Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prof. William Lane Craig

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Midlife Crashes wrote: »
    Brilliant!! Thanks a mil man exactly what I was looking for . So now ye can continue on with this debate.

    I just update my post there with a little more info.

    Enjoy :)


  • Options
    #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Here's a fairly comprehensive response to Craig's Moral Argument...

    http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/william-lane-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/

    It'd be infinitely more valuable if you presented your own argument in your own words.

    I'm going to spend some time getting through the 17 minute video, and seeing what I can respond to on it. It might be interesting to see what Craig himself in other writing on this subject can offer in terms of a response.


  • Options
    #64
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Onesimus wrote: »
    I've discovered that no atheist ( even when they lose against Craig in debate ) will be convinced. This because the power of the will is quite awesome and they simply don't want to believe in God.
    I would love to believe in a god. How does that tally with your preconception? :confused:


  • Options
    #65
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Here's a fairly comprehensive response to Craig's Moral Argument...

    http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/william-lane-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/
    Thanks for the post, as I think it implicitly answers my need to know what the basic run of play is - and I think I now know as much about Craig as I need to.

    However, just as an aside, can I say that the comment in the article Moreover, philosophers don’t have to explain everything just like scientists don’t have to explain everything. Scientists didn’t need to explain the cause of lighting before being able to do so, and we shouldn’t feel the need to explain the cause of intrinsic values before being able to do so. is just about the lamest excuse for an argument that I've ever had the displeasure of reading. I mean, reverse that "logic" and its a defence of Creationism.

    We truly tie ourselves in knots by trying to contend that objective values can just, like, be there.


  • Options
    #66
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    The discussion won't go anywhere if you don't respond to my points.

    You should note that the main thrust of my argument was that whether or not his argument about objective morality stands up, it's irrelevant.
    You don't need to transcribe the video to address my point.

    You claimed the video "demolishes" Craig's argument. So far I don't think it has.

    I'm transcribing the video, so I can go step by step through it as I get time and point out some of the assumptions it is making, and rightfully question a lot of it is saying. It's better to quote what I am responding to.

    It's infinitely better to post ones own argument in ones own words, and it is significantly more conducive to discussion.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Arguing that God exists because there must be a basis for objective morality is an appeal to consequence. This is not a valid or honest argument.
    This means that Craig either knows this and doesn't care or doesn't know this and calls into question his credentials.

    We'll see how the video holds up. I've argued my position on this dozens of times on boards.ie, and I've not really heard a good argument as to how a subjective moral system can be binding on individuals in any meaningful sense. The way humans behave in ethical disputes points to an objective source of morality as opposed to a subjective one.

    I've responded to your points many many times before, and will do so again, hopefully without baseless ad-hominems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I would love to believe in a god. How does that tally with your preconception? :confused:

    Being a Christian makes your life harder. Not easier. It requires you to live distinctively, stand out from others, do good rather than what is evil even when the world insists you do otherwise, and do the right thing even when it is to your detriment.

    Being a Christian isn't easy, and believing in God and submitting to His authority isn't easy, but ultimately it is the best thing for us.


  • Options
    #68
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    You claimed the video "demolishes" Craig's argument. So far I don't think it has.

    I'm transcribing the video, so I can go step by step through it as I get time and point out some of the assumptions it is making, and rightfully question a lot of it is saying. It's better to quote what I am responding to.

    It's infinitely better to post ones own argument in ones own words, and it is significantly more conducive to discussion.

    We'll see how the video holds up. I've argued my position on this dozens of times on boards.ie, and I've not really heard a good argument as to how a subjective moral system can be binding on individuals in any meaningful sense. The way humans behave in ethical disputes points to an objective source of morality as opposed to a subjective one.
    But the video has no baring on the point I'm making. Even if you to get around to actually addressing it, my point still stands.

    Arguing that God exists because a moral basis is needed is an appeal to consequence.
    And both Craig and yourself, being knowledgeable in philosophy, should know why it's an invalid, dishonest argument.


  • Options
    #69
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    philologos wrote: »
    The argument he makes in the debate Sam Harris in respect to the objective grounding for morality is excellent. It was made by many many others before Craig, for example C.S Lewis makes it in his Mere Christianity. I've yet to find a decent atheist response which deals with this, on or off of boards.ie.

    Edit: N.B - This was one point that caused me to wake up in respect to my former agnosticism.
    I wonder can you address this counter-argument I posed in another thread with respect to 'the objective grounding for morality'?
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Without investing too much time in the whys and wherefores, surely there's a rather large hole in Craig's argument:
    WLC wrote:
    Craig: But secondly, the problem that’s even worse is the “ought implies can” problem. In the absence of the ability to do otherwise, there is no moral responsibility. In the absence of freedom of the will, we are just puppets or electro-chemical machines. And puppets do not have moral responsibilities. Machines are not moral agents. But on Dr. Harris’s view, there is no freedom of the will, either in a libertarian or a compatibilistic sense, and therefore, there is no moral responsibility. So there isn’t even the possibility of moral duty on his view. So while I can affirm and applaud Dr. Harris’s affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and moral duties, at the end of the day his philosophical worldview just doesn’t ground these entities that we both want to affirm. If God exists, then we clearly have a sound foundation for objective moral values and moral duties. But if God does not exist, that is, if atheism is true, then there is no basis for the affirmation of objective moral values; and there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver and there is no freedom of the will. And therefore it seems to me that atheism is simply bereft of the adequate ontological foundations to establish the moral life.

    ...and yet atheists can agree objective moral values, along the lines of 'don't harm others', 'don't steal', 'don't kill' and so forth. How are these values less objective than - say - the ten commandments?

    Craig's position is effectively that of a man explaining why heavier than air vehicles will never fly, even as the Red Arrows are whizzing around over his head. 'Sure, it may work in practice - but it doesn't work in theory'.


  • Options
    #70
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    ...and yet atheists can agree objective moral values, along the lines of 'don't harm others', 'don't steal', 'don't kill' and so forth. How are these values less objective than - say - the ten commandments?
    Sorry to butt in, but the fact of agreement means they aren't objective moral values - as they are subject to consent. Also, agreed values are clearly not intrinsic, as they reflect an understanding imposed on events from outside. In other words, its not that wife beating is objectively immoral. We've just collectively agreed to treat it as if it was immoral.

    I don't mean to be rude, but this is all just adding bulky arguments that necessarily come back to the same place. I'll give Craig some Brownie points for situational awareness. He's picked the right button to press if he wants his opponents to look uncomfortable and produce lame arguments.


  • Options
    #71
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Sorry to butt in, but the fact of agreement means they aren't objective moral values - as they are subject to consent. Also, agreed values are clearly not intrinsic, as they reflect an understanding imposed on events from outside. In other words, its not that wife beating is objectively immoral. We've just collectively agreed to treat it as if it was immoral.
    But what is the difference between these two positions? Or, to put it another way, how is 'objective good' even possible seeing as even the theist perspective argues that what is good ultimately comes down to one entity's opinion rather than the agreed opinion of a group of entities? Why would one be more objective than the other?
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I don't mean to be rude, but this is all just adding bulky arguments that necessarily come back to the same place. I'll give Craig some Brownie points for situational awareness. He's picked the right button to press if he wants his opponents to look uncomfortable and produce lame arguments.
    No problem at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But what is the difference between these two positions? Or, to put it another way, how is 'objective good' even possible seeing as even the theist perspective argues that what is good ultimately comes down to one entity's opinion rather than the agreed opinion of a group of entities? Why would one be more objective than the other?
    I think the answer is in your second question - how is 'objective good' even possible.

    Because that's really (IMHO) where the divide is. I think some atheists feel co compelled to assert that they've an 'objective' morality, because a subjective morality seems so arbitrary. But, really, we shouldn't feel so compelled. Operationally, there isn't much difference between a group of atheists asserting a subjective desire to respect certain agreed rules, and a group of theists asserting their faith in a particular religion.

    That said, there is a conceptual difference. The atheist-agreed rules are, both in concept and practice, arbitrary. They're just whatever we might come up with, and therefore changeable as we please. However, while from an atheist perspective whatever rules go with a particular religion are just subjective assertions, clearly within the faith they may be described as objective rules created by a supreme being. And, I'd guess, if those religious rules were changed, people within that faith might explain it as their understanding of the rules improving, rather than as the supreme being having a change of heart.

    Maybe its just a problem with terminology - but I really think its a fatal error to try to invent a reasoning for intrinsic or objective morality without a deity. There just ain't such a thing.


  • Options
    #73
    muppeteer
    Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    philologos wrote: »

    We'll see how the video holds up. I've argued my position on this dozens of times on boards.ie, and I've not really heard a good argument as to how a subjective moral system can be binding on individuals in any meaningful sense. The way humans behave in ethical disputes points to an objective source of morality as opposed to a subjective one.
    Well there's your problem. Subjective moral systems are not binding. They may look binding when the majority of people hold similar ethical views but morality is no more binding than an objective law of music.

    Sure, nearly everyone likes Queen and many think that everyone else should like Queen too, but to think that there is some underlying cosmic law that says Queen >> Jedward is just ridiculous. But yet there is the same kind of evidence(how most people behave) that, as you say, "points" to an objective music law as an objective moral law.
    So let me ask you is it reasonable to construct an objective music law with the following problems?
    First you have to resolve how you can know in an objective manner that Queen >> Jedward or else you yourself are using a subjective manner of assessment.
    Second you have to ignore the fact some people think Jedward are better than Queen which dents the behaviour "evidence" seriously.



    Now why do we have so few objective music law apologists? It is perhaps because it is very easy to dismiss the idea as silly and not have it impact any of your other deeply held beliefs. Whereas we have people who cannot/will not dismiss objective morality using the exact same logic, because to do so would collapse the circular logic of objective morality not working without a god and gods not working without objective morality.


  • Options
    #74
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Quick question.

    Is the topic of morality WLC's main argument for the existence of god?

    I watched him debate Harris a while ago, but I can't remember him mention anything other than ontology, epistemology and morality. (I should have brushed up on my philosophy beforehand)


  • Options
    #75
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Is the topic of morality WLC's main argument for the existence of god?
    It certainly seems to be one that Philologos found persuasive, but it is very clearly an appeal to consequences - a bit like some people on a bus teetering over a precipice arguing that Superman must exist because otherwise they are doomed. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


  • Options
    #76
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Guys, this discussion looks like it woulkd be much more suitable to take to the Atheist/Christian Existence of God Megathread.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement