[official] Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig and Louise Antony [1 of 2]
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 06. 2012
- www.veritas.org/talks - Can we be good without God? Do we really need God for our morality? Join Dr. William Lane Craig and Louise Antony for an academic debate on the foundational basis of morality: Is morality just a divine protection racket? Is there any rational basis for good if there is no God?
Full library available AD FREE at www.veritas.org/talks.
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
![[official] Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig and Louise Antony [2 of 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z7_fTLZmhF0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[official] Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig and Louise Antony [2 of 2]](/img/tr.png)
![[official] Can We Be Good Without God? - William Lane Craig](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QdDfw3fTqIk/mqdefault.jpg)
Antony gave no ontological basis for morality. She just said "it is".
And yet WLC only said what God does is moral just because it is. Clearly a much better argument.
@@philb4462 No, because HE is. Goodness itself IS God. He is spirit.
Whereas Craig said "God is".
They both gave a basis, you just happen to agree with Craig.
@@philb4462
See answer from philb4462
A Q&A period that allowed Dr Craig and Dr Antony to ask each other questions and respond directly to each other would have been a better exchange that would have cut down on them talking past each other on each of their rounds.
Thx so much
I do like Antony though cause she actually brings reason instead of large generalities
Explain.
for those believers in god .. where did anyone get the idea that god has anything to do with morality?
There is such a thing as justification.
So is he wrong? If so, why?
Was this video recorded in 2012 or was it just uploaded on 2012.
If so, Craig's opening statement has been repeated, word for word, for at least 3 years.
This is the exact same speech he gave when he debated Shelly Kagan in '09.
I haven't listened to the debate in full yet, but I hope Craig brings something new to the table.
What?
Did your biology teacher teach new material every year? Your math teacher?
What a dumb comment.
there's also a great moral story in 'the three little pigs'
Than whichever you do, it is still wrong. That is a situation with no right choices.
As PrizeFighter pointed out, though, yes whoever would set up that kind of trap would be insane.
However, I should add that I'm not at all happy with Antony defending sentience as an objective basis for morality (1:08:20 ff.). Sentience is a rather controversial subject in contemporary philosophy; and, if it is supposed to replace the classical concept of synderesis, it doesn't work.
Furthermore, I'm not at all sure what Antony really means when she insists that we shouldn't cause pain to those who have sentience. For instance, how does the punishment of crimes fit in that rosy picture?
I agree that ishe is a bit short here. I can fill out the blanks pretty easily, but she shouldn't have left them in the first place.
Can we all conclude that no human will never in this life know with evidenceeverything about the origin of mankind. we can debate, provoke thought, but ultimatelywe will fail in having all knowledge and wisdom. the reason is we all start out being born.we have to be educated, guided, and conditioned to live in any society and assume the rules and protocols at least given by other humans who govern and/or divine belief and principles you are inspired to choose. Debates are never constructive in this aspect, unless it compels you to seek out the truth for yourself in your own life for the benefitof how we interact with one another while we live.in this mortal life.
like*
You can see both alternatives as equally evil, much like you see all false statements as equally false, or you could say one option is objectively good in that particular situation.
Am I allowed to express my utter dismay about Antony's words on perfect contrition (1:18:45 ff.)? When we offend a dear friend, we always feel this pain of losing his/her friendship and we beg his/her pardon in order to become friends again. That's called perfect contrition when that friend is God, the dearest and greatest friend we shall ever have. Antony's atheism is another sample of that 'loss of faith' so incisively denounced by Georges Bernanos in "Diary of a Country Priest". What a pity!
explain how, on naturalism, there are things that arent physical, that are truely objective.
you cannot go from a description of what *is* (naturalism) to what *ought* to be, the information is simply not contained in the data set you're using. the "is" data set contains quite literally ZERO "ought" information.
I don't think there is any "ought" information, as you put it. That doesn't mean that all ways of thinking and doing are equally viable. Different manners of these will of course require different oughts. Christians are aghast at such a notion, but it isn't like this isn't precisely what happens, regardless, either on a godless or God-based worldview.
i really dont lie william lane craig
E sobre os crisstãos que mataram milhôes de pessoas em nome de Deus?
E outros paíse muslims que matam em nome de Deus?
What about them?
I gather William Lane Craig’s and Louise Antony’s views are not mutually exclusive but complementary: Craig gives us the 'metaphysical' explanation and Antony the 'psychological' explanation of 'moral duty'. In fact, moral duty is simultaneously and inseparably based on human nature and the divine will: human nature, idealized by reason, provides the 'matter', meaning that which is good; and the divine will gives it the 'form', meaning the command that makes it a duty.
I think you misunderstood Antony.
How do you get “duty” in a material world.
Only by equivocation.
@@samdg1234 How do you get "duty" in a theistic world? Only by imagination.
@@korbendallas5318
I see you're bringing both your evasion and your acuity to this thread too.
Evasion by pretending you address and answer a question by asking a question. You avoided the questions I posed to you in our previous interaction and you avoided the question here. Why? Are they leaving big holes in your worldview?
And acuity by pretending that if a theós exists, imagination would be required for duty exist.
Keep bringing your gems to the discussion you welcomed me to less than a day ago.
@@samdg1234 That's funny, because all the bad and evil things can be said about your "question".
Still waiting for a substantial response in the other thread.
Yes He is necessary.
Playing around with words, like a conjurer with his cards, hoping we'll be taken in. But it sounds like twaddle to me.
Morality is part of what makes us human. Evil minds know that they are evil, and if they don't, they are insane, and less than human. God is not necessary for morality. Humans are conscious and intelligent and therefore different from animals whether you believe in god or not. It does matter how you live as you are part of the human race.
Slavery in the Americas was much different than slavery in the ancient world. Even at first in the Americas (but definitely in the Ancient world), slaves AT FIRST had more rights.. They were not "owned" in the full sense. They still had rights. BUT the concept that slaves had no rights was a later American invention.
40:35 "God's own nature determines what is good." - I don't think Craig literally misses the point, he is too smart for that. So I have to conclude that he is misleading.
The Eutyphro Dilemma is of course pointing out that morality needs a source. If it is subject to a god's free will, ie. if he can freely set up any moral system he wants, then we have fork A. If he can't, ie. if the source preceeds him or is inherent to him and thus not subject to his will, Fork B. However you call the source, "his nature", "his being", "metaphysically necessary", it's either subject to his will or it is not. There is no third option, this is NOT a false dilemma.
You say > *"The Eutyphro Dilemma is of course pointing out that morality needs a source."*
Of course that is often what it is intended to do, but whether successful or not is questionable.
But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it is, what does that leave you with. The question remains, "Is objective morality a real thing?"
That is my question to you. Of course lots of atheists deny that it is, such as the following,
Michael Ruse, a noted philosopher of science, explains, "The position of the modern evolutionist is that morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when someone says, 'love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory."
A theist’s moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist’s own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I’m contending that theism is necessary that there might be moral goods and duties, not that we might discern the moral goods and duties that there are. As Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation (if they really exist). If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
William Lane Craig
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins
We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me…. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of fact, will not take you to morality.
Kai Nielsen
If Antony is right that objective morality exists, what is it that these atheists are missing?
@@samdg1234 What is "it"? I have trouble finding your point, so let's focus on two things:
First, the dilemma. What is your response?
Second, "objective" morals. There is some massive equivocation going on, not at all only by you. So what does objective mean?
Here is my definition: Something is subjective if it depends on an observer. "This ice cream is delicious.", "I don't like him." and so on. Everything else is objective.
So of course we can easily have objective moral systems. Not perfect ones maybe (it *is* complicated), but getting closer all the time.
@@korbendallas5318
Ok, thanks for that reply.
Here are a couple of links with specific timestamps. Let's see if they work.
1) czcams.com/video/MLeu8Ij503c/video.html
2) czcams.com/video/NTp7yxLnAGM/video.html
Regardless, I'm working on a fuller response and if the links don't work (often CZcams won't alow them to), I'll try and find some other ways of sharing. Regardless, be patient to get the rest of my response. May take a day, as I've got quite a bit of other stuff going on.
Actually, it is quite difficult for me to find a place to begin these. If interested listen to all of them. They are after all both just clips from much longer interactions.
@@samdg1234 I'll pass on the links and wait for your response.
@@korbendallas5318
Ok, let me get to a response to some of this.
First, I’ll admit to having not listened to much of this debate. A few minutes at the most at this point. But it is on the list to listen to.
The reason that brought me here. I’d been aware of a quote of Louise M. Antony that has been shared on numerous occasions by William Lane Craig in defense of some of his own positions. (I’ll try and share the specific time stamp links of a couple of locations). So, while visiting Seattle this past weekend, I went into a used bookstore and came across a volume titled, “Philosophers Without Gods” edited by Louise M. Antony. I thumbed through and decided I needed to purchase it. When I got back to the hotel, I just looked up to see if the videos were available of their debate. This came up. One thing I noticed right away was how few comments there were compared to the videos of Craig’s debates with others - notably Hitchens and Harris. I took a brief perusal of the comments ordering them with the most recent first, yours topped the list.
Your comment, *” There is some massive equivocation going on, not at all only by you.”* could not be more welcome. I’ve been talking to opponents about equivocation for years - mostly to a chorus of yawns. To my mind, nothing is more central to disagreements than this issue. A couple of favorites that illustrate are:
Premise A: No cat has 8 tails.
Premise B: One cat has 1 more tail than no cat.
Conclusion: One cat has 9 tails.
and,
Nothing is brighter than the sun. A candle is brighter than nothing. Therefore a candle is brighter than the sun.
Those are relatively trivial only because no one gets confused in agreeing with the conclusions, but they are not always so clear on why the conclusion is seemingly compelling. The forms of the syllogisms, with both premises in both syllogisms, would suggest that the conclusion should be true. And they would be if equivocation didn’t take place with the term “no cat” and the term “nothing”.
Equivocation can happen with intent (a type of sophism) and without and by accident.
Why else could it be that no one denies that evolution takes place while at the same time, lots of people deny that it happened? One word - Equivocation. Evolution means different things in the two different situations.
Anyway, to your charge > *” Second, "objective" morals. There is some massive equivocation going on, not at all only by you.”*
By all means, specify where.
You suggest that my comments contain equivocation. I doubt that, but I’m happy to be corrected. Most of my comment was quotations of atheists, that deny objective morality.
The central point of my comment was ignored by you. Again, “If Antony is right that objective morality exists, what is it that these atheists are missing?”
Is there some data available to Antony that was unavailable to the quoted atheists? It can hardly be that they were unaware of Euthyphro?
You ask, *” First, the dilemma. What is your response?”*
Let’s just leave that for the time being. As I indicated, *“But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it is, what does that leave you with. The question remains, "Is objective morality a real thing?"”*
I’m happy to assume whatever the one giving voice to Euthyphro wants to assume - that somehow it destroys the notion of God or at least that the moral argument is an evidence for God. Fair enough. Now how, in a material universe - a universe containing nothing but atoms, their constituent parts, and the amalgams thereof does one arrive at objective morals? Specifically as defined by Craig in debate with Harris, “To say that moral values and duties are objective is to say that they are valid and binding independent of human opinion.” Maybe this is where you think that some of the equivocation takes place. In other words, maybe you agree with Craig in this formulation and that although Craig is right that such a morality (as he describes) doesn’t exist, you want to define it differently so that you can claim that Objective morality does exist?
I’m going to leave it here for now and see where this might get us.
Cheers.
ps. I notice that I’ve thus far avoided your > *” What is "it"? I have trouble finding your point,”*
The “it” is The Euthyphro Dilemma. I’ll agree with you that the meaning of my next sentence is unclear. My, “whether successful or not is questionable.” Is questioning 1) does it successfully imply that Objective morality needs a foundation other than God and 2) what would be the foundation or source (to use your word) of this objective morality be in the materialistic universe.
You > *"I'll pass on the links and wait for your response"*
Why?
Theists claim that morality is objective. However take for instance a dilemmea where if you do not torture someone to death a baby is raped? What is your answer to that?
What is your answer?
"Slaves were treated fairly"? Those lucky slaves huh.
The only fair way to treat a slave is to set them free immediately (and provide therapy for the suffering they endured).
This lady is smart, much better points made than harris in my opinion. But of course she is still no match for Craig haha.
Sydnee Mikumuren I agree. At least she stayed on topic, heh.
WLC may be a good debater, but his arguments are still pretty awful.
@@philb4462
Which of his arguments are awful and why?
@@samdg1234 I posted that a couple of years ago. I don't want to go through this video again so I'll talk about his usual arguments. If they differ from what's here then I apologise and you can steer me in the right direction.
The Kalam cosmological argument doesn't claim to get you to a God, only a first cause. To get to God from there you have to use god-of-the-gaps, circular reasoning and special pleading, so it fails on numerous levels.
The argument from fine-tuning is pure god-of-the-gaps. His argument is "We can't explain how the universal constants came to be how they are, therefore God".
The moral argument is an emotional argument that says we just *feel* something is wrong therefore morality is objective. Morality clearly isn't objective because different people have different feelings about whether certain things are moral or not. That is the very essence of subjectivity. So his claim that morality is objective is simply wrong.
I forget what the other arguments are. I'm happy to comment on them if you would care to remind me or I can expand on the ones I have listed. It would be better to stick with talking about one than trying to cover all of them.
Basically, he doesn't actually argue *for* a god. He argues *against* competing positions. He points out problems and says therefore his solution (God) must be correct. That's not how things work. God is not the default answer. If he wants to say God did this and that then he needs to demonstrate that and he never does. He only says alternatives have issues. Saying Y is problematic does not prove X. You have to prove X on its own merits.
you're confused on multiple points, 1) if what you say is true, then you're not doing anything to affirm objective morality minus the existence of God. 2) the presuppositions in this statement need some unpacking, and when that occurs, they all fail at meeting the requirements for truth.
what worldview holds that morality is both objective, and evolved, and that God exists? lol
Craig always avoids discussing moral epistemology because it exposes the bankruptcy of his moral ontology and worse it would force him to admit ontology can only be tested by epistemology and offering an epistemology exposes question begging by Craig or exposes morality does not need any supernatural ontology.
This explains why Craig always desperately avoids discussing moral epistemology.
His case is based on question begging, equivocation and argument from consequences.
You’re confused
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns How so? What is unclear?
Lots of question begging of course
@@killer4hire
A theist’s moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist’s own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I’m contending that theism is necessary that there might be moral goods and duties, not that we might discern the moral goods and duties that there are. As Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation (if they really exist). If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
William Lane Craig
WLC's idea that there is a third option for the Euthyphro Dilemna is simply misdirection. He replaces the part that asks "Is something good because God wills it? " with "Is something good because is conforms with God's nature?" With either option, the outcome is the same. Either the standard for assessing whether an action is moral or not is God himself/herself/itself, or it is external to God. The Euthyphro Dilemna does not change one little bit by offering his third option.
If "good" and "moral" is assessed by comparing actions with God (either his commands or nature), then the statements "God is good" and "God is moral" are simply tautologies. They simply mean "God is like God".
If that option is correct, you can claim that God is necessary for morality because there wouldn't be any standard to assess morality by without him, but that's because it involves defining morality in a way that fits the needs required by that argument.
If, however, the assessment for actions being moral or not is external to God, then WLC's argument is shot down in flames. God would be a follower of moral laws not a maker of them, and would therefore not be necessary for morality.
This is why WLC changes the Euthyphro Dilemna. He knows it's a nail in the coffin of his case for God. He knows either option is bad for him so he pretends there's a third. But there isn't really. It's just smoke and mirrors.
idiot is not a fair way to describe him he knows exactly what he's doing but that doesnt mean he isnt wrong
Yes I would say he is because 1 god as defined in the bible is not the embodyment of good so his entire argument is flawed goodness comes from people bad things come from people and in fact it isnt just people apes show signs of morals and violence for no reason other than territory or just personal dislike but have also shown great love and caring and this is from apes. God is not necessary in fact he encourages dependence on another's laws rather than to have your own that you form yourself
The answer would probably be that whoever setup this trap is insane.
Fundamentalist; The fundamental inability to understand and/or accept reality.
Why does William Lane Craig continuously lie during this debate. I guess truth is not virtue in Christianity.
That's a serious charge to make against another person. Lying involves knowing full well you are telling untruths. So, moralizer, what are the specific lies that WLC is telling?
Michael Babbitt WLC is an intelligent man. He lies in his debates when he says that those arguing for secular morality has not argued for any basis or foundation. That is absolutely not true. The basis is universal human value. There are truths & facts about our nature, reality, and the natural world that are not a matter of opinion. The only basis for objective morality that makes any rational sense is human value. Even theists who worship god are doing it for their self value. They hope for every lasting life or fear punishment. It goes back to human value even if it starts at self value. No other basis for morality makes any sense. I could go on to further explain and use some examples and/or analogies to make it clear, but I won't waste my time on the brainwashed.
+rak haemet Universal human value is illusory. The idea that you have value is the result of social conditioning (brainwashing) and evolution. You think you have value because it helps you survive better, not because it's a universal truth. You can't make a truth claim about anything beyond the physical universe on naturalism. It's nothing but a subjective opinion. Pure delusory.
Adrian Matera And what you just said is nothing but a subjective opinion...lol
It is objective and universal because survival and self social value is a NECESSITY for existence. Without the existence of human beings then human values and moral principles also would not exist. This is not an opinion. How can you say that valuing oneself and ones own species in order to survive is not a universal truth? You make no sense.
My assertion is not illusory. It is a fact.
Where am making a truth claim about anything beyond the physical universe? You need to learn to comprehend.
+rak haemet actually thats a mistake on your part. Craig doesnt deny athiests have "argued" for any basis or foundation. What he argues is that none of these arguments are sucessful, they haven't esthablished a plausible foundation or at least one that is, given athiesm, more plausible than simply adopting an error theory.
The fact you disagree with Craig about the merits of these arguments doesnt mean Craig is lying. Lying isnt defined as "disagreeing with Rak"
But as to "universal human nature" actually there are plenty of problems with that, you can look for example at the work of Peter Singer who raises all sorts of problems for the claim that, given atheism, human nature has any special value.
Simply asserting a position which has been rigorously critiqued and opining. Its the only one that makes rational sense and then calling others who disagree liars is a tad intellectually dishonest.
i cant watch 80 minutes of this........this guy is convinced, of himself, ok...but he is deluded, come on!?
God established Israel? lol ummm.. no, God is not real. :P
Hear that?.... that's the sound of Louise Antony getting spanked publicly XD
Nope.
You missed the point. God is still evil even if nobody follows his evil commandments.
What could it mean for God to be evil?