this man's actions to the fullest. This is WHY God hates sin. Sin hurts people. Actually, in an atheistic paradigm, if this rapist kills the child, then the rapist survives and the good child dies. So then the truth is, in this wave of thinking that rape is good since it promoted survivability and being good is evil. It is no wonder that you would then turn and blame God for these actions.

    Think about that: He "knew" adam would eat the fruit, so that he could come in and "redeem" us later.

    Adam made a cognizant choice. The purpose of these creation events was to destroy the works of the evil one who was already here. If God set up anyone, it was satan. Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Sin entered the world when satan successfully deceived Adam and Eve and they willingly disobeyed. But what satan meant for bad, God meant for good and through these two and their lineage, God was able to defeat this wicked evil being that deceives the nations. That is the message. There is good news for you.

    Vera

    ReplyDelete
  10. Obsidian

    I was rather disappointed with Anthony not going into how objective morals could exist within atheism.

    You can have morals in atheism, just not determining whether they are objectively good or evil. There would be no definition for such a thing in an atheistic worldview.

    Vera

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.