Nugent Craig Debate on 'Does God Exist

J C

A debate on the existence of God took place in UCC recently ...
here is a video of the debate.

Good stuff and strong arguments presented by both sides.
Also proof that strong arguments can be made respectfully and with no personal animosity ... something that isn't always the case on the Boards.ie unfortunately.
It also invalidates the proposition that to respect somebody you need to agree with them ... when respect is a basic requirement for civilised co-existence ... and rational debate.

The most original concept of the debate IMO was Michael Nugent's reference to 'home team refereeing' ... which is something that a barrister/proponent could/should do ... but not what a judge (or anybody else engaging in quasi-judicial activities) should do.

Well done Michael and William on an excellent debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmlcmVye4hM

Michael Nugent presented an interesting method to produce objective morality ... by using a group of people who don't know what their gender, wealth, health and every other aspect of their lives will be, to determine what is morally correct.
While, in theory, this may seem un-biased ... the reality is that such people don't exist ... everyone has a gender, as well as a particular level of wealth, health, etc at a particular time ... and they will bring biases based on these factors to bear on their decisions on morality ... so that the product of their deliberations is inevitably subjective (even self-serving) moralities.
In theory, Michael's idea seems to be good/innovative ... but, in practice, it could result in some of the most self-serving, subjective immoral prognostications imaginable.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Michael Nugent presented an interesting method to produce objective morality ... by using a group of people who don't know what their gender, wealth, health and every other aspect of their lives will be, to determine what is morally correct.
While, in theory, this may seem un-biased ... the reality is that such people don't exist ... everyone has a gender, as well as a particular level of wealth, health, etc at a particular time ... and they will bring biases based on these factors to bear on their decisions on morality ... so that the product of their deliberations is inevitably subjective (even self-serving) moralities.
In theory, Michael's idea seems to be good/innovative ... but, in practice, it could result in some of the most self-serving, subjective immoral prognostications imaginable.

This idea come from John Rawls. Obviously it is theoretical. The idea being, every person is society has a representative. The job of the representatives is to delvelop the rules and laws for society. Their goal is to secure the best possible outcome for the person they represent. They know nothing about the person they represent.

The theory being, if you don't know the age, sex, race, social standing, level of wealth, intelligence or education of the person you are representing, and neither do any of the people you are negotiating with (and remember, the representatives are developing a system for those they represent, not themselves, they won't take part in this society), then the result should be a social system that is fair to all people.

Obviously, unless we move to some sort of AI based government, this could never happen in its purest sense. But this is the type of thinking our politicians should be striving for.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

This idea come from John Rawls. Obviously it is theoretical. The idea being, every person is society has a representative. The job of the representatives is to delvelop the rules and laws for society. Their goal is to secure the best possible outcome for the person they represent. They know nothing about the person they represent.

The theory being, if you don't know the age, sex, race, social standing, level of wealth, intelligence or education of the person you are representing, and neither do any of the people you are negotiating with (and remember, the representatives are developing a system for those they represent, not themselves, they won't take part in this society), then the result should be a social system that is fair to all people.

Obviously, unless we move to some sort of AI based government, this could never happen in its purest sense. But this is the type of thinking our politicians should be striving for.

MrP

I guess it's basically 'love your neighbour as yourself' i.e. you establish a moral framework that treats everybody like any rational person would like to be treated i.e. fairly and with empathy and care for and from all people.
It sounds something very like a Christian Society ... via a totally different route.:)

Absolam

That's true, but should be readily apparent anyway, since morality itself is an expression of behaviours to produce a positive effect for the members of societies, or at least for the societies as a whole. So all moral systems regardless of their basis will share a great deal of common ground, and each one's idiosyncrasies can usually be traced to it's historical origins, where a sensible rationale can be found. Christianity doesn't seem in any way unusual in that regard.

It's pretty apparent that a god is not a necessary component of a functional system of morality, even if it is a useful one.

hinault

Morality, and moral teaching, has to be objective. Otherwise morality and moral teaching becomes subjective and as we know subjectivity has been shown to change.

J C

hinault wrote: »

Morality, and moral teaching, has to be objective. Otherwise morality and moral teaching becomes subjective and as we know subjectivity has been shown to change.

Public 'morality' has undergone quite a change over the past 50 years ... it's now almost the complete inverse of what it was then.

Objective morality may never change ... but the emphasis placed on different aspects of it does ... and the selectivity with which it is pursued can also change.

However a useful yardstick to use, to evaluate whatever aspect of current public morality you wish to examine is to compare it with the two general principles of objective morality in the 10 Commandments and ask does it honour the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself?

In so far as it complies with either or both of these principles it may be said to be objectively moral behaviour ... as distinct from it's subjective and all too common modern manifestations.

antiskeptic

Absolam wrote: »

That's true, but should be readily apparent anyway, since morality itself is an expression of behaviours to produce a positive effect for the members of societies, or at least for the societies as a whole. So all moral systems regardless of their basis will share a great deal of common ground, and each one's idiosyncrasies can usually be traced to it's historical origins, where a sensible rationale can be found. Christianity doesn't seem in any way unusual in that regard.

It's pretty apparent that a god is not a necessary component of a functional system of morality, even if it is a useful one.

It ought be remembered that without God, morality it a set of behaviour which amplified survivability - what was the fittest behaviour survived: no more no less. They are not objective morals and need not be adhered to by an individual other than in a self-utility manner. If you find it best to plough your own moral furrow (such as to better yourself) then no one has objective basis for complaint

Remember that the next time your prone to indulging in moral outrage at the actions of another. Be consistent: see that it's only your own utility that is being trampled on, your own sense that thy will is not being done. There is no imperative for another to concern himself with the survival of the species. Indeed their 'morality' might well be what will, henceforth confer evolutionary advantage!

hinault

J C wrote: »

Public 'morality' has undergone quite a change over the past 50 years ... it's now almost the complete inverse of what it was then.

Objective morality may never change ... but the emphasis placed on different aspects of it does ... and the selectivity with which it is pursued can also change.

However a useful yardstick to use, to evaluate whatever aspect of current public morality you wish to examine is to compare it with the two general principles of objective morality in the 10 Commandments and ask does it honour the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself?

In so far as it complies with either or both of these principles it may be said to be objectively moral behaviour ... as distinct from it's subjective and all too common modern manifestations.

You've made my point for me.

Public morality is not morality. Public morality is whatever the zeitgeist happens to be at a given time.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Morality, and moral teaching, has to be objective. Otherwise morality and moral teaching becomes subjective and as we know subjectivity has been shown to change.

Well, I dunno.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is the ultimate subjective moral teaching, isn't it? It takes as its guiding lodestone the way each of us feels about ourselves, which is a totally subjective standard.

In a sense, all morality is inherently subjective, since morality is the choices that I make, and that you make, and that he makes, and that she makes, and that we make, about how to act. And we always make choices based on values and principles that appeal to us, interests that affect us. Even if I make the choice that I am commanded to make a higher authority, that's still a subjective choice - I choose to value obedience, I choose to accept this authority rather than that one.

Rawls, intensely religious as a young adult, abandoned orthodox christian beliefs as a result of his experiences serving in the Second World War, and identified as an atheist. In later life his position was, I think it's fair to say, somewhat unclear; he certainly wasn't a conventional Christian, but he was very respectful of religion and its contribution to philosophical and political discourse. He was silent about his personal beliefs.

He was insistent that in a liberal democracy it wasn't legitimate to appeal to religious reasoning when discussing matters of justice - or, at least, that it was necessary to appeal to secular reasoning as well. But he also developed an entirely secular argument for the political implementation of what is, as JC has already pointed out, basic Christian morality (or, at the very least, a morality wholly compatible with Christianity). (So much so, in fact, that I think some suggested at the time that he might be a kind of fifth columnist, a crypto-Christian trying to sneak Christianity into the academy under the guise of secular reasoning. I don't think anybody took that very seriously, though.)

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rawls, intensely religious as a young adult, abandoned orthodox christian beliefs as a result of his experiences serving in the Second World War, and identified as an atheist. In later life his position was, I think it's fair to say, somewhat unclear; he certainly wasn't a conventional Christian, but he was very respectful of religion and its contribution to philosophical and political discourse. He was silent about his personal beliefs.

He was insistent that in a liberal democracy it wasn't legitimate to appeal to religious reasoning when discussing matters of justice - or, at least, that it was necessary to appeal to secular reasoning as well. But he also developed an entirely secular argument for the political implementation of what is, as JC has already pointed out, basic Christian morality (or, at the very least, a morality wholly compatible with Christianity). (So much so, in fact, that I think some suggested at the time that he might be a kind of fifth columnist, a crypto-Christian trying to sneak Christianity into the academy under the guise of secular reasoning. I don't think anybody took that very seriously, though.)

Rawls' objection was not to religous or christian reasoning per se, but the use of what he called "comprehensive doctrines" as a basis or justification for rules or laws. In fact, he considered secularism to be a comprehensive doctrine, but i have found this a little confusing. I think he had a different understanding of secularism. He talked about a political or public justification for laws, but when you read his work now what he is talking about seems to be to be analogous with what is generally consider to be secularism now.

John Rawls wrote:

There are two kinds of comprehensive doctrines, religious and secular. Those of religious faith will say I give a veiled argument for secularism, and the latter will say I give a veiled argument for religion. I deny both. Each side presumes the basic ideas of constitutional democracy, so my suggestion is that we can make our political arguments in terms of public reason. Then we stand on common ground. That's how we can understand each other and cooperate.

This is the quote that made me want to do a jurisprudence dissertation:

John Rawls wrote:

Any comprehensive doctrine, religious or secular, can be introduced into any political argument at any time, but I argue that people who do this should also present what they believe are public reasons for their argument. So their opinion is no longer just that of one particular party, but an opinion that all members of a society might reasonably agree to, not necessarily that they would agree to. What's important is that people give the kinds of reasons that can be understood and appraised apart from their particular comprehensive doctrines.

MrP

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I dunno.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is the ultimate subjective moral teaching, isn't it? It takes as its guiding lodestone the way each of us feels about ourselves, which is a totally subjective standard.

In a sense, all morality is inherently subjective, since morality is the choices that I make, and that you make, and that he makes, and that she makes, and that we make, about how to act. And we always make choices based on values and principles that appeal to us, interests that affect us. Even if I make the choice that I am commanded to make a higher authority, that's still a subjective choice - I choose to value obedience, I choose to accept this authority rather than that one.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Feelings don't come in to it, in the case of objective moral standards.

The objective moral standard requires me to "do the right thing" regardless of whether I feel that I want to "do the right thing".

I may despise my neighbour, but I am required to not act on my feelings and instead I'm required to "do the right thing" even though every fibre of my being would prefer to do otherwise.

Of course the choice is mine to act in conformance with the moral standard, or to act in accordance with my feelings.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Feelings don't come in to it, in the case of objective moral standards.

The objective moral standard requires me to "do the right thing" regardless of whether I feel that I want to "do the right thing".

I may despise my neighbour, but I am required to not act on my feelings and instead I'm required to "do the right thing" even though every fibre of my being would prefer to do otherwise.

Of course the choice is mine to act in conformance with the moral standard, or to act in accordance with my feelings.

But is "do the right thing" not subjective? You have to evaluate if something is the "right thing".

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

But is "do the right thing" not subjective? You have to evaluate if something is the "right thing".

You evaluate "doing the right thing" against the objective standard.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Feelings don't come in to it, in the case of objective moral standards.

The objective moral standard requires me to "do the right thing" regardless of whether I feel that I want to "do the right thing".

I may despise my neighbour, but I am required to not act on my feelings and instead I'm required to "do the right thing" even though every fibre of my being would prefer to do otherwise.

But in that case you're still acting on your feelings. Not your feeling of hatred for your neighbour, but your feeling about the importance of doing the right thing. Plus, of course, your feeling that this particular right thing, of all the various right things that are urged on you by various authority figures, is the objectively right thing.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote:

You have to evaluate if something is the "right thing".

Peregrinus wrote: »

... your feeling that this particular right thing, of all the various right things that are urged on you by various authority figures, is the objectively right thing.

Wait for it....

*drum roll*


hinault will shortly disappear down a rabbit hole constructed from the following sentiment "The RC church is the one true church set up by Jesus Christ"

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

But in that case you're still acting on your feelings. Not your feeling of hatred for your neighbour, but your feeling about the importance of doing the right thing. Plus, of course, your feeling that this particular right thing, of all the various right things that are urged on you by various authority figures, is the objectively right thing.

I disagree.

My feeling is to cause do my neighbour a bad turn at every point because I hate him/her. That would be behaving on my feeling.

My reason tells me that this feeling is not Christian. My reason tells me that I must behave in a Christian-like manner toward my neighbour. Therefore my reason informs my behaviour.

Separately one would wish not to feel antagonistic toward anyone.
Ideally one would prefer to have their feelings aligned to one's reason.

Peregrinus

Ah, but why do you follow your reason rather than your feelings towards your neighbour, if not because you feel you should?

But forget the word "feelings". My claims is not that all morality is based on feelings, but that all morality - and Christian morality in particular - is subjective. In this particular instance, your choice to act based on your reason rather than on your hostility towards your neighbour is your choice, made by you, for reasons that seem good to you. That's subjective.

And Christian ethics doubles down on this subjectivity, since the moral principle which it urges on you as reasonable (and the one you presumably choose to follow) is that you should love your neighbour as yourself. In other words, your actions towards your neighbour should not be driven by your feelings about your neighbour, but by your feelings about yourself. But your feelings about your neighbour and your feelings about yourself are both equally subjective, aren't they?

Absolam

hinault wrote: »

I disagree. My feeling is to cause do my neighbour a bad turn at every point because I hate him/her. That would be behaving on my feeling. My reason tells me that this feeling is not Christian. My reason tells me that I must behave in a Christian-like manner toward my neighbour. Therefore my reason informs my behaviour. Separately one would wish not to feel antagonistic toward anyone. Ideally one would prefer to have their feelings aligned to one's reason.

Your reasoning about what is or is not Christian isn't objective though... it's subjective. Even what is or is not Christian isn't objective, it's also subjective.

Peregrinus

There's a sense, as already pointed out, in which all morality is inherently subjective, since it depends on choices made by individuals in the light of values, beliefs, etc which they accept to be true/valid.

My point, though, is that Christian morality urges us to make choices by reference to subjective considerations.

It may be objectively true that we ought to love our neighbours as ourselves. But all that means is that it is objectively true that our treatment of our neighbour should be determined by subjective factors.

Absolam

I'm not convinced it can be shown that it is objectively true that we ought to love our neighbours as ourselves. My own feeling is that morality itself is intrinsically subjective, even if commonly accepted as true.

Peregrinus

Noted. But even if we assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the moral edicts given by Jesus must be taken to be objectively true/valid because they have been given by Jesus, they still amount to a direction to make moral choices in a subjective way.

"Attend mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation" is an objective standard. You may or may not accept it as a valid standard, but it is objective.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is a subjective standard, and this again is true independently of whether you take it to be an objectively valid standard, or even of whether you consider objectively valid moral standards to be possible.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Noted. But even if we assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the moral edicts given by Jesus must be taken to be objectively true/valid because they have been given by Jesus, they still amount to a direction to make moral choices in a subjective way.

"Attend mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation" is an objective standard. You may or may not accept it as a valid standard, but it is objective.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" is a subjective standard, and this again is true independently of whether you take it to be an objectively valid standard, or even of whether you consider objectively valid moral standards to be possible.

I agree that on its own, the injunction 'love your neighbour as yourself' can result in problematical morality, for example, where somebody doesn't love themselves .., or is engaging in self-destructive behaviour.
However, Christian morality firstly relies on honouring the Lord our God and then loving our neighbours as ourselves ... in that context we will be able to objectively assess all issues of morality objectively.

Mark 12:29-31New International Version (NIV)

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

However, Christian morality firstly relies on honouring the Lord our God and then loving our neighbours as ourselves ... in that context we will be able to objectively assess all issues of morality objectively.

How does one honour God? And isn't the decision one is or isn't honouring him a subjective one?

hinault

J C wrote: »

I agree that on its own, the injunction 'love your neighbour as yourself' can result in problematical morality, for example, where somebody doesn't love themselves .., or is engaging in self-destructive behaviour.
However, Christian morality firstly relies on honouring the Lord our God and then loving our neighbours as ourselves ... in that context we will be able to objectively assess all issues of morality objectively.

Mark 12:29-31New International Version (NIV)

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Well said, JC.

I think Peregrinus argument is - that because one makes a decision - the decision is itself subjective. He has a point I suppose, but it's not a point which is compelling in my opinion.

Subjectivity morality is based on nothing else other than one's own assessment.

I hate my neighbour. If I am to solely rely upon my subjective assessment of my neighbour, I'd choose to wring his neck.
But I'm required to try to live by objective morality, thankfully.
So I subjugate my subjective morality with objective morality.

(I don't hate my neighbour btw).

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Subjectivity morality is based on nothing else other than one's own assessment....

.... of what you consider to be a fitting standard. Some chose the bible as their standard ( with various possible interpretations). Others chose otherwise.

Own choice makes it subjective

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Well said, JC.

I think Peregrinus argument is - that because one makes a decision - the decision is itself subjective. He has a point I suppose, but it's not a point which is compelling in my opinion.

Subjectivity morality is based on nothing else other than one's own assessment.

I hate my neighbour. If I am to solely rely upon my subjective assessment of my neighbour, I'd choose to wring his neck.
But I'm required to try to live by objective morality, thankfully.
So I subjugate my subjective morality with objective morality.

(I don't hate my neighbour btw).

You miss my point, I think. Moralilty isn't really about the things that you don't do; it's about the things that you do do.

So, your treatment of your neighbour is not determined by your (hypothetical) hatred for him. Great. But that tell me very little about your morality. What does determine your treatment of him?

The answer, if you'er a faithful Christian, is that it is determined by reference to your love for yourself, which is surely just as subjective a standard as your hatred for him would be?

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

You miss my point, I think. Moralilty isn't really about the things that you don't do; it's about the things that you do do.

So, your treatment of your neighbour is not determined by your (hypothetical) hatred for him. Great. But that tell me very little about your morality. What does determine your treatment of him?

The answer, if you'er a faithful Christian, is that it is determined by reference to your love for yourself, which is surely just as subjective a standard as your hatred for him would be?

It's not determined by reference to love for myself.

It is determined by the objective moral rule given by God to humanity, and my level of compliance with that objective moral rule.

Let me try to explain : I hate my neighbour. My hatred is subjective as it has no reference to anything outside of myself.

Whereas the objective moral standard is set by God. So for me to try to attain that objective moral standard I have to set aside my subjectivity, subjugate that subjectivity, and instead try to behave objectively.

If I am sincere, God may supply me the grace to do this.

J C

Getting back to the substance of the debate, I think that Michael Nugent gave a very competent account of the Atheist position as did William Lane Craig for the Theist position.
The debate centred around philosophical reasons and arguments for the existence of God ... many of which are quite compelling.
An excellent debate conducted in a respectful and competent manner by both sides.
I found it to be illuminating and informative and I would like to thank both Michael and William for the obvious effort put into researching and presenting their arguments.

recedite

‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Both people in this debate would subscribe to that, so the rule wasn't in itself up for debate. It was more the reason why anyone would follow it.
The Golden Rule has been around (with slight variants) a lot longer than Christianity has.

EirWatchr

The difference is that Christ emphasised a positive form of the Golden Rule:

Jesus taught the positive form of the Golden Rule: "Do for another what you would want done for you" (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31). It provides a basis for personal initiative; and in practice, it can change a person from harmless to helpful (from neutral to positive in terms of effect on others). Thus, by the result it produces, the positive form of the Golden Rule is a higher ethic, properly seen as building upon and going beyond the negative form of the Golden Rule.

(From Ben Swett's commentary on The Didache)

recedite

EirWatchr wrote: »

The difference is that Christ emphasised a positive form of the Golden Rule...

Not really a difference though. There has always been a sliding scale from just "don't be a dick" to offering yourself as somebody else's personal servant"

Manach

From reading primary and secondary works of that era/region: it would only have been the followers of Pythagoras who would have some form of personal, as opposed to ritual, that would be similar to the tenets of the Golden Rule.

pauldla

Manach wrote: »

From reading primary and secondary works of that era/region: it would only have been the followers of Pythagoras who would have some form of personal, as opposed to ritual, that would be similar to the tenets of the Golden Rule.

But it's not just found in that region and era, though. Variants on the Golden Rule can be found in Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.