Can you reply to my post, RobertH?
@Blueline976 “I’m not sure what you mean by “there is an answer to their problems.” I’m also not sure if they act like there was no response, but rather they see Craig’s “answers” as non-answers.”
I did not see your post. Then maybe they should say what their problem with his alleged non-answer is? It’s funny that you say this because I see their responses as non-asnwers! Perhaps you can show something in particular so we can get into some substance?
I do not think I saw the debate with Kagan. You can have morality without God but you cannot have objective morality. If morality is some kind of socio-biological product then it is definitely dependent (subjective) on humans. In fact, if that is the case, then it is not even geared to truth! It is merely geared for survival of the fittest and has no truth value.
A few issues with this.
First, lets assume you cannot have objective morality without God. So what? Wanting something to be true because the thought of the alternative is horrific does not make it true.
Second, say that God gives us divine law. Who is the one choosing to value it? You are! You are ultimately subjectively deciding whether God’s law has any merit. God can command whatever he wants, but that does nothing to mandate that you should follow it.
Third, it is at least worth mentioning that there are moral schemes that claim to be objective based on logic. See Murray Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty” or Ayn Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.”
Fourth, if we assume morality is a product of human evolution, which seems likely to me, it isn’t the case that it is devoid of truth value. A simple thought experiment illustrates why: If Organism A develops depth perception and Organism B does not, which one is likely to die by walking off of a cliff? And, therefore, which one is likely to send his genes into the next generation to program future organisms as to the true nature of our world, i.e. that there are cliffs? The answer is obvious. But that may not be what you’re getting at. Perhaps you think morality is some kind of ultimate truth written out in the cosmos?
I would appreciate it if you first clarified the statement I didn’t understand, namely that there is an answer to their problems. What are the problems? What is the answer?
Your concern is basically debunked by the famous Christian philosopher, Kant, who argued that reason is the sole purpose of morality. Kant also believed that reason itself was the very thing that enabled society to come up with Absolute Moral Values, I do not agree with the Abolute Moral Value part of his philosophy, but that was to show you that even christians believe that objectivity of morality can be made without the existence of God.
-
No, Christian philosophers do not say that morality is objective because the alternative is too horrific to consider. They say that because it is the objective truth. People really do think morality is objective; things truly are right and wrong.
-
It does not matter if someone values God’s divine commands. They are objective because it is not dependent on human thought or reason. You are kindof getting at the Euthyphro Dilemma; however, this is a false dilemma. God’s commands come from His nature and His nature is good. God cannot act outside of His nature to will that something evil be good.
-
I look forward to engaging in those items
-
I don’t think you are aware but you proved my point in your exmaple. It is geared towards survival of the fittest and does not actually seek truth.
By problems I mean their problems with theism (Christian theism in particular). I guess I was using the term broadly and that is throwing you off. I actually mean arguments and counters. For instance, problem of evil as an argument and then various counters to the Kalam, Liebniz (sp?), Teleological, Ontological, and so forth. If you actually want the answers then let me know and we can either talk elsewhere or I can just put up a bunch of links.
@“Izzy”
Morality cannot be grounded in reason alone. People can reason various things. Hitler reasoned one way, Mao another, Stalin another, Rand another, and Rothbard yet another. So no, I do not see how this has even remotely been debunked.
To clarify. Christian philosophers are not saying belief in God is required for morality or objective truth, but that He actually exists. Otherwise they are dependent on humans which is subjective.
Not so fast there… do you know Kant’s philosophy on morality and the way he explains reason? he clearly debunks what you assume about morality w/o god.
I have not read his work directly, no. Care to shed some light?
If you want to put up some links, go for it.
But just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the cosmological/teleological/ontological arguments?
I really enjoy all three of them. I am studying the Ontological currently, it is the one I am least familiar with. The main problem I see with the Ontological argument is that it is so abstract people do not understand it so they dismiss it as some sort of fancy trick!
Why do you really enjoy them?
I enjoy studying philosophy, and Christian apologetics in particular. It has had a profound affect on me. Turning me from a deist to a Christian Theist.
Do you like them?
No, I find the cosmological argument to be a giant begging-the-question-fest. I find the teleological argument to be an argument from ignorance. And I find the ontological argument to be a little wacky.
How is the Kalam question begging and the teleological an argument from ignorance? Regardless of whether the Ontological is wacky it could still correct use of logic and reason.
Well the cosmological argument states that there is a first cause, and that first cause is God, right? Well that sort of begs the questions: Why is the first cause uncaused, and why does it have to be a personal God?
The teleological argument makes note of the alleged order and complexity in the universe, and concludes that God must have created it, right? It’s an argument from ignorance because one may see all of this order and complexity, not know how it could have come about, and end up concluding that a creator must have created it all. In reality, and especially in evolution (where this argument is sometimes extended, such as Paley’s watchmaker), there are a multitude of natural explanations for the alleged order and complexity, and they’re all based on facts. And if there aren’t, why not just say we don’t know instead of invoking God?
The ontological argument is wacky because, if I understand it correctly, it states that if we can imagine the greatest possible being, it exists.
All of these arguments don’t really prove God’s existence, even if they are true. They’re not based on facts, but rather…intellectual masturbation or something.
Robert, that’s the whole point of Euthyphro. If you’re going to describe his nature as “good”, that means “good” can be isolated. If not, you’re merely stating “God acts” which is tautological. All you would know is that God acts a certain way, but the value of how God acts suffers from the same indictment that theists so zealously apply to atheistic benchmarks for morality. “Well that’s just your opinion.” “You can’t get an ought from an is! God is telling you to behave a certain way. That doesn’t show that you ought to behave a certain way!” And, if ultimately, it terminates into a “well God just has the perogative to assign moral value,” then it’s an assertion just as Sam Harris may say, “morality depends upon the flourishing of conscious creatures.” It’s the exact same thing in practice.
You are also reiterating Plantinga’s naturalism counter, which is pointless anyway. Because even if it were not geared for truth, this is the best we’ve got. Clearly it isn’t completely geared towards truth if you consider optical illusions or cognitive biases. Even if you were to establish that your mind is not reliable–oh wait, that conclusion would be brought about by your reasoning faculties. It’s this type of meta-justification which people keep searching for, and I doubt they’ll find it.
I have to say that in regards to begging the question, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. What you’re actually trying to say is that it’s special pleading, but given the atheist’s position the only alternative is the universe. I’m not claiming any exceptions to any rule, I’m merely affording to God what you already afford to the universe.
If you’re asking why it has to be a personal God then you clearly haven’t engaged the material at any level, since in every presentation of the Kalam that very question is addressed without fail.
What the…? The teleological argument is about the finely-tuned constants of the universe to satisfy initial conditions. You’re a million miles off, bud.
Well then enlighten me instead of throwing snarky comments my way. Reading materials would suffice.