| Chemistry |
| Posted 07/19/12 at 07:41 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
I believe when Dr. Harris said "this is how you play tennis without the net" to describe William Lane Craig's argument would sum up the debate quite well.
Craig argued that sense god was unchanging (which kind of makes the whole idea of a revalation and the new testament somewhat silly) and that god was all powerful then he has the ultimate authority on what is moral and what is not. Then he goes on to say that the Israelites rape and genocide was justified in the lords eyes, thus was a moral act. Well couldn't an atheist just say that evolution was the source of morality, because it is the highest power and is unchanging (I'm talking about all of evolution, chemical and elemental etc). So that would make persistance the most moral action. However, we don't define morality in terms of power, or else Hitler could be right. No, we define morality as the way we treat other organisms in conjunction with how we treat ourselves. This is not something that is grounded in the supernatural, thats a fairly natural concept. But to move on further, Craig said at one point "in the atheist perspective, it all comes out of the wash the same" (not verbatim) meaning that it doesn't matter because we all die and things start a new anyways. And this too is ludicrous, because its the same problem faced in christianity. How immoral could any act commited on earth be? Apparently acts on Earth are not that immoral, because the only thing that matters is your willingness to believe the unbelievable. |
| Loading... | |
| stephenmills1000 |
| Posted 07/19/12 at 07:53 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| Who is the "we" that defines morality? Would not persistence be working against natural selection, a tenant of evolution? Is it then so wise to treat and heal the sick, when if we merely allow them to die, diseases would be eradicated, thus exponentially furthering our moral duty of persistence? |
| Loading... | |
| Chemistry |
| Posted 07/19/12 at 08:21 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
No, I think you misunderstand me. What I meant to say that any action that keeps you/your species/whatever persisting is moral. Natural laws ie would be the moral authority.
Edit: natural laws are unchanging and the ultimate authority. |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 06:07 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Where does Craig say that "sense (since?) god was unchanging (which kind of makes the whole idea of a revalation and the new testament somewhat silly) and that god was all powerful then he has the ultimate authority on what is moral and what is not"? Craig does believe God has ultimate authority, but I'm not sure he believes that based on God's being unchanging and all-powerful.
(Perhaps you misunderstanding what unchanging means here. It means God's nature doesn't change. But that doesn't mean everything about him doesn't change. He can choose to do something differently, but that doesn't affect his nature.)
Evolution can't be the basis of morality. Firstly, you can't get an ought from an is. That is, just because an act gives us an advantage for survival, it doesn't follow that that act is right. You can't get an ought from and is. Secondly, if conferring an advantage for survival is the basis for morality, then some acts that are obviously wrong might possibly be right. For example, if killing off the weak and sick gives us an evolutionary advantage, then doing that would be right. But obviously doing that is wrong. So evolution can't be the basis of morality here. Thirdly, it is unclear what an impersonal being can be a moral authority. Can rocks and trees be authorities? Can historic processes by itself be an authority? This seems absurd. Or at least, you have to show how something impersonal can have moral authority. (This objection also applies to your suggestion that natural laws are the ultimate authority.)
You're right to say that morality isn't based on power. Even an all-powerful God can't make genocide or rape obligatory acts. And you're right to say that the immediate basis of morality isn't supernatural. That's why atheists can know right from wrong. But the theist will argue that the ultimate basis of morality is supernatural.
I'm not sure what you mean by Christianity facing the same problems as atheism. What do you mean?
|
| Loading... | |
