🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:19 📚 The debate is about whether God is necessary for morality. The focus is not on whether belief in God is necessary for living morally. 00:47 🔄 Kagan acknowledges that morality has been discussed with and without appeal to God throughout history. 03:32 🌐 Kagan explains he will argue that belief in or existence of God is not necessary for morality. 07:12 💡 Kagan outlines his view of morality: right actions avoid harm and help others, even without invoking God. 15:12 🤔 Kagan explores whether moral commandments necessitate a commander or if requirements can exist independently. 21:53 🎯 Kagan asserts that moral philosophers inclined towards atheism can believe in a morality without God. 23:07 📢 Craig clarifies that the debate is about whether God is necessary for morality, not whether belief in God is necessary for moral living. 23:34 📍 Craig emphasizes that the question's answer depends on the definition of morality; some forms of moral behavior can exist without God. 23:47 🤔 Objective moral values are discussed - whether certain actions are intrinsically good or evil. 24:02 🤯 Both atheists and theists agree that God is necessary for morality to have objective significance. 25:50 🙅♂️ Without God, objective moral values would lack a foundation and might be seen as products of human evolution. 31:26 🦁 The absence of God questions the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong actions, as animals exhibit similar behaviors. 32:52 💡 Objective moral duties need an explanation without God's commandments as a basis. 36:30 ☠️ If there's no God, moral accountability seems to disappear, making actions ultimately insignificant. 38:48 🧐 The absence of moral accountability in atheism could lead to a cynical sense of futility in moral choices. 39:57 🤨 Atheists face a challenge in explaining the basis for objective moral values, duties, and accountability. 46:24 🤷♂️ Naturalism struggles to explain what makes human beings morally special and different from other creatures. 50:09 🤔 Dr. Kagan emphasizes that naturalism's explanation of moral significance may be subjective and based on personal beliefs. 52:15 😕 The definition of free will is complex and its compatibility with determinism is debated. 52:57 😮 If naturalism is true and determinism holds, free will might be lacking, which could impact moral value. 54:44 😶 Denying deeper meaning doesn't necessarily make ethics illusory; ethical significance exists on a human scale. 56:36 🤔 The significance of actions isn't just about cosmic impact, it's about personal, societal, and subjective value. 57:32 🤨 Disagreement about whether the lack of eternal significance renders actions entirely inconsequential. 58:39 😕 Objective moral values may exist, but on atheism, moral accountability might be lacking. 59:50 🧐 Moral viewpoint's adoption is questioned, especially in the absence of cosmic implications. 01:04:44 😕 The role of God in enabling free will is a point of contention. 01:05:55 😯 Objective moral values provide a basis for evaluating actions, even with human imperfections. 01:06:55 😮 Accountability in a theistic context and the potential tension between salvation and moral judgment. 01:13:10 🧐 Acknowledgment of human imperfections, sin, and the role of religious and moral education. 01:14:18 🤨 Examining theological aspects of salvation, punishment, and moral accountability in Christianity. 01:15:14 😕 Perspectives on the significance of actions within a temporal context and despite cosmic outcomes. 01:15:58 🐾 Theists argue that a Christian perspective provides a basis for ethical treatment of animals, seeing it as a divine responsibility to care for the Earth and its creatures. 01:17:36 🥩 Different perspectives on animal treatment: Theists emphasize responsible stewardship, while non-theists may argue against causing harm to animals and advocate for vegetarianism. 01:19:15 🌍 Discussion on cultural differences: Exploring how societies with various moral codes and treatment of marginalized groups can be evaluated based on transcendent moral standards or evolving moral truths. 01:20:53 👥 Moral assessment of societies: Theism allows making moral judgments about societies' actions, while non-theism might rely on gradual societal evolution in recognizing moral truths. 01:23:01 🕊️ Theism offers a foundation for objective moral values, duties, and accountability, with divine nature defining the good, while atheism might struggle to ground these concepts. 01:24:52 ⚖️ Atheistic perspectives on morality: Atheists propose that morality can exist as an objective reality through a moral contract formed over time, regardless of divine influence. 01:26:03 📚 Encouragement for exploration: Both sides encourage students to delve into moral philosophy and religion to better understand these complex issues and engage in informed discussions.
I must admit, sitting cross-legged on the lectern, how gauche, I thought and there did confront my innate conservatism, that I didn't know I had XD But I persisted and came under the spell of a very fine teacher.
@@hinteregions you’re psychotic if you had such a visceral reaction to the way someone chose to sit such that they might be comfortable over a prolonged amount of time in the same spot
At 1:09.20 Craig says you "have to have God as an objective transcendent standard for moral value." But the "God" that he imagines to be the objective moral standard is the one he subjectively defines as "God." Craig is the one who is declaring, on no evidence at all, that God, in Craig's imagination, must be loving and kind and moral and just. This is a typically subjective human definition of what an "ideal God" would be. So he declares that this ideal God exists, then claims that he must exist if moral standards are cosmically objective. The circularity is spinning.
Yep the claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
And Prof. Kagan's 60 seconds about vegetarianism/veganism (1:17:30) is one of the most succinct and rational explanations why it is incompatible with an ethical life to brutalize and eat sentient beings simply because we can.
UkiWoDao By distinguishing sentient life as the type of life that is unacceptable to kill, he is directly insinuating that non-sentient life is acceptable to kill.
The premise of Prof Kagan's utilitarian argument against non-vegetarianism is pain. Sentient life, or more specifically, complex organisms have evolved enough to register pain, whereas there isn't evidence available enough to suggest simple organisms like plants can. I remember reading a scientific journal saying that certain creatures which we domesticate and throw into the meat industry are able to suffer as well.
@@biggregg5 yeah I mean it would be fun to see Frank Turek Because I … I mean I’m genuinely convinced that Turek just doesn’t see another alternative other than God for the concept of morality WLC I think is too smart for that . He just lost
The Veritas Forum had made it very clear that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Theism doesn't force people to be moral either. That was kind of the point of "I can do evil and as long as I manage to recognise the saving power of Jesus in the accountability is not really there"... for which Craig couldn't really reply. Appealing to divine revelation doesn't solve metaethics problems.
that's literally a quote from wikipedia, which is credited to Craig, explaining why he did so badly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelly_Kagan#cite_note-11 it comes right after Craig saying Kagan was lying! "the view Kagan defended in the debate was not his [Kagan's] view at all"
Craig's Post-debate review: Contemporary moral arguments By the way, the curious thing about the view that Kagan defended is that it is not really his view at all! He is a radical consequentialist, who holds that the moral value of our actions is determined solely by the consequences of our actions. He believes that we are morally required to perform any action, no matter what it is, if it will eventually lead to the best result overall, the best defined in terms of human flourishing. If torturing and raping a little girl leads to greater human well-being in the end, then that's what you're morally obligated to do. Kagan admits that this sort of consequentialism is not only widely rejected by ethicists but is wildly implausible as well. I suspect that's why he chose not to articulate and defend his real views in our dialogue but to affect a position he himself regards as false, namely, the view that the moral thing to do is whatever ideally rational persons would agree one ought to do. In our dialogue I argued that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God and His commands. So in answer to your question, "Don't we agree that normal people SHOULD be rational even if God didn't exist?": if by "should" you mean "morally ought," then on atheism I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to be rational. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation to be rational. Contemporary moral arguments - The problems in Kagan’s pretended view As for what's wrong with Kagan's pretended view, we need to keep clearly in mind the distinction I constantly emphasize between moral epistemology and moral ontology . Moral epistemology concerns how we come to know the Good; moral ontology concerns the foundation in reality of the Good. The view affected by Prof. Kagan, if it is to be relevant to my case for God as a foundation for morality, must not put forward merely as a prescription for how we come to know our moral obligations. That's not the issue before us, and the theist could agree that asking, "How would perfectly rational persons act in this situation?" might be a reliable guide to discerning one's moral obligations. Rather Kagan must be taken to mean that our moral obligations are actually constituted by how ideally rational people would say we ought to act in a particular situation. But then the question I raised in our dialogue presses: why think such a thing? Why think that if you could assemble a committee of perfectly rational human beings and they all would agree that you should do some action A , this constitutes a moral obligation for you to do A ? As a foundation for objective moral values and duties this explanation seems wholly arbitrary. Prof. Kagan in his book The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) has a good deal to say about the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He rightly maintains that "one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has" (p. 13). He insists, "This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don't have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true" (Ibid.) He anticipates the objection that all explanations must come to end somewhere . "Perhaps this is so," he responds, "but it would still be no license to cut off explanation at a superficial level" (p. 14). Short of an adequate explanation, he says, our moral principles "will not be free of that taint of arbitrariness" that characterizes ad hoc shopping lists of moral principles (p. 13). Contemporary moral arguments - The explanatory inadequacy of Kagan’s pretended view As I said in our dialogue, Kagan's pretended view seems to me to be characterized by just that sort of arbitrariness because it cuts off explanation at a superficial level. What we want to know is why the decisions of such an ideal committee has any objective status in grounding actual moral values and obligations. I can't see any reason to think that this is the actual ground of objective moral values and duties. Indeed, given that perfectly rational people do not exist, how can his pretended account actually ground moral values and duties? There is no such ideal committee; it does not exist and has never considered or decided anything. So how can actual objective moral values and duties be grounded in such a non-reality? (If Kagan's pretended view grounded morality in the decisions of actual human beings, it would be just an affirmation that moral values and duties are not objective. They're made up or constituted by human beings. But then moral values and duties would not be valid and binding independently of whether anybody believes in them or not.) Asking how such ideal persons would behave might, once more, be a helpful guide to discerning our moral duties (like asking "What would Jesus do?"), but a non-reality cannot be the ontological foundation of some reality. Finally, notice that there is an assumption underlying Kagan's pretended view which threatens to be massively question-begging, namely, it just assumes that all perfectly rational people would agree about what our moral obligations are! That simply assumes that what Kagan calls moral minimalists, like nihilists, egoists, and libertarians, are all irrational. But then he needs to show why the atheistic moral nihilist is wrong in thinking that in the absence of God objective moral values and duties do not exist. Otherwise, he's begging the question. So long as it is rational to maintain, as I argued, that in the absence of God, objective moral values and duties do not exist, minimalists cannot be excluded from the ideal committee, and so the committee will fail to agree that we have any moral obligations to do anything. In other words, to borrow Dostoyevsky's memorable phrase, all things will be permitted. - William Lane Craig
Can I call you William? Dear William, Kagan's basing the objectivity of morality on our capacity to reason and be rational does not seem to me to be a naturalistic theory at all. It is not an explanation of how we came to create moral systems or why they express an objective reality. A true naturalistic theory would inquire as to how humans came up with moral systems: what were the precipitating factors, and what were the actions that allowed moral systems to become self-organizing and universal to all human societies? You both seem to presuppose different ideas about "objectivity". Your's is that objectivity comes from the omnipotent perspective of God's. Kagan's is that objectivity comes from the consistent use of reason. In some ways you are at an advantage, because modern philosophy has handicapped itself by falling into a useless debate about whether or not morality is based on anything real or whether it is just imposed on reality by our feverish imaginations. The fact is, we need imagination to understand anything that we cannot relate to directly. That would be God, reason, and objectivity. Remember, a naturalistic explanation is based on physical events and actions. As soon as you bring in metaphors like "reason" and "objectivity" to an explanation it isn't a naturalistic explanation at all.
naveen82376 it is idiotic to say that we need to assume that rational beings will agree about our moral obligations, when we know we agree and we are the only rational beings that we know of. What the hell does he mean he says that it is an assumption, from where i am standing it seems to be observation.
naveen82376 But were you predetermined to make such a response or did you choose to respond how you responded? If you are making a truth Claim you are rising above subjective reasoning and by doing so you Violate Determinism. ☕️
Naveen well said. I'll be honest? Is not how deep our wisdom nor know everything that needed to know that exists? Neither upon all dry GROUNDS nor all the things you can't see? My brother a candle that is truly lit? Is for that precious candle is to be lifted up to shine upon the dark that don't comprehend the true light? But a candle that is not lit? Just looking pretty? Our tongues? Our word has power? Our tongues uttered becomes our world? Your will be done? Like you can't force your wife to love you? Other prepare digital wife? Press button kiss me? Lol! Pressures of life? Many can't stand nor delight talking to God? But not all? These individuals are humble but yet a lion? Kings and priests you are? @LLOVE STAY BEAUTIFUL MY BROTHER I SHALL DO THE SAME. Removing death upon all dry GROUNDS of what sin nor anything goes? Has planted upon all dry GROUNDS. That brings opposite of God intended indeed. @LLOVE everything has time? Like the man who's throwing the bible and the Koran like trash his will be done? Stay beautiful my beloved brother? Many, many, many, true individuals are like a lamb. Rather wash your feet of showing their strength of humbleness? Yet, solid like the dry GROUNDS.
Yes, his presentation had a sense of natural expression unlike Craig’s rather scripted speech. Not that one is necessarily better than the other, but to my ears, Kagan could have been speaking almost off the cuff. He also managed to express complex ideas using accessible language. It would be a pleasure to be taught by him.
I was disappointed that Kagan didn't provide a real argument for "objective" morality. I suspect there isn't really a good argument for this so I don't blame him but it does ultimately mean he falls back on subjective morality
This is one of my favorite WLC debates, since Kagan really helps illuminate the question-begging coming from WLC (and his supposed "foundation" for morality). When Craig got to the part about, "What's so special about humans from a naturalistic perspective?", Kagan pointed out the incredibly obvious answer to that. Craig, however, refuses to accept it since he's defined human significance in terms of god from the beginning. This way, no matter what the naturalist points out, Craig just retorts with "so what"? Kagan saw this and brilliantly pointed out how we could do the same thing with god-prescribed morality, to which Craig just stubbornly refused and decided to stick to his preconceived notions. Even though Craig is wildly incorrect on many things, he usually outperforms his opponents due to him being a good debater/rhetorician. In this though, Kagan really outclassed him. This was almost as good as the Sean Carroll debate.
Kagan had some very good answers but on others it doesn't seem to make sense. Or at least it makes very little sense. Whats good for one person is often bad for another - why should a person care about the collective? And whose to decide what's better?
@@weeklydaily4775 A contractarian or a utilitarian can offer an easy answer to this question - it is about what is the most rational/beneficial decision for all parties involved. I grant that these frameworks have criticisms, but this is just an example that helps show that we can navigate the moral terrain and discover better pathways than others...OBJECTIVELY. You can be dead wrong in thinking that a certain action is good, because your beliefs and thought processes about certain things may be objectively untrue.
The “so what?” argument against God doesn’t work. Simply being that God is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good and all just. The universe is not. God created humans with morals & intent, therefore we were intentionally design by an intelligent mind with purpose and understand morals instinctively. What would feel more special? Finding a hundred dollars on your own, or someone giving you a hundred dollars? You’ll feel more valued if someone gave you a hundred dollars. God intentionally gave us life, therefore we value it more. With that value comes morals and eternal fate. In a godless universe it’s easy for me to say “so what?” when it comes to morals because my eternal life isn’t destined with consequence. My morals are determined by the biological mindless chemicals that make up my brain, therefore nobody’s at fault for their actions. As Richard Dawkins said “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” Now in a godly universe you can also say “so what?” when it comes to morals, but it wouldn’t be rational todo considering the outcome of your eternal fate. It would be self reckless. You’ll be taking the alternative route of Gods standard of good. Of course you can say “so what if it’s self reckless” but that would be your choice that determines your outcome.
@@HudClipz That's an interesting take on it, but it's hard to say whether there's an a priori basis for these "ought" statements in the first place. If you recall what Hume said on this, he made the distinction that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". So even if god is all-knowing, there is nothing you can say that can logically take you from "god knows X" to "god tells us we OUGHT to do X". This would still be a human intuition to lead from is --> ought which is not logically derivable from all-knowingness. Defining god in terms of "all-good" is quite a loaded term in the first place. The origin for where we get good and evil is from consciousness itself. All the theist ends up doing is inflating this notion infinitely when it comes to god. It's projection, and gives no insight on what the nature of "good" actually is. If you recall the old Euthyphro dilemma, this is the exact point that it is raising - is god commanding something because it is good, or is it good because god commands it? No matter what answer you give, there can never be a non-circular definition that answers this question. God's omnibenevolence is simply an extension of the human mind that we take for granted. This is akin to saying that god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and has the biggest biceps. Where did that come from? It was simply an extension of the experiences and attributes we give to ourselves as humans. If you want a sound definition of morality and you think naturalism can't give you an answer, then god certainly can't give you an answer either.
@@johnnylamaa2569 Let me address the all knowing part first and I’ll reply to the other statements since this will take up some space. That’s Theological fatalism, and it goes like this 1: God foreknows we will do X 2: if God foreknows we will do X, we will do X 3: We will necessarily do X The thought is that by this logic we will “necessarily” (or be forced to) do action X because of Gods foreknowledge. The first two premises are correct. However, the conclusion and point 3 does not follow from the prior points because of the injection of the additional word “necessarily”. In order for this logic to follow, we must remove “necessarily”. Since it does not appear in any of the original premises. We are left with this. 1: God foreknows we will do X 2: if God foreknows we will do X, we will do X 3: We will do X This is not logically coherent, but this argument no longer implies Gods foreknowledge forces action X, because action X is not necessary. The logic here only proves that there is a correlation between action X and Gods foreknowledge. Correlation does not imply causation. Then why is there a correlation? Because our future action X dictates what God foreknows. It turns out that our action X causes Gods foreknowledge, but not the only way around. This correct causation is the reason for the correlation.
I don’t think he was challenged at all. I think the challenge he was facing was that Kelly was being very slippery with rationalizing his worldview- even admitting that Determinism and Free Will can coexist (by some stretched philosophical argument). Kelly even misquoted Craig’s quote of Ruse and was basically asking Craig to explain why Ruse thought the way that he did. I felt Kelly was very defensive (naturally if you hold the belief the he holds) and that Craig was very patient with Kelly’s slippery logic.
@@hugomunoz9039 He can't be 'challenged,' he is a Christian. I've done Kagan's really excellent first year Yale course, and all I could think was how much Craig would benefit from that excellent dissection. Craig is no fool, he is an excellent thinker and fine speaker, but unfortunately for us all he is simply wrong. The last thing Shelly Kagan (there's no Kelly here) was is 'defensive,' that is pure fantasy on your part. Restrained, perhaps.
@@hugomunoz9039 "Man can will, but he cannot will what he wills" - Schopenhauer. Here, this, philosophy, as (not) opposed to theology: ua-cam.com/play/PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0.html
@@hinteregions Christians cannot be challenged? I have no idea what that even means. Anywho…yeah I’m sure craig could learn from kagan….kagan could also learn from Craig….we could all learn from each other. Haha.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
This seems like a flawed criticism of religion. After all, people who follow the Bible (Jews/Christians) can easily say that stealing is wrong because God decrees it thusly. In doing so, the Bible followers will have explained, through faith, why that act (stealing) is wrong. So, it seems like the central point of the comment is demonstrably incorrect.
This is probably the best debate I've ever seen involving William Lane Craig. I'm very impressed with Shelly Kagan's thorough logic and rhetorical skills. These are both things that Craig's opponents too seldom demonstrate.
@HuckFinn I disagree, logic and skillful debating tactics can and are sufficient for corralling Craig's case for theism. Most of the sophisticated rebuttals to his arguments come from published written sources (a fair share from professional philosophers), the debates are mostly for the interest of the public and getting a message out with an apologetics twist that is deemed important (from Craig's standpoint). Most of his opponents from what I've seen aren't particularly proficient in countering Craig's case (like outlining his assumptions with explanations on why they may not hold up). Craig is a sophisticated debater/apologist so he shouldn't be taken lightly, especially in public forum circumstances.
@HuckFinn I'm not the one who got on the offensive with no specific arguments. I'm not here to debate Kagan's points. I'm here to see if you actually have something useful to say, since you're obviously very opinionated. You think you're oh so clever bringing up Kagan and calling Craig names but you prove over and over again that you can't debate the topic. How hard is it to point out one incorrect point of Craig's? You're probably some loser who's just filling your missing self esteem with the hatred of someone clearly very intelligent and accomplished. If that's true, I pity you. Whatever the case, you're a waste of my time, so I'm done responding to your insipid remarks.
Of all the philosophers that Dr. Craig has debated, Kagan has probably been my favorite. But his argument still screams subjectivism to me. Fantastic debate.
Honest questions: The phrase "a perfectly rational being" (1:04) seems to presuppose a kind of morality by which Shelly Kagan asserts morality is then derived. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? Also when in the "evolutionary" process does he claim this rationality begins?
@@nathanfranckhauser Ok, I'll bite. Kagan didn't assert anything about how morality is derived. He was talking about moral principles and how we ground them, not our moral sense and where it comes from.
@@MissBlennerhassett876 This is incorrect both in terms of the overall debate: Kagan - "Is God necessary for morality?" (:26-:33 seconds in) And the context of my timestamp: 1hr 4min. (1:04)
It's very fortunate that morality is not _actually_ grounded in a celestial authority that previously condoned and mandated genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc.
Have you watched/read any responses to the issues you've brought up? I mean it would be cool if you did I promise the Bible isn't as immoral as you think it is
@@Miskeen-33 Yes, I've watched/read varying excuses people try to give to sugar-coat and justify things like genocidal infanticide, and as an ex-Christian I understand what it's like to be convinced that there's some divine goodness and rationale behind slaughtering little kids. I'll nonetheless reiterate that it's very fortunate that you don't actually get your morals from this deity.
@@Miskeen-33 _"the bedrock of society is judeo Christian ethics"_ Hmm 🤔 I find it interesting that you use the phrase _"judeo Christian"_ . Can I just point out that both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not dear ...
I came here thinking Craig might slaughter him, Because in most cases Craig uses his "philosophical" background to kill off Atheist. But it was so refreshing to see a great Atheist Philosopher like Shelly use a thinking beyond the depths of Craig's abilities.
At best Craig uses his knowledge of philosophy to make it sound like he has a point to those who don’t understand his references. If his goal was to be understood by speaking plainly, he would be de-converting people. Instead, he keeps people in the pews by giving them the comfort that someone who sounds smart agrees with them.
@@sjd1446’ve yet to see one commented criticism of WLC that isn’t a character attack lol. Don’t take it so personally. You’re free to be an atheist. You don’t have to be rude to help you cope with your beliefs.
@@tristan8041 Describing dr. Craig’s actions is in no way tantamount to attacking his character. I don’t see how anything I said could possibly be construed as rude. Why are you so sensitive about this? Apologies if I hurt your feelings. The reason I watch these videos is that I’m looking for a reasonable convincing argument against the position I currently hold. The reason I comment Is to share why I am not convinced in hopes that someone might point out a misunderstanding that I may have about the arguments I’m hearing. If you have anything to offer as far as that goes, I’d love to hear it.
I have to agree with many of the comments listed below, Craig was clearly out classed. Shelly immediately stumped him with his first question and Craig was unable to provide a compelling response when he was able to respond. I guess it makes a big difference when you're sitting across from an eminent philosopher who happens to be an atheist; he's trained in the same discipline as you so you can't flippantly use your philosophical training to brow-beat, you must provide cogent arguments. Craig definitely didn't provide any cogent responses to Shelly.
I love Craigs responses and thought Kagan was quite inept in his arguments. Guess just different strokes for different folk. Craig is the best in this debate and pretty much every one i have seen.
I have a feeling that Kagan is arguing for a morality more in the likes of Camus and Craig tryting to prove that Sartre's view is harmful. Other than that Kagan faired his arguments better as after all it is his field of research. Craig found himself in a territory not quite his own. Still, a very nice discussion, much better than the other atheist vs. Christian debates I've seen. Much more respect and no strawmen.
WLC doesn’t commit the no true scotsman fallacy. No Christian tradition, church or the scriptures teaches that there is no accountability for sins that someone does even if they repent. God punishes sin in this life and in purgatory (which only Catholics and Orthodox as far as I know teach). The no true scotsman fallacy only works if the regeneralization is arbitrary, but it’s not, as scripture and Church tradition do not teach what Kagan is saying. Thus, genuine Christians believe there is accountability for sins or evil committed. Kagan doesn’t know what he is talking about here.
Almost everything they say I find myself disagreeing with. Strange to see that after 4 years I’v realized I’m neither an atheist nor a Christian, and yet I still believe in God.
To this day I still haven't heard an answer to why whether something is good or not, from a worldview without GOD as a basis. I kept hearing about a "social contract" and how it would be objective, but if a group adopted and opposing "social contract" how would we know who is correct?
I think the understanding is that, this social contract is not arbitrary where a group suddenly decides on what's moral vs immoral. The idea is that it has happened over millennia, collectively, organically, where the species has come to recognize what things contribute to human flourishing vs what does not. Hence why our collective understanding of what "morality" is, has also evolved.
For me, ethics can be more objective than the social contract framing, because we continue to hone our understanding of human health and well-being, what promotes it, and what diminishes it. Can I say that human health being morally good is a universal absolute that exists separate from humans? No, definitely not. But it's a common ethical goal for our species, and I don't see a coherent alternative. (It seems that the only times it is justified to forego health and well-being are when the ultimate goal is an even greater or more widespread degree of health and well-being, like any other situations in life where we sacrifice a small happiness to achieve a greater one. This logic still applies in a religious context too, just with an added spiritual dimension of values.) Now, say there's a hypothetical group of humans, or another species, who actually have completely different conditions for their health and well-being (beyond just cultural norms). I don't think the issue with that scenario is whether their morality is *true*, but rather how we could get along with such a group - how our ethics can interact with theirs. That is a practical conundrum, but not so much a problem with the fundamental basis for ethics. I have no problem with the idea that other intelligent species could have different but valid ethics within their own species, because their health and psychology works differently. (We can make the comparison to other animal species on our planet, and figuring out how to coexist with them when they often have very different instincts and needs than humans.) To return your question in the other direction: I keep hearing about "God" and how it would be objective, but if a group adopted an opposing "God morality" how would we know who is correct? In other words, it is easy enough to say there is an objective morality. But I think the real puzzle is *how we can know* what that morality is. And it seems to me that the puzzle of how to know is just as concerning, and even more challenging, for those who must try to figure out God's morality.
@Greeneye Ethics simply boils down to accepted social norms in the way you seem to describe it. I don't believe we disagree about the furthering of human health and well-being as a general priority for a vast majority, but as you said there is no way to universally and objectively state that it is "good" or "evil". That is the main point. The inability to justify 'good and evil', 'right and wrong', and 'darkness and light' is not possible without a transcendent, independent, and morally perfect being. You brought up rival groups flying the banner of their GOD and proposing opposing idea's of what is morally good. That is the essence of most religious or anti-religious debate. Fundamentally, it is exactly, like you said, a competing of cultural ethics. The fundamental difference in Christianity is that it clearly explains that the evil (sin) we commit is what will separate us from the infinite, all-loving, and morally good creator for eternity. That creator will not be in the presence of imperfection, hence the choice for that same creator (out of his love) to provide a way to perfect us and reconcile us to Himself. Hence, the need for JESUS CHRIST. All of those other "God groups" say to do more good than bad according to their cultural ethics, with no way to rectify past sin or evil. I kind of got off topic, but I said that to say if there isn't a transcendent moral law giver, then any actions taken (whether individually or collectively) cannot objectively be deemed good or bad. Furthermore, if there is no judge or punishment for evil, then why should anyone care?
@@ThereIsHopeInCHRIST777 It's objective in the same way that medicine is objective in terms of human health. As to why anyone should care: Well, why should anyone care about eating when hungry, or sleeping when deprived of sleep, or healing an injury? Do we require the same kind of ultimate "reason" to care about those things? Don't get me wrong, there are some troubles. Like, how do you justify human well-being to someone who truly doesn't care about it or feel any compassion? I don't know the answer to that. But do you? How do you justify religious ethics to the same person if they don't care about spiritual purity? For that question, we are in the same exact boat. But I have no problem accepting that there might be no "absolute" moral good separate from the experience of living beings. That is very far from saying there is nothing for me to care about. As a human, I am quite well fit to caring about the human experience, and about the nature of the world I live in. P.S. I would definitely challenge your claim that non-Christians have no way to resolve past evils. But I think that's a tangent we don't need to go on. And by the way, even if I accept a transcendent basis for a moral good, that still leaves the question of **how to know** what that is. How to figure out the morally good behaviors. Me, I'm gonna look for something more objective than the words of a holy text. And I mean that with all due respect to the wisdom contained in any given one.
@@gerardjayetileke4373You are explaining the origin of morality, that is you are outlining how and why morality came to be. However, putting aside this simple ontological aspect of morality, the harder question to answer is why should one ought to be moral. Why should I care for morality if it just is a societal consensus? If morality is merely decided by a majority vote, then it means nothing to me - it follows that I should do whatever I like without any regard for morality.
This has bothered me for years & bothered me further b/c I've not seen a comment addressing it: anyone else awe-struck by the casual dropping of the so-called "No True Scotsman" fallacy at 1:14:36? Does that alone not seriously undermine the "objective" morality argument that Craig had been on the ropes with for the better part of the beginning topic? Who among you can w/ authority define the genuine characteristics of a christian properly w/o contest or complaint? I would like to know why this isn't a tacit admission of defeat.
He is saying that there is no accountability since the rapist or murderer knows that they can still find god someday at the time of committing the moral wrong. I think that's far fetched and Craig is right in saying that a Christian cant think that way because no human being would think this way. If they are not Christian or say an atheist then absolution wouldn't be something they considered possible even if they planned to find god etc. I highly doubt someone who is "100%" sure that Jesus's promise is real would be the same person committing that crime.
Hey Steve Frank, thanks for the comment. . . . "A christian cant think that way because no human being would think this way" (sic) So I am not sure what exactly that means. Are you sincerely trying to posit that no Christian, never mind a human being, not only has never, but in fact could never, think that it was possible for them to commit a crime (or crimes) then repent upon their deathbed & be forgiven by God & remanded to Heaven everlasting? That to think in such a way would somehow negate their status as quote-unquote Real Christians?
I think Kagan won handily. When your arguments are well thought-out, you iron out any problems and they make intuitive sense, and then you don't struggle to answer questions. Craig clearly struggled several times. Kagan never did.
@@geki9063 Exactly! It seems amazing to me that Craig would even contemplate debating an accomplished moral philosopher like Kagan in defence of an argument that is widely recognised in the philosophical community as being one of the poorest arguments there is to account for morality. Here Kagan shows unequivocally that not only can you successfully ground morality in a robustly defensible secular framework, but that there are multiple robustly defensible approaches (as there are!) that could have been called upon. Of course, Craig never once does what he should do to defend his position, which is to show systematically the flaws in all these approaches and why theism is the answer. Of course I understand that this is a time constrained discussion forum, but just the same he does not even give a cursory nod to competing explanations. This lack of honest engagement (and acknowledgment of competing views he has a duty to show are flawed) can leave believers with the false impression that there are only two explanations of morality, when there in fact dozens. And then to see Craig, an accomplished philosopher, shamelessly commit the no true Scotsman fallacy when pressed hard by Kagan, was truly pitiful.
How is your claim justified if, in his opening statement he claims that God is the ontological foundation for morality and that without him objective moral values and duties do not exist. If that is the argument he is making, then it is not the case that he is resorting to personal incredulity.
“But that proposed fact wouldn’t be emotionally satisfying to me, so that counts as strong evidence that it’s false.” Talk about fallacious reasoning. This isn’t the first time Craig has made this kind of argument, either.
@@itehtruthi1I don’t see personal incredulity claimed, but I could be wrong. The failure of the argument is obvious, immediate and catastrophic to the careful critics thinker. If OMs exist independently of minds, as Craig claims, and god has a mind, then by axiomatic definition they exist independently of god’s mind. god cannot be the author of something that exists independently of his own mind. Craig uses special pleading to get around this and will cite OMs as being a function of his being. But this opens up modified horns of the Euthyphro dilemma that infinitely regress. Add in divine command and the fact that theism can’t get an ought from an is, and this argument falls on its own sword.
In terms of cosmic consequences, I think Craig has it exactly backwards - the importance of human suffering is magnified vastly if this really is our only life on the universe. For infants born with, say, heart defects who exist for only hours in anguish, if they're to be rewarded with eternal bliss, the proportion of their suffering to their pleasure is negligible. The mind of the believer in cosmic justice is soothed. For moral people who don't believe in an afterlife (including many Jews), it becomes vastly more of a problem and a spur to action. In fact, his comments on speciesism are sound, but atheists like CosmicSkeptic don't use that as a reason to constrain their circles of sympathy, they use it as grounds to limit the scale of behaviour which causes suffering which they're complicit in.
There are no "cosmic consequences" in a materialist universe, there is no reason for existence, no value to life at all. All information will degrade and become irretrievable with the heat death of the universe - pain never mattered, nor does a full life or even a life of billions of years, it is but a flash in the pan to be utterly destroyed for infinite eternity. Only in a universe where there is a design for something greater, a place where we are building to, a way for everything to add up to something new, does anything matter.
@@Maxalthor It only matters by fiat: Euthyphro’s dilemma. Terror management theory compels us to lie to one another about an extension of our ego, then to further abandon empathy as a basis of our interactions with each other.
@@gamerknown There is no dilemma, good is of God's nature and pushes towards greater revelation, divine growth or destiny, all that is not of God will perish and become meaningless. Being fearful is irrelevant, you have no basis for anything to matter at all without some form of spirituality, you are taking for granted an implicit faith or you are in denial of reality.
@@manne8575 no, you can't. I'm not assured at all. Most likely you'll be unable to answer basic questions about how Christian belief even plausibly makes sense, much less is actually true
I'm convinced that one of two things are true about most posters here: 1) They never watched this debate and are just spouting what they already believe 2) They are not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge or allow themselves to understand Craig's rock-solid logic. Most of the posters here fit into the category of "don't confuse me with the facts, I already know what I believe." Their faith in their non-theistic worldview has so blinded them to common sense and logic, that they are simply unable to open their minds to other views, even if they are well formed and articulated. This is not meant to be an ad-hominem attack, just a realistic, honest assessment as I see it.
"don't confuse me with the facts, I already know what I believe." I'm putting this on a shirt. Nothing seems to better express some of the comments in this section.
Craig keeps associating aspects like love, goodness, etc. to god, of which he knows nothing about. You can't say that god is unknowable, therefore here are his attributes, and only those attributes that I myself ascribe to. It's funny how god never once has any kind of conflict with and of his followers. his will is always 100% their will.
You have no idea what "dying to the self" or "taking up your cross" means. But yes, there are many wolf in sheep's clothing these days...(hypocrites). Also, God is not unknowable. He gave us the bible for a reason. His attributes are in His word.
@@squirreljester2 What was your point? The second half of your comment was wrong. The first half was also wrong. God is not completely unknowable because we have the bible to describe His attributes.
You get the impression that Craig doesn't have a clue what is going on in half of these debates. He has had this permeant deer in the headlights look on his face for the last decade. I can only assume his pride or his wallet still compels him to go out to these things.
Also, a quick point Craig wasn't allowed to expound on this but according to the Bible, we act morally because we want to follow God's objective command for X or Y, NOT for the SOLE reason we will be rewarded, so Craig's point that moral reasons and prudent reasons will conflict for the Christian and the Christian ought to chose the moral reason. I think Craig in the interest of time seemed to concede the point that because we will be rewarded for choosing the moral over the prudent, it is actually prudent to chose the moral reason, when while he acknowledges that we will be rewarded, and we often know this, it is not the basis by which we act morally.
I'll answer this using the question WLC absurdly asked of Shelly Kagan during the back and forth portion. For WLC to say "well what if someone in society does not sign the contract" and then act as if that is the straw that breaks the camels back is a misunderstanding of social contract theory. It, in no way, threatens social contract theory. When talking about social contract theory, I often find that people misconstrue what the actually "contract" means. The contract is not some physical document that everyone HAS to sign and HAS to agree to at birth - and I'm not claiming that you in particular make this claim, but I've heard it made before - the social contract is, instead, an immaterial societal agreement that is encompassed in the form of our traditional norms, folkways and general traditions that make any particular group of people who they are, as distinguished by their culture. So now the question, what if someone doesn't sign the contract? Well, we have the same label for them that anyone else in society would have for them: we would call them criminals, and we would call them general deviants. Those types of people are unavoidable, every society of people has it's deviants. Everyone has a contract, whether you like it or not, if you are born into a society where people live socially then you are living in the terms that they have created. Now, whether or not you choose to deviate from the contract is up to said individual, keep in mind the definition I gave of what the "contract" represents. WLC argues that in order for their to be good, there has to be evil, for without the evil, we cannot possibly know that what is good is good. We can apply the exact same reasoning to social contract and, in fact, I could ask the same type of question and say "well what if someone doesn't obey god?" Does that destroy the god argument? Of course not, because all you have to say is that the said individual will face repercussions from God for not obeying. The social contract line of reasoning is the same, except instead of said individual appealing to God for disobedience, they appeal to the repercussions they will face from society for their disobedience which will take the form of social ostracism, time spent in prison, and other ways that we humans punish our own. I wish that Kagan would have really laid the wood to WLC here, because he certainly had the opportunity, as it was clear that WLC had a scant understanding of what the actual contract represents. But this is part of what makes theories like social contract, consequentialism, and utilitarianism so effective. They are common sense theories. It is not hard, nor a reach, to believe that human beings, through everyday social interaction over time, develop the foundations for the societies they live in. You almost want want to say, well duh. It doesn't require nearly as much mental gymnastics that WLC has to go through to justify his beliefs.
Kagan says “Let us all imagine a contract because we’re all perfectly rational” I suppose Kagan will be the perfectly rational human? Good luck maybe all of our politicians will sign it! What an a absurdity!😂
Carlos Danger Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems as if your explanation and Shelly’s explanation are different. The major difference is that Shelly did NOT include “societal norms” in his explanation. He said, this contract is what would be agreed upon by “perfectly rational” beings. This is a statement that seems to transcend societal norms, and presents a “sort of” objective foundation for morality. My problem is with “perfectly rational beings”. It’s a thought experiment that assumes the outcome. For instance, why would “harming someone” be bad? There are different reasons people can come up with, but there seems to also be reasons why people are perfectly fine to harm someone just because they want to (what WLC pointed out, even if you only consider it 1 reason as opposed the “the” reason). So why think that perfectly rational beings would agree on the outcome that he is expressing? It seems to be begging the question IMO. However, I am genuinely open to increasing my understanding of why you explained “social contract theory” differently than Shelly did IN THIS VIDEO. I’m open to you telling me the areas where I am wrong as well. Hope that makes sense.
Around 19:18 Kagan makes the point that if you brought four different secular moral philosophers on the stage you would likely get four different stories on how to ground morality. I have had this debate playing in the background, so I think I've missed something; however if I'm not mistaken I'm fairly certain that the nature of objective morality plays a role in the debate. That said, if four secular moral philosophers have four different explanations of grounding morality, wouldn't that imply that on the secular view morality isn't objectively grounded at all?
Not necessarily, though that is a good point. There could be, even under objective analysis, multiple mutually satisfactory moral answers to a problem. There could also be fuzzy or unknown answers due to limitations, but we can still try for the _best_ answer in an objective fashion. And there could be moral philosophers who are mistaken. I don't think one should make too much of that statement in the way you characterize it, since his point there was more just to concede the fact that moral analysis is difficult and not as unambiguous as certain areas of human analysis, though that doesn't make it not objective in some respects at least. The objectivity comes from the fact that it's objectively verifiable if you are or are not "not doing harm, and doing help."
If four scientists argue about the mass of a star, that doesn't mean that there is no objective mass to the star. The point that Dr. Kagan is making is that there are many logically consistent versions of morality that do not rely on God. He's not arguing which one is the actual correct interpretation. This is the same for Theistic views on morality, which have many different flavors and nuances. If disagreement within the atheistic camps means they are wrong, than the same must be said for the Theists.
The only thing kagan did in this entire debate was defend an inferior position aggressively. He pushed that he was okay with subjective moral relativism and no more. At some point Craig can no longer compete because his opponent admits he is satisfied with less. Kagan's ideology is in no way realistic or liveable because it runs into so many problems. Craig presented this well by asking what if a certain individual didn't want to sign the contract? What makes him morally obligated to do so if he feels he stands to gain more by not signing? What if he feels he's being harmed and not helped by being forced to sign the contract? Kagan won nothing, there's just only so much Craig can say to someone who finds an illogical position comfortable. Also, just because a contract is made and signed by the majority it doesn't follow that this proves the contract is good. It's merely functional.
Craig really showed his hand in this debate. He honestly believes that unless our lives have a cosmic, eternal purpose, than our lives don't have any meaning at all. The mere concept that maybe this life is the only life we have, and one day all humanity will be lost out to sea due to the inevitable entropy of the universe very clearly scares Craig. It seems pretty clear to me that the basis for his theistic beliefs are out of fear and wishful thinking. And notice how Craig dodged the point Kagan raised in regards to the justice system of Christianity. If all that it takes to be saved and rewarded in the afterlife is to recognize your wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness, then it really doesn't matter what the consequences of your actions on this earth are. You can be Hitler, and as long as you genuinely repent your sins and pray for salvation before your death, it will be granted. If you were one of Hitler's Jewish victims who died without holding the belief that Jesus is lord, then you will be sent to Hell. Actions are not rewarded in Christianity, but merely beliefs are. This is not a just or moral system, yet this is the very system that Craig espouses to be objective and perfect, and him claiming that no genuine Christian would act this way doesn't wave this problem away. All Craig did was vaguely describe a powerful, supernatural entity that supposedly created the universe and gives us our morality. Yet this entity isn't in any way objectively proven to exist in the first place, and faith is completely required to believe in it. And you honestly think that presupposing on faith this entity is somehow more realistic in determining how humanity should behave as moral creatures, than the rational approach Kagan offered?
+rimrattler8 To be fair to both speakers, scope of the discussion wasn't designed for Kagan to expound on his views regarding compatabilism, or for Craig to argue for the existence of God or examine Christian morality. Even if Craig is right about the necessity of God for an objective morality, his argument is as such that God doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian god. Of course, both Kagan and Craig explore these topics on other lectures and videos.
Kagan answered that point when he said that the moral contract is something that is implicitly imposed on us all by our existence with one another. Kagan's answer provides an obvious response to your questions, showing them to be nonsensical. The social contract does not harm harm us more than help us, because it born of correct reasoning, so if someone feels they are harmed more than helped by it, that is merely the instance of someone who is irrational. They are wrong about the contract, but cannot see it. The contract is a metaphor, but your questions treat it as a paper with a signature, which means you obviously did not understand it.
Firstly, I don't think Kagan's only point was that he'd be okay with moral relativism. If anything, he seemed to propose an objective moral framework from a naturalistic perspective. On a completely unrelated note, every moral system can be destroyed with a simple objection: "I don't care." You can go on and on about why murder is wrong because it destroys the harmony of the social group or that it psychologically damages the people close to the victims as well as the perpetrator, but if the person you're trying to convince doesn't care about any of it, you can't convince him/her. The same is true of theistic moral frameworks; why should I not have extramarital sex? Presumably because God will send me to hell but I don't care about that. It's an intellectual dead end. What's more, just because God commands something doesn't necessarily make it good. This implies goodness is not contingent upon God, a conclusion which decimates the foundation of theistic ethics. Of course, we can try to get around the problem by defining goodness as that which is in accordance to God's commands. While this move solves the problem, it creates another problem just as devastating. If we define goodness as that which comports to God's commands, we've turned goodness into a meaningless concept. It just means that God is what he is and he's not what he's not. That's all I had to say.
Craig really got exposed here, he basically admitted that he chose theism because naturalism depresses him. His expressions are very telling, when Kagan tells him that the idea of "no absolute meaning" isn't depressing to him, Craig looks utterly dumbfounded as if the prospect of a meaningless universe should shock everyone to the core- he's just a weak boy inside.
It’s about what corresponds to reality. So for example the natural world is survival of the fittest and the world is cruel. Everything is trying to survive. The fact we even have a concept of good or know it when we experience it is telling. Why do we have it if the universe is uncaring and the natural world is pure raw survival. This line of thinking that since there is no ultimate purpose or meaning you can do whatever you want. The Nazis took this worldview seriously. Darwinism/survival of the fittest. If the only thing is Nature then what they did corresponds to reality. Nobody can live moral relativism out. If you say there is no meaning or purpose to life then you can’t say anything is wrong or right objectively. Yes you may be able to give your subjective morality but that’s akin to giving an opinion. Basically meaning it has no value or correctness in reality We know naturalism isn’t true because we get convicted of stuff that is wrong. What is guilt. Idk it seems to me where the evidence points to
Craig’s first point is to define God into existence (God = good/good = God and God = morality giver, so since we have morality and “good” God must exist)
Craig really exposed himself here; he didn't really counter any of Kagan's points, his most telling response was: "Isn't that depressing?". There you go. That's the foundation of most people who believe in religion/god: fear.
@Jaqui Cx I find John Lennox to be much worse in terms of making viable arguments, though he is much better at speaking on his feet than Craig, but this amounts to little more than him simply being better at off-the-cuff sophistry resting on a foundation of suppositions, question-begging, and emotional appeals whether by quote-mining or by telling anecdotes. Craig at least tries to stay on a somewhat-academic philosophical approach to his arguments
_Jesushadasister,_ Eh Craig did counter the most important point by pointing out Kagan has no objective basis for saying things are objectively good or bad. I agree with most of what Craig says in his criticism of Kagan. It's frustrating because Craig makes the exact same mistake by calling _his own_ subjective morality "objective". He doesn't have evidence of objective moral values, or god(s), or those god(s) causing objective morality, and he'd need all three for his position to be sound. It's also frustrating because basically everything else Kagan said is fantastic, but for such a key element to be out of place feels bad. Well-being is even the best framework for morality I've heard. I wish it was easier to just say "hey, well-being is pretty great, right? Let's figure out how to maximize it" and entirely skip the subjective/objective part of the conversation to get at the more interesting topics much deeper into the field (we need to not only make people aware of tools like the Veil of Ignorance, we need to develop new ones that constantly refine our shared morality). Lastly, it's frustrating that I just want to see Craig debate on morality against someone who _isn't_ calling subjective morality "objective". Kagan did it here, and Sam Harris did it in another debate, and I feel it's just a softball toss into a "well provide evidence that what you're calling objective morality is objectively good or bad" at which point the atheist can't do that (nor can the theist, because nobody can apparently do that), at which point it makes Craig seem like his position is better than it is.
@@majmage The problem is their different definitions of "objective". When Kagan says "objective morality" he's alluding to a secular ethical system that is objectively beneficial to human beings. When Craig says "objective morality" he's alluding to a almighty being who dictates what is good and bad. One of these two is basing their morality on something real, the other is delusional.
@@j2mfp78 It's a discussion about morality. We have moral duties by virtue of social contract, human reason, the ability to appreciate immorality and consequences, etc. Kagan addressed all these.
@@superdog797 But those are just assertions. Who decided this was the criteria and that anyone has any obligation to accept or follow it? Someone could come up with a completely different set of criteria. Why would 1 be more valid than the other?
@@j2mfp78 Those aren't assertions. They are statements of fact. Someone could choose to ignore them if they want but they still exist. An assertion is an unjustified statement about some fundamental truth of reality. Kagan talked about this in the debate - he pointed out that the moral community comes to consensuses on moral positions. You ask "well what if someone changed [some aspect of morality]?" Well so what if they changed it? What's your point? On a separate note what do you make of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
00:02 Belief in God not necessary for morality 02:02 Is moral behavior dependent on belief in a deity? 06:07 Exploring justifications for harming or failing to help in moral philosophy. 07:57 Morality is objective and centered on reasons to help others and avoid harm. 12:09 Ethical rules originate from a hypothetical bargaining session behind a veil of ignorance. 14:13 Morality does not necessarily require a moral lawgiver 18:38 Morality can be grounded in a secular fashion without the need for God. 20:35 Morality does not require a divine enforcer 25:09 Without God, moral values are not objective 27:40 Human morality is viewed as a biological adaptation. 32:34 Without God, no basis for objective moral duties 34:54 Without God, there is no objective moral law or accountability. 39:35 God is vitally necessary to morality 42:16 Debate on why inflicting harm is considered wrong on a naturalistic worldview 46:16 Evolutionary process leads to moral behavior 48:08 Exploring the uniqueness of human beings and their inherent value 51:40 Debating the compatibility of determinism and free will 53:23 Discussion on ethics being illusory and deeper meaning 57:22 Objective moral values must have significance beyond the cosmic scale 59:15 On atheism, prudential value and moral value are often in conflict. 1:02:44 Prudential reasons are not necessarily superior to moral reasons under naturalism. 1:04:46 God is necessary for free will and genuine moral choices. 1:08:49 Objective moral values require a transcendent standard like God 1:10:55 Objective morality is not contingent on perfect rationality 1:14:39 Our moral lives matter and make a difference regardless of cosmic doom. 1:16:42 God's stewardship involves caring for animals and the environment. 1:20:52 Evolution plays a role in societal moral progress. 1:22:52 Importance of God's existence for morality 1:27:02 Theistic beliefs not essential for grounding morality. 1:29:11 Cosmic significance not necessary for morality
It seems to me this contractarianism is simply, we make up a story about an event that never happened where perfectly rational people set down some moral rules and we try to make it as believable and realistic as possible. Even if you got that right, all you’d have is a very believable story, not an actual event where we all sat down and drew out a social contract. How can we have any moral duty to behave as if this myth were true? It never happened. Nobody discussed the matter and nobody agreed to anything. We made it up. There is no social contract. But we have a moral duty to behave as if there was one because it’s a very believable myth. I’m afraid I don’t find it believable and I think if everyone were perfectly rational and sat down to draw out a social contract, not only would the resulting contract look radically different from anything anyone might imagine, it probably would result in a war.
In one of Kagan's responses, he says that the reason we would regard human harming human as wrong, and not baboon harming baboon as wrong, is that humans have rationality, i.e. the ability to think. The fact that he leaves it there, makes his point quite unsatisfactory. For why does this ability to think suddenly make it wrong that we harm another creature? Thinking is the ability to be intellectually aware of objects. So why does the ability to be intellectually aware of objects make it so that we ought not to harm another human being? There must be something, within Kagan's view, about the act of "harming another human being" that makes doing the act + being intellectually aware of the act, wrong. WC rightly points out that rationality may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Kagan's reply to this point is just as unsatisfactory: He says that the reason thinking matters, is because, if I have rationality (can think), then I am aware of reasons NOT to, for example, murder. This would mean that the necessary and sufficient condition for an act being wrong, is that I can think of reasons not to do it. But this has the absurd conclusion that helping a dying person out of a ditch is wrong if I can think of any old reason for not doing it - for example, "if I don't help this person out of a ditch, then I can catch up on my homework".
Samuel Bennett In my opinon there is no need of rudeness here and if you decided he is not worth your time to refute than the sole reason for the very existence of your comment it simply to present unnecessary negativity. Now, that being said I do agree that trough Kelly's logic it's perfectly viable to think of a reason NOT to help the old lady and it'll be morally acceptable to leave here there, however what reason will that be ? Certainly the "homework" example will not do here. The reason you can think of for not helping the old lady out has to in some way out-trump the importance of her life. Unquestionably the homework example does not out-trump her life but let's take for instance an example where there is another ditch right next to her and in that ditch is your wife/mother/daughter. And you have time to save only one of the 2 stuck individuals. Yet, unless one life is compared to another (like in my example) I cannot think of other situations where something else can out-trump a life.
Simeon Vasilev Hello Simeon...so you are claiming that the reason I am wrong to not help the person out of the ditch in order to do my homework, is that the reason for doing my homework is not as good as the reason to help the person out of the ditch. I certainly agree. But notice you have introduced the idea that certain reasons for acting (i.e. certain goals) are better than other goals. So it seems your suggestion implies (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason you can hold someone morally responsible for what they do is that, in virtue of having rationality (ability to think), they can be aware of goals, as well as aware of how certain goals TRUMP other goals, i.e. that certain goals are better than others. But, in Kagan's response, he said that people are morally responsible for actions JUST by being aware of reasons for not doing something, i.e. that all you need for humans to be worthy of praise or blame is for them to be aware of reasons not to do something. But it looks like you need something extra, as you pointed out: there needs to be certain goals that are better than others. The reason it is wrong for me to do homework instead of save a child, is not simply because I can think of a reason to not do my homework and save a child. For I can also think of a reason to not save a child and do my homework. The key, as you said, is that my reason for doing hwk is worse than my reason for saving the person. And since this reason is worse, and, qua rational, I can be aware of these reasons, I am morally responsible. But Kagan said that being capable of being aware of reasons for actions (and of course being able to control your actions) is sufficient for being moral. It seems you need the extra bit about certain reasons being superior to others. To put it differently: simply because my thoughts do control my actions according to the intentions I make, doesn't make me morally responsible. That fact PLUS the extra fact that certain states of affairs are better than others (the state of affairs where "my hwk is incomplete and the child is alive" is better than one where "my hwk is complete and the child is dead"), makes humans worthy of praise or blame.
Simeon Vasilev Right. Contra Kagan, simply the fact that humans are rational (can know and can control behavior) won't get you the result that humans are deserving of praise or blame. Cs if all states of affairs had equal value, no goal would be any more laudable than another.
Samuel Bennett That's a pretty good point. Not sure why the other dude was anti it if he wasn't trolling (I've seen lots of atheists claim to use 'reason' and 'logic' even though all they've done is reject some parts of the old testament and call people idiots if their thoughts aren't in agreement with them...I'm not one of those type of atheists) But I think what Kagan means is that we can think about our morality, and it's not just that we can think, but we can distinguish, as it was pointed out in the debate, between what's prudent to do, and what's right to do. By being able to think, we can distinguish between what's prudent to do (like doing your homework) and what's right to do (like helping out a stranger). You clearly have this capability, to distinguish these two, and so do most people. Just because we can think of reasons not to do each doesn't justify our actions. That just means we can think. But at the end of the day, we can distinguish between what's moral and what's simply prudent. It's not just about thinking, but it's that we actually can think 'morally.' Seems to me there's something in our thought process that lets us 'think' morally.
Shelly Kagan is the one who really takes WL Craig apart. Really shows the difference between a thoughtful intellectual and an apologist. Others have gotten lost in his circular logic and strawmen. Even a great intellect like Hitchens didn't flay him open like Kagan has no problem doing. Thank you Prof. Kagan!
+lrathome He did nothing of the kind in this debate. I will say WLC was a bit lost in the debate and seemed not sure what Shelly was even attempting to argue or defend. Shelly truthfully never really made a logical point either but instead made assumptions about morality and accepted them as true without logical defense. WLC pretty much answered alot of these arguments with Sam Harris quite well and avoided the red herrings that were tossed around. Shelly may have looked better he made no real defense in this debate.
I agree.....the format helped. I thought Harris did a god job too. Hitchens was not his sharpest with WLC, but the reality it's that Craig really didn't bring anything significant to the table.
This was much more informative than the standard debates that Craig appears in, and Kagan was a great interlocutor in terms of bringing out the nonsense in some of Craig's arguments. "Absent God, our moral choices don't matter because of the heat-death of the universe billions of years from now." Does anyone actually buy that argument?!
What exactly is the counter argument? Seems pretty self explanatory that in the long run, given the heat death of the universe, nothing matters in the long run as nothing is lasting. Things only have temporary value to creatures who are themselves only temporary
The problem is this: if we don't have free will, then we're not morally responsible for our actions. But if we're not morally responsible, then we don't have any moral duties, and right and wrong are just an illusion. This isn't an airtight argument, though. Lots of philosophers think that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism; what matters isn't that we're absolutely free, but that we're able to use reason. I think that's the right view, myself, but it's not obviously true.
Kagan fails in his argument that morality depends upon your position in society, and "what kind of creature you are." It fails because that position is relative, not objective, and as such it applies individually and recklessly with no firm boundary. For instance, the Nazis thought their position in the social sphere was superior to all others. They then used that personal view of themselves to kill and do harm - and justified it. This is what Craig means by morality must be objective, and not based on some fanciful notion of position. Kagan hasn't really thought through his argument.
Kagan seems to be a very intelligent and thoughtful person…I would be less flippant about accusing a Yale professor of not "thinking through his argument." Kagan does not fail…yes the Nazi's used subjective reasons to commit atrocities…the rest of the "social sphere" i.e. the society as a role looked at the situation objectively and came to the correct moral conclusion. We don't need a God to be accountable to…it's enough to be accountable to each other.
jdplanas I'm not sure how stating that Kagan hasn't thought through his argument is "flippant", but oh well. Just because a person has a degree from a prestigious institution does little to impress me on subjects like this. That's because it's often the case that the person's emotional and personal views get in the way of their common sense or "smarts." Intellectual skills often take a back seat to personal worldview, and I think that's the case here for Kagan. In the case of the Nazis, you note that "the rest of the "social sphere" i.e. the society as a whole looked at the situation objectively and came to the correct moral conclusion." And...your point? The issue is that morals can and are just subjective points of order without an objective source to lay the moral framework. Using Kagan's point of view, there's no reason to believe that his morals are any better or more beneficial than mine are, or the Nazis were. Craig is correct - Kagan is not - in spite of his Yale degree.
dweezel theyounger "Using Kagan's point of view, there's no reason to believe that his morals are any better or more beneficial than mine are, or the Nazis were." Err, what? There's no reason not to think the Nazis morals was beneficial? You might want to reconsider that statement.
dweezel theyounger My first point wasn't an argument from authority. I don't agree or disagree with him because he has a Dr. in front of his name. Kagan's point is that we can be our own source of objective morality and he he laid out a good argument. My point is that a Yale University professor of philosophy (who has dedicated his life's work to the subject) has probably spent a good deal of time thinking through his position. You may have very valid points for disagreeing (or not), but accusing him of not thinking it through is insulting. So when someone disagrees with you it's because they haven't thought it through enough? And if you take some time to think it through, you'll see the real argument from authority comes from the religious. They claim their god is the only source of morality and then claim exclusive access to speak for that god. That is not objective morality, it's divine command authority. What was the excuse used by Nazi's during Nuremburg? It wasn't my fault, I was ordered to do it. The whole line of reasoning that without God the Nazi worldview is just as valid as anyone else's I find ridiculous and relies on a known logical fallacy reductio ad absurdum. It's not like the Jews were wandering around the desert and didn't figure out murder was objectively wrong until forty days after they reached Mt Sinai.
-- Kagan was talking ethics and rationality theory. Craig was talking moral ontology and existentialism. Kagan was being dishonest because he knows on moral ontology and existentialism there is a lot more than what he is just talking about. 1. Why would human existence even have moral value & worth to begin with ? 2. Why not live according to self interest if this is the one and only life that you have ? 3. If all life ends at the grave, then ones destiny of the grave its totally unrelated to ones behaviour in life. Therefore, it does not really matter how one lives their life as it all ends up the same. 4. Who or what is laying any real moral oughts or shoulds upon anyone if there really are none ? So, Craig was addressing these questions where Kagan was not. Craig won the debate. Therefore, Kagan bluffed his way through and because many people don't know about moral ontology and existentialism -- then they thought Kagan won when he didn't at all.
Well i know what existencialism is,but i'm not convinced that craig won the debate. He simply said that we should not harm other people BECAUSE they can feel pain,therefore they get unhappy,therefore it is bad. To be unhappy simply means that we are experiencing something we don't want to experience,AND that we want to go away. The fact that we are helping other people may have relative value,but it has value nontheless.
luca montermini You wrote…. // He simply said that we should not harm other people BECAUSE they can feel pain,therefore they get unhappy,therefore it is bad. // Craig never said that.
Dr. Crag asked,” Why do you define harming others is absolutely wrong.” Dr. Kagan said,” Because I am able to realize the definition (Because I am able to realize this behavior wrong.)”
I would say definition of morality is not harming others. No more, no less. And since God cannot change moral laws with his will, that means moral laws are independent of anybody's will. Moral platonism also suggest that, so we can eliminate the middle man, God.
@@goranmilic442 It's not that God can't change moral laws with his will, rather that God's will or God's nature is the moral law. This is why the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. 1. Are things good because God wills them? or 2. Does God will things because they are good? Rather, God as the greatest maximal being is maximally good, therefore being more like God is good and less like God is evil. God is neither arbitrarily determining things to be good or held to a higher standard that is itself good, rather since God is good, he wills good things.
@@grantgooch5834 "Since God is good, he wills good things" doesn't really explain why this would be a false dilemma. You didn't explain who and how decided that, for example, rape is bad. You just said that God is good, rape is bad, so God is against rape. That doesn't explain why did God decided that. To put it simply, when God created rule "rape is bad", he either had reason for that or he hadn't have reason for that. If there was no reason, then all moral rules are arbitrary, there was nothing to stop God to decide rape is good. If there was reason why rape is bad, then those reasons are always valid, even without God, so you don't need God to realize that rape is bad.
@@goranmilic442 what about cheating on your wife or sleeping with your best friends wife without anyone knowing. No one is being hurt, what about lying about your SAT score to get into college. What about peeping and watch someone take a shower without them knowing. No one is being harmed. those things seem immoral to me.
The problem with God/bible based morality is that it is so easily set aside and then recovered when convenient. The worst, most reprehensible acts are simply waived away by a deathbed confession and acceptance of Christ as your lord and savior, clearing the path to heaven. On the other hand, someone who does not accept the teachings of the bible but leads a perfectly honorable life will be denied any path to heaven.
If this were premeditated then God would most certainly catch this, he knows peoples hearts and by definition he will execute justice perfectly. Much more perfect than any Judge.
@@DX48H9WM How could any rational person possibly think that a god decided that the best way for him to be able to forgive man, for being evil & immoral by breaking rules that god knew in advance that they would break when he made those rules and created evil. Was to send a version of himself down to earth then sacrifice himself to himself. Thus preventing his need to punish his creations for something their ancestors did before they knew the difference between right and wrong. 🤔 ??????? ☝️☝️ I mean just actually think about that for a minute 🤔🤔🤔
Yes, you could have a sudden death acceptance of faith and been terrible in life and still go to Heaven. But, you will be judged. God is perfect justice and you will get your justice perfectly. As for the other point, that person chose that they didn't want to be with God in that scenario. God made free will and will not force you to be at his side if you don't want too.
One of very few debates where Craig was outmatched. Now nothing Craig has ever said has convinced me, I think his arguments are many assertions and a lot of inference that he can't back up but he is a phenomenal debater and I have to give him all the credit in the world for that he has outmatched some of the best atheists on the planet. Here's the thing about debates, just because you lose doesn't mean the other person is right and that includes atheists. If an atheist wins a debate it doesn't mean that a God doesn't exist. Sometimes people are just better at debating and William Craig is a perfect example of that because his position is ridiculous but he could debate that 2 + 2 = 6 and when in most cases. Here he got out matched and there's only been a few times that has happened. I think it's funny how he always talks about Richard Dawkins being scared of debating him when he won't debate dillahunty. I think that William Lane Craig fans would love to see him have a discussion with matt and I know that dillahunty fans would love to see him have a debate with craig. If you're going to call someone scared you better not be running from someone else.
William Lane Craig is an excellent orator, and that skill combined with the depth of his familiarity with scholarly philosophical work is what tends to give him the edge in debates with non-experts. His famous debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are, broadly, pretty favorable for Craig. This debate shows what happens when Bill is made to debate an actual expert on the topic of the debate. Shelly Kagan shows quite competently that God is simply not necessary for morality in any serious way. Craig is quite the speaker, and he has a fantastic ability to present relatively clever arguments in a clear, concise way. His biggest problem is that his views just don't hold up. In fairness, he did have the much harder task in this debate, I think. Craig needed to show that God is necessary for morality, while Kagan only needed to make a case that God is very plausibly not necessary for morality.
I totally agree. Kagan makes the kind of straightforward points that I'm left wanting in the debates with Sam Harris and friends (and I say that as a big fan of Sam Harris). On one hand, it's a complicated structure to lay out, but on the other hand there are very common sense conclusions if we'll focus on the parameters of the present rather than getting caught up in questions of origin and the final state of the universe.
While I think Craig didn't do too well here, I don't see how Kagan fared better. Ultimately he didn't prove nor provide any evidence for the objectivity of morality. There wasn't a single point that couldn't have been refuted quite easily by going a bit deeper. Craig tried, but the nature of the debate doesn't really allow it. For example, free will clearly matters for morality, yet it was deemed a whole different topic. Presuppositions also matter. For example, even if objective morality exists without the need for God, why would we have access to that knowledge? How would we have access to it under naturalism? How does Kagan know what maximally rational beings would agree on? What if maximally rational beings agree there's no objective morality? Aren't the maximally rational beings just a substitute for saying "God"? I wanted to hear a good argument for objective morality from a naturalistic point of view, because I struggle with that. But there doesn't seem to be one. Even if objective morality somehow exists, why am I to agree with it? Why should I even want to pursue it, and not abuse the world to the extent my comfort allows me?
@@atanas-nikolov Kagan is arguing for an objective morality in the form of a logical system derived from nature: We are conscious, creative and social creatures with the capacity to appreciate what harm does to another. In order to thrive in a society comprised of such creatures, avoiding hurting one another is in everyone's best interest. This is at the foundation of our morality and it shouldn't be hard to imagine how this fundamental truth evolved into the ethical systems we have today, we've had millions of years to develop it. This is secular "objective morality" and it makes perfect sense, does it not? On the other hand, theists argue for an "objective morality" in the form of an absolute authority: god. God is the supreme being, whatever he says is as concrete as the constants in the universe- law. This doesn't make sense in 2 big ways. 1. You have to first prove god exists. 2. Where does god get his morals? Does he not rationalize it? Isn't that subjective by definition? This is so simple I'm not even sure how it's a debate, watch how painfully basic Kagan's first comments are towards Craig during the open discussion. It's like he's talking to a child.
@@ianwho4244 Why should we thrive? Why should we not simply do away with humanity? Avoiding hurting one another may be in everyone's best interest as a whole, but is in no one's best interest in particular. Meaning that I can by disregarding morality achieve more in a society with current moral norms, and there is no objective reason for me to not do that. Also, morality doesn't become objective just because the majority of people agree on it. That's not how objectivity works. Again, I want to know where we derive that objectivity from (currently not explained, as I cannot find morality under a microscope, and I cannot derive an ought from an is). Also even if we do prove morality is truly objective, what reason do I have for going along with it? Why shouldn't I simply abuse it for my own personal gain? As for the take of theists, your objections present a different topic altogether. Yes, they must prove god exists, but that's another debate. The question is something like "Can objective morality exist without god?" It has preconditions for the sake of the argument. It only asks "Is X the case only under Y?" It doesn't argue whether Y is true or not, or whether X is true or not for that matter. It only asks if X can be true only if Y is true. As for your second objection, that is a much better one for sure - The Eutyphro dilemma. Afaik, theists' point is that god doesn't decide what is good. God is the Good in and of itself, and whatever is good is a reflection of god. So to say something is good is only to say that it reflects god, or ultimate reality. Or maybe as Plato put it - something is good if it is in accordance with its telos, but that would also be related to the prime mover.
@@atanas-nikolov >Why should we not simply do away with humanity? Because we don't want to? And that's an objective statement. Lol. It's that simple. Again, this all perfectly stands on its own; there is no need for a divine authority. If one wants to appeal to god, and come off as logical, they would have to first prove the existence of this ultimate authority. >Avoiding hurting one another may be in everyone's best interest as a whole, but is in no one's best interest in particular. Meaning that I can by disregarding morality achieve more in a society with current moral norms, and there is no objective reason for me to not do that. Can you provide an example? >Also, morality doesn't become objective just because the majority of people agree on it. That's not how objectivity works. >Again, I want to know where we derive that objectivity from (currently not explained, as I cannot find morality under a microscope, and I cannot derive an ought from an is) "Objectivity" is a hazy word. It's accepted by many that we are able to make objective statements about subjective ideas. For example: 2+2 = 4, many would say that's an objective statement, but it isn't really, isn't it? I personally wouldn't bother faulting a person for holding either position. One of the biggest issues with this debate in particular is the haziness of the word "objective", both sides suffer from it. But the point is: secular humanism perfectly stands on its own as a logical system, while morality from divine commandment makes no sense and isn't backed up empirically. But, again, both sides are guilty of using the word in a slippery way. >Also even if we do prove morality is truly objective, what reason do I have for going along with it? Why shouldn't I simply abuse it for my own personal gain? If you somehow pull it off that would make you an outlier, it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively true that avoiding harming another person is generally in your and everyone else's best interest. Again, it isn't a divine command from some imaginary sky daddy; no one is stopping anyone from bending or breaking the "rules" - it isn't objective like how the laws of physics are objective, it's objective like how math can be considered objective, it's a logical system that is perfectly consistent and applicable, yet it isn't real, no? It's just a tool we use to help navigate through life, much like the secularist's idea of objective morality. Personally, I'm more concerned with what works and whether or not the idea is logical. Whether or not it is objective is honestly just a headache. Secular humanism works and is internally perfectly consistent and logical, you cannot say the same for the morality of a religious person, lol.
I enjoyed this debate. My question is for Dr. Kagen, who asserts that a higher level of morality can be achieved through more rationality. In a purely naturalistic worldview, there is only molecules in motion, so how do we arrive at "better" rationality?
Natural selection. Rationale is, from a biological perspective, an ability to comprehend an individual's circumstance. A more rational being would be more able to make decisions that lead to personal success. If we assume that, to a notable degree, rationale is inheritable (or more precisely, the capability to reason is imheritable), then it follows that those individuals with rationality can benefit from the rationality of their ancestors. Because of this, a more rational species would be more likely to succeed. Such a species would continue to refine its capability to reason through the interbreeding of rational members. Those members who are less rational (insanity perhaps) make poorer choices becuase they cannot as clearly comprehend what course of action would most likely lead to the benefit of the individual, its group, or its species. Because of this, they are less likely to succeed and/or produce similarly defective offspring. In addition, more rational member would more capably recognize which individuals are most rational, and similarly, would choose better actions to be more successful. This more likely success breeds (literally) more successful offspring. Eventually, this results in a natural and inevitable selection of more rational beings to comprise a population. This process therefore generates improved, "better" rationality. And if we define morals as those beliefs which are most likely to contribute positively to the success/prepetuation of a population, a more rational being is more moral, because violating such morals would be irrational. Bit long winded I know, but I hope this helps.
@@insouciantFox this basically ignores the entire objection of, but why does X axiom matter - why does morality helping our species survive obligate us to follow it ?
@@fahim-ev8qq It doesn't. You're not truly obliged to do anything, assuming free will. If not, then morality is moot because whether something is right or wrong is irrelavent to the actions that we take, except in an academic sense.
The fact that we're comprised of molecules doesn't mean that we're _nothing but molecules in motion_ incapable of moral reasoning. We're still a sentient and social species that indisputably benefit from rational thinking (i.e., we're not inanimate and brainless objects).
Shelly said morality is outside us, we don't just made it up, two minutes later, morality is something we create and give to one another (as a social contract)
Two different schools of thought that can seem contradictory but studied independently, I personally wouldn't come to this conclusion. It's no different from someone believing in the bible and then deciding that following the rules of law on roadways, was conducive to an overall moral good.
"1. Context is "everything" 2. You are able to assume "everything" and "Nothing" 3. You will "question" anything 4. "True" and "False" exist "separate", without "Context" 5. "Good" and "Evil" can not exist without "Context" 6. "Morality" exists "separate" from, but not without "Context" 7. "Context" "Evokes" "Anything" 8." That which "Invokes" "emotion" is also "anything" "unknown" and "Absolute"
@@georgerigby2705knowing absolutely nothing about this guy you stupidly say your surprised he can read. He's not mocking the certainly unprofound msg. Just the silly, vague way you're communicating it.
Craig is arguing for objective morality but some of his points go against the idea. For example, he asserts that morals are objective, ie applicable to everyone, everywhere and every when. Then he goes on to describe the animal kingdom where morality doesn’t exist according to him. Lions don’t have morality. Baboons don’t have morality. But humans do…and it’s not just an illusion we have created for ourselves somehow. It’s actually real. A fundamental part of the creator of the universe? I don’t see it. If we were to use just our planet to test the objectivity of morals….it fails miserably considering that humans are the only species to have it. Why would we assume our idea of morality maps onto other planets when it doesn’t even map onto our own? He says himself “why is it wrong to harm members of our own species?” My question is, “if it’s objective, why is it just wrong to harm our species?” If it were objective as he claims, it shouldn’t be limited to just certain species. That’s not what objective means after all. One little species of ape on planet earth has the one and only objective form of morality in the entire universe is the assertion by Craig it seems and that’s not even a strawman like he did with the atheistic view where he claimed that the atheistic view is that we are just animals, which isn’t the atheistic view at all, as was explained by Kagan’s opening argument. Lagan gave more than one example of atheistic morality not asserting that ‘humans are just animals’. I know this is Craig’s opening argument but it goes to show how dishonestly he frames the opposition from the beginning.
@@lepidoptera9337 Did you understand why it's a contradiction? * Objective means something is true _independent of any opinion._ If something is objectively true, it's true _universally:_ for lions, for humans, even for rocks. * Craig then claims lions don't have morality. So then that contradicts the idea that this is an objective truth. It's like if Bob argued 2+2=4 was an objective fact, but then weirdly argued lions don't do math so it's not objectively true for them. (Then some commenter Larry tries to defend Bob by saying lions have worse lives than humans, as though life quality mattered.) Surely you agree there's a _huge_ difference between the best and worst human lives, right? Well are you saying morality varies between them? If not, why do you think a "better life" has any relevance whatsoever to the conversation?
WLC seems not even to have understood the contractarian thought, even after several times in this debate where Kagan explained it to him. Statements like "What if he doesn't want to sign the contract ...." show this clearly .... Or later when the animal question comes up and Kagan has yet again to explain his position "My view wasn't survival of the fittest ...." This must have been annoying for Kagan ...
Never lost a debate? That's funny, I saw him get absolutely pummeled by Lawrence Krauss, and in a more cordial exchange, bested by Christopher Hitchens. You must be quite biased.
***** "You must be quite biased. " Irony. However, both Krauss and Hitchens are intellectual jokes and do not even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.
great debate! I have couple of thoughts. 1. It seems to me that both interlocutors agree that morality is beneficial for the society. William Lane Craig insists upon morality being mandated by a greater being as an assurance of its significance for the Universe while Shelly Kagan claim its a self-contained virtue. I myself have a pragmatic point of view so my question is: how does it matter? Isn't the existence of moral values and sticking to them by a vast majority of our society enough? It's like arguing that getting to NY by a bus means less than getting there by a car (assuming both routes take the same time). The aim is to get to NY. If we agree upon morality being necessary for an efficient function of a society what difference does it make whether moral code comes from ourselves or a higher being? 2. William Lane Craig presents the higher being as a moral god, good, forgiving etc. What if it is not? Then, the moral code it mandates will not be in our best interest. What if it asks, as he wouldn't never, to sacrificce our oldest son as a sign of our devotion to it? Is it moral to follow its instructions even if intrinsically we know they are wrong?
WLC's point is that morality is objective, that is totally independent of human subjectivity, with a transcendent source that is God. Without this level of objectivity, morality is only apparently objective, and in reality only a consensus amongst a moral community. The implication is that there is no guarantee that what we hold to be good/evil will continue to be the case historically and geographically, and there would be no basis apart from consensus to argue for such. I too agree that it probably does not matter. Whether or not morality is grounded in a god, or within humanity itself, nothing changes. Crimes are certainly not being committed on this basis (that we know of). And ironically, the ones that do are the religious cults. And even if our moral framework evolves, it'll do so organically along with us. On your latter point however, it seems more on the lines of "the end justifies the means" rather than an argument for moral progress.
What you've pointed out resembles the old Euthyphro dilemma. Even if god exists, he is just the messenger on the moral truth, and something being "correct" is independent of his existence. Also, I think it's kind of strange that Craig is using god as an "objective" source of morality - god is literally a SUBJECT. If he wants to define god as "the good", then it just becomes a circular definition. And as you pointed out, if god wants to condone slavery or human sacrifice (or any other abhorrent act), we would have to just blindly follow him. I think it makes much more sense for morality to be reason-derived, even pragmatically. We can think about the steps in our moral thought processes, and see what is wrong with them. This helps us improve on our ways of thinking and could help us reach more sound conclusions. On the god theory, however, we have a celestial big brother telling us what to do, without any justification other than "it came from me". There's no room for growth here. With the transportation analogy, it might be okay to have god tell us what the fastest route to NY is. But if we wanted to go to Philadelphia instead of NY, what would we do? We'd have to consult god. However, if we reasoned through things (and found out WHAT criteria makes for an efficient path), we could find the best path for every single worldly situation - whether it be NY, Philadelphia, LA, or any place of your choosing. Ethicists are the tour guides to morality - this is what they study and think about. "Divine command theorists" in today's time are not taken seriously because of this fact; they have nothing to appeal to other than "god said so because god said so".
1. Because if morality comes from a god, its alleged representatives can dictate what we ought to do, whereas a secular moral code is open source as it were.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 Even assuming such a source exists, what method is there to determine what its objective moral code is? Craig doesn't consider the Qur'an a holy text, even though it's just another revelation from his god. Where in history or geography has it ever been the case that a religious community agreed on anything though?
@@aspacelex that's precisely the point. As long as the said source (God) itself isn't accessible directly apart from interpretation, it will always be subject to change, not unlike the morality from a secular point of view. I do believe there can be an argument for morality based on historical tradition, be it religious or otherwise, but it still wouldn't justify a metaphysical source in an absolute sense. It's just not grounded in the real world.
25:58 The problem here is that the Bible comes nowhere near to describing a God that is morally good...More often than not the Bibles God is morally repugnant...
@@flyingphoenix113 The faculties of reason and logic. Don't give them to us if we can't use them. Are you a parent? Would you divide your children by telling one of them it's chosen over and over for a lifetime? If you answer yes I can guarantee you your other siblings will hate both you as a parent and the chosen offspring. You've sown ineptitude and discord as a parent and this is inarguable! In the words of Trump, you should be fired from parenting!
@22alexraider Please go ply your unsubstantiated Jewish bullshit somewhere else...But If Yahweh/Yeshua brings back his preferred method of marriage: polygamy, then I guess I won't complain too much!
But what about Yaakov's situation? What about more than one wife? The clear halacha is that both min haTorah (on a Torah level) and mid'rabbanan (through rabbinical legislation) a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them). No one implies that this is less than moral nor in the least bit abnormal.
Somehow I got the impression Craig argues on individual and cosmic level, but 'skips' the population level that would be most relevant in a naturalistic view
If it is "ultimate" objectivity that is necessary to have morality, then I'm deeply sorry, but nihilism gets the last laugh...always. Where do morals come from? --> God Why does God pick those specific morals? --> God is good/perfect Good/perfect by what metric? Compared to what? How would we tell the difference between a perfect god and a mediocre god? --> God just is... And so on and so on.
In my view, Shelly offers the greatest challenge for WLC in any debate I've seen him in. However, as intriguing as his story is, I have a concern. Why would a "perfectly rational" moral agent need a "community"? Isn't it because he or she requires a plurality of perspectives of those navigating the context of the time in which they live? Isn't Omniscience the optimal measure of that exercise? But oughtn't we also consult moral agents of other time periods and sociocultural contexts? Isn't Omnipresence to optimal measure of that exercise? And doesn't moral agency require not just the perfect rationality Shelly proposes, but the capacity to fulfill those obligations, or omnipotence?
Rationality is not the same as isolationism, so there is no conflict between perfectly rational and a need for community. If there was a contradiction though, then your suggestion that God could be the perfectly rationale actor would also mean they shouldn't want to create us as they would also have no need of a community. Any reason they have to create us could apply equally to why a rational actor could want a community too. The need for community in a perfectly rational actor isn't related to a need for a plurality of opinions, but rather that a perfectly rational actor would realise that they could achieve more in a community of like minds than in isolation, e.g. for survival. This would again not be true of a God. No. Omniscience is not the perfect exercise of rationality: it is perfect knowledge. I can KNOW that a biscuit is bad for me but still choose to be irrational and eat it anyway: rationality is about how decisions are reached, not the knowledge possessed. No, a perfectly rational being wouldn't need to consult moral agents from other cultures and time periods any more than a perfect doctor would need to hear the opinions on blood letting and trappaning from the middle ages. Kagan explained it well that regardless of the society we live in, an ideal moral agent would still reach the same conclusions, we just might not be able to appreciate why if our culture or time blinds us to the reasoning. And finally no, perfect rationality does not require that we can fulfil the actions we deem moral. If I see someone drowning and am unable to save them it does not mean I am incapable of appreciating that it would be moral to save them IF I COULD. I hope this answers your concerns. Have a nice day.
@@oliepickfordscienti6449 *"your suggestion that God could be the perfectly rationale actor would also mean they shouldn't want to create us as they would also have no need of a community."* I'm not sure I follow. Is it not possible that there would be other reasons for God to create us apart from what you are suggesting (enigmatic as that is to me)? Is it not possible that God would create us so that he could die for us? An expression of love that had never been expressed. The spending of oneself for another and in the most extreme of example? An extreme that would make our willingness to die to save the life of a bug pale by comparison. That the creator of the universe would die to make whole the life of a traitor. I think that that is what Christianity says at least. Romans 5:6-8 says, For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. and Ephesians 1:3-6 says, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him *before the foundation of the world,* that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, *to the praise of his glorious grace,* It seems that the Ephesians verse is suggesting that *grace* was a thing worth creating and that the plan for it being a necessary thing came before anything was created. It was not a Plan B.
@@samdg1234 fair point. And similarly I guess I could have left it at "Rational actors may not need a plurality of opinions but may instead have some other reason for wanting a community." my point was simply that the original poster's suggestion that perfectly rational actors would not need a community did not imply that they wouldn't want one.
@@oliepickfordscienti6449 That is pretty good that you remembered what you posted about 4 weeks ago. I'm not at all sure I understood what either of you was talking about. I think it has been over a year since I watched all of the discussion between Kagan and Craig. My point was to counter what seemed to be the need for community for the act of creation. I don't see this as a necessity for that act nor do I see it as what the bible teaches. I freely admit that what I'm saying has mostly come from a sermon that can be found on UA-cam under the title, Why Did God Create the World? The speaker says in part, "When God created the world, he did not create out of any need. I grew up hearing God made Adam and Eve because he was lonely. That's heresy. That's absolutely heresy. We serve a triune God who has been infinitely happy in the fellowship of the Trinity forever. The Father enjoying the Son. The Son enjoying the Father. The spirit surging with personal energies of love between the Father. This was a complete society of love and he didn't make us because he needed anything." I admit to finding the idea of creating the universe so that love (the spending of oneself for the good of another) could exist and be a reality and more than just an idea, even if it entailed the costly expenditure of one's own life, to bring about what was envisioned.
@@samdg1234 can't believe it was 4 weeks tbh 😅. Very enjoyable discussion (if a bit unbalanced) but didn't expect a reply as comments were so old. To be honest the original post just seemed a bit of a walk down a very specific path which didn't support any of the conclusions as necessary. I tried to recreate that style in the part you quoted to highlight the issue with arguing that way. But the rest of my post was just pointing out the same mistake more bluntly. Maybe I should have done that for all of them to be clearer. As for not having seen it in a while, the comments weren't related to the video as Craig didn't try to argue omnipotence etc from perfect rationality as they are unrelated, which was my point I guess. Sorry if in rambling I confused the issue. A habit I'll have to try to work on I guess.
Bottom line is that even if there is no god, we are still accountable to each other and ourselves. Morality comes from empathy and the ability to assess and reason if something is good for us or for our society. The insertion of god is irrelevant to be honest.
Precisely. We as humans are capable of molding our own morals and what we view is subjectively right and wrong based on our conscious existence. We feel ill when something is wrong and if we are an immoral person, then we have no problem committing evil acts. Just the pure fact that people acted evil in the name of God is evident that God (if a deity exists) does not control our moral actions nor do we form morals based on his existence.
@@billt1928 Who is this "we" you speak of. Many societies and people haven't felt ill about certain horrific acts. What ties your definition of moral to the cosmos that would somehow automatically make that objectively true for all sentient beings. There's nothing there. It's just an opinion you guys try to force people to believe is a fact.
@@ZekeMagnar Why do you insist on cosmic significance? Kagan addressed this point in the debate quite clearly. He also pointed out that - just like the OP said - we are _still_ ACCOUNTABLE to ourselves and to each other because we _have to MAKE an account_ for our actions - that's what it _means_ to be _accountable_ . It's part of human nature - we are, in fact, accountable to each other, because we have the capacity to ask and even demand of one another "Why did you do that?" The _MERE_ ability to _ask_ the question makes accountability objectively exist. You can always push this back further and further (which Kagan also pointed out in the debate) and ask "But what's special about accountability?" etc. At some point you just have to say - have to _realize_ or _accept_ - that these things are simply significant in and of *themselves* - and for humans, that's just PART of what it means to be a human. Other animals don't _do_ that - they are not _accountable_ for their actions in that way because they cannot _make_ accounts. But we can, and that's why it is objective. Again, you can just say "well but there are people who don't value accountability, and societies that sacrifice children." That's true, and those people that act like animals we call sociopaths and psychopaths and consider them to be deficient in a basic human capacity, and the societies that engaged in perverse actions like that were morally wrong and shouldn't have done it. Notice that, in _fact_ they REALLY shouldn't have done it - what good did throwing babies into volcanoes do? It LITERALLY did 0 good, was based on a delusion (incidentally a religious theistic delusion, though of course some secular societies have taken actions that were immoral too of course), so it's just _obviously_ objectively morally wrong and those moral agents were simply delusional. So your assertion that secular moralists are just "insisting" on their opinion as fact is just vacuous. And if you're STILL not persuaded because you want to rely on theistic morality, the God does not _change_ any of the _morally relevant facts_ of the situation, so how could it impact the moral outcome at all? The only way it _could_ is if you say that God is going to punish you if you do something, in which case the _facts_ of the _situation itself_ become IRRELEVANT to your consideration because there is a _much more pressing_ fact - the fact of God's punishment - that you have to take into account of moral consideration. Thus, one can see that God in the mix doesn't change the moral analysis - it just shifts the focus from the _facts of the situation itself_ to some abstract set of assertions someone makes about God. One might _argue_ - and Kagan conceded this point in the talk on "cosmic enforcers" - that it might would be _nice_ if there were a cosmic enforcer who could enforce every single perfectly objective moral conclusion, but again, that's not _relevant_ - the only relevant considerations are the _facts_ of situations, and we have to make do with the situations _regardless_ of whether or not there is such a cosmic enforcer.
@@superdog797 I've either conversed with you before or have seen your posts, but I don't quite remember. Either way, I'll respond and see where that takes us. I''m going to be brutally honest with you here. If you either don't get the points being made or, TO ME, sound as though you care more about arguing than you do about truth, I'm out. I'm done with this conversation and this'll be my last response. So read carefully and THINK before you reply. If you need to take a few days, do that. Because it'll show if you just pounce on my posts and reply with the same exact mentality that you have now. You wrote, "Why do you insist on cosmic significance?" Because that's PRECISELY the definition of "objective." That's why. For something to exist INDEPENDENT of your own mind or your neighbors mind. INDEPENDENT of "ourselves." Here's the actual definition. *GOOGLE:* "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." *DICTIONARYCAMBRIDGE:* " based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings" *MERRIAM-WEBSTER:* " 1 : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions" and "2 : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world." *DICTIONARY:* "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" Yet here you are telling me, "Oh, well, when TWO or MORE people FEEL something, THAT makes it objective." Really? DESPITE the definition of "objective" being that a fact is, "NOT influenced by FEELINGS?" Are you serious? Feelings + feelings equates to feelings, rendering your view subjective, BY DEFINITION. You wrote, "Kagan addressed this point in the debate quite clearly." And? He was clear, but he was wrong. What do you think? That we don't understand what he's saying? We get it. Craig got it as well and he even cringed while listening to Kagan. Being clear does not equate to being right. I think it's clear when I make the claim that 2 + 2 = 5, yes? Am I clear? Of course I am . But am I right? Of course not. So clarity doesn't matter. We understood what he said. We just don't agree with it.
@@superdog797 You wrote, "He also pointed out that - just like the OP said - we are still ACCOUNTABLE to ourselves and to each other because we have to MAKE an account for our actions - that's what it means to be accountable ." 1) All you've done is made an assertion. That's it. But who cares what you think? You're giving weight to your assertion that it doesn't actually have. Someone can take your stuff and feel as though he's not only NOT accountable, but that he does NOT have to GIVE an account for what he did. What are you going to do? Go run to your parents and tell on him? What happens if HIS parents disagree with YOUR parents? Their account to you would be, "DEAL WITH IT!" You ask him "why did you do that?", and he simply walks away. What then, champ? There's nothing outside of your mind from a materialist standpoint that would make what he did objectively wrong. Nothing! You're just claiming that it's wrong, but a claim isn't a fact. It's a claim. A claim that has yet to be proven to be the case, no less. 2) When you say "ourselves", yet again, you're referring to nothing more than feelings, rendering your view subjective. How is this not clear to you? 3) Who is this "ourselves" you're referring to? By chance would it include any of the world's tyrants of days past and THEIR society? 4) The planet has never COLLECTIVELY been on the same page with one another in terms of morals. You're always going to disagree and at times even violen;tly so. So when you or your society says "this" is "wrong" and another society says it's "right", who's right? Who's wrong? And most importantly, WHY? "Oh because we said so" is NOT A VALID ANSWER. Hello? Why is that "rightness" or "wrongness" true DESPITE what either of you think? You cannot ground what you believe in ANYTHING beyond "we said so", but "we said so" is literally the DEFINITION OF SUBJECTIVE. Social contracts don't magically turn 2 or 3 SUBJECTIVE opinions into an OBJECTIVE fact of reality.
I don’t think Craig was challenged at all. I think the challenge he was facing was that Kelly was being very slippery with rationalizing his worldview- even admitting that Determinism and Free Will can coexist (by some stretched philosophical argument). Kelly even misquoted Craig’s quote of Ruse and was basically asking Craig to explain why Ruse thought the way that he did. I felt Kelly was very defensive (naturally if you hold the belief the he holds) and that Craig was very patient with Kelly’s slippery logic.
@@hugomunoz9039 Compatibilsm (determinism and free will coexisting) is a very popular view in philosophy, more so than the robust free will view Craig believes-just so you know. As far as quoting Ruse, the gist was to point out WLC fallacy that things don't need to be eternally significant in the cosmic scale to be significant now. WLC wasn't able to demonstrate that this significance is necessary to objective morality which he defends
at 1:14:12, Kagan asks a question about accountability and death bed conversion allowing an evil person to be absolved.. To which Craig answers at 1:14:35 .. "Well, I mean, no genuine Christian would think like that.. " I love the laughter as a lot of people caught it. EXCEPT Craig himself.. oblivious, I suppose. But Kagan got the silly Scotsman fallacy.. He obviously thought it was hilarious. I think so too.. Craig was ridiculously hilarious.
49:28 If we agree that we all have these values, then why does the explanation for why we have them matter to morality itself? Would it change the fact that we have the same values by which we can objectively evaluate good and bad actions? No, we already agree that is the case. So I don't see how it would change anything about the way we do morality, therefore I don't see what it matters. Supposedly Craig wants them to come from God because then there would be an objective source we can point to by which to agree on them, but he starts his argument by saying that this is already done.
It matters infinitely. For morality to matter, people have to matter. But if we are just accidental collections of atoms, there is no reason to think people do matter because a 150-pound man is then of no more value than the collection of atoms that makes up 150 lbs of dead leaves. All these secular attempts to ground morality assume that human life has value but if there is no God, there us no reason to think it's true. They're forced to play make-believe and say, well we can create value and meaning inside our heads. But somehow this idea is suddenly out of bounds when someone makes up God inside his head. Make-believe is suddenly not only out of vogue but the target of ridicule. The grounds for a lasting moral code has to exist first outside of every human head because no matter what secular philosophers tell you, a bunch of people getting together and agreeing that human life has value is not the same as human life actually havung value.
@@davidplummer2619 Money doesn't have inherent value. Are you just making believe that whatever currency you use to buy things and accept as payment at your job is worth anything? Did God imbue the dollar with purchasing power or was that western society? "no matter what secular philosophers tell you, a bunch of people getting together and agreeing that human life has value is not the same as human life actually havung value." No matter what theists tell me, a bunch of priests getting together and agreeing that God wants us to value certain things isn't the same as people actually valuing those things. Value is relative by definition: water is the most valuable thing in the world to someone lost in a desert but nearly worthless to someone vacationing in an oasis. Philosophers don't arbitrate that, and neither does God. We either agree or disagree on the value of something based on our own subjective experiences and act accordingly, regardless of if it has any "actual" value; this is demonstrable reality. Value serves no purpose outside of influencing how people act in accordance with it, so the very idea of an objective "actual" value existing ethereally beyond us is nonsensical. The best you can do is point to God's subjective values and try to justify following those based on his actions, but you're gonna have to demonstrate his existence first. Can you show me ANYTHING in reality that doesn't reflect value as subjective?
@@davidplummer2619 Furthermore, on a purely naturalistic account, any existing moral inclinations we have would be better treated as obstacles to overcome rather than ideals to nurture. The sooner you stop feeling bad about committing an 'immoral' act, the sooner you can start taking advantage of opportunities to act immorally. Those bad feelings are just 'in your head' and have no meaning or significance beyond that.
Shelly struggles to ground his "objective" morality. We recognize that hurting people is wrong so it is objectively wrong on his view. He gives us no reasons for why "hurting people" is wrong. Objective morals seem to float in the universe like stars, or like laws of nature waiting to be discovered. Suppose the Germans had won WWII. And that all dissenters of the Nazi philosophy had been exterminated. Everyone remaining would recognize that hurting people, especially non-Arian people was actually good. The moral "recognition test" is always subjective not objective. Unless one thinks the universe spits out morals the way it does quarks, and atoms, galaxies and planets, there are no such things as morals. Now Shelly is right to say he can live morally without belief in God. But he seems to join a long line of philosophers who want to bootstrap an objective account of morals without God and then spends over an hour discussing the issue without one reason for why we should believe it. He should give up and go the way of the existentialist who had the courage to say all morals are subjective and illusory.
Uber Genie The creatures we need to take under moral consideration are the sentient one. Sentience is the capacity to be affected positively or negatively. It is the capacity to have experiences. It is not the mere capacity to perceive stimuli or react to some by action, as in the case of a machine that performs certain functions when we press a button. Sentience, or the ability to feel, is something different, namely the ability to receive and react to such stimuli consciously, by experiencing them from the inside. If we take this as a criteria, we can easily set some objective requirements as to not undermine the autonomy of conscious beings , not to harm conscious beings , not to deprive them from potential happiness etc. With well being as the moral goal i think we can make a very distinct, non relative indicators that need to be met. Regardless of what you believe in , murder will not contribute to the recipient's well being nor will it respect his autonomy.
stefan klisarov Thanks for your reply. I agree with your perspective. And my cats are thankful I have that perspective. That said, my problem with Shelly and numerous other philosophers that hold this view of morality is no reason is given why we should hold this view. What does he ground his morality on? Is moral truth of the variety, "Sentience is the criterion for creation or moral codes," something we just discover, like the law of gravity? Why on Darwinian Evolution isn't the view of the Nazi's more appropriate as a criterion for moral codes, if cultures are to out-compete their neighbors for limited resources? Why is it wrong for a man not to rape as many women as possible in his fertile lifetime in order to maximize the propagation of his DNA? Especially given that a large number of my ape ancestors raped early and often in order for me to even be here. Why not continue the family tradition? Especially if sentience is the criterion, animals are sentient and yet a large portion of them are raped during the mating process. Why don't we call it rape? Why call it rape if two homo sapiens are involved? Isn't that speciesism? So we actually agree wholeheartedly on moral values, but the grounding of them is what I am interested in getting at? And if we don't anchor them properly we end up with the values of Nazi German with no idea how we got there.
***** Thanks for your thoughts. Consider my reply to Stefan. The Germans redefined the term "people" to be "superior people" and they eliminated chaos and discord in society. All dictatorship eliminate chaos and discord, often quite literally. And on Darwinian Evolution, why would I help a competitor for limited resources instead of striving to survive by out-competing. Often that means killing and eating competition in other species. I need a better explanation why that would all of a sudden not apply to me just because I have a more developed frontal lobe. "To Serve Man" is the new book on morality that I am writing. Don't tell anyone, but it is actually a cookbook!
+Uber “Genius” Genie The Golden rule is simple and straightforward and grounds our behavior objectively without recourse to an entity with cosmic significance. If you are doing something bad to another animal, typically causing pain, you know that is the case because if that was done to you then you know that would be painful and you wouldn't like it. In the latter case you would consider it wrong to have pain inflicted on yourself, and similarly a normal conscious and sentient person would accept, as an objective fact, that to inflict that pain on another living being would also be wrong. Those objective facts to not need further grounding by appeal to a deity. Yes there are sentient beings who do not consider it wrong to inflict harm on others. Some enjoy it, and some even have no feelings whatsoever. We identify such people as suffering from various levels of psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders. It is possible for whole communities and societies to fall into destructive and psychopathic behaviours. Recourse to a deity is not needed to understand and identify that objective fact with regard to the Third Reich or to consider the specific causes of those particular events. Indeed there are destructive and psychopathic behaviours around much of western culture that again does not require recourse to a cosmic deity or overlord to understand. Nor, more importantly, to understand the objective truth of alternatives behaviours and outcomes that would be less destructive and psychopathic
+myroseaccount You said you were going to ground morality objectively and we got a restatement of golden rule and other moral codes. Plato and Aristotle ground it in God(s). Not the God of the Bible but something outside and above human. Why are the atheists from Hume on who reject objective moral values as unground able wrong.?
For absolute morality, those unconditional obligatory aughts, if God necessary for their very existence, then from whence does God gain the authority to issue such aughts? God cannot issue the law that grants himself the right to issue moral laws, because before such a law exists, God cannot have the right to do so. If absolute morality exists, it has to exist, itself, absent creator or causer. Therefore, God is not necessary for either subjective or absolute morality.
He really pushes that in his closing statement also, claiming that the theistic view is much more "attractive." And as you said just because it is an easier answer does not necessarily make it true. Although it is hard to justify objectivity in a atheistic moral standpoint does not mean that it is not there.
Let's grant for the moment that God has created absolute morals, and that these morals can be discovered. Even so, this definition of what we mean by "morals" is just one of many possible definitions that we can choose to use. For example, someone might disagree with God's set of absolute morals, and many indeed do (including people who think that it's ethical to punish someone for keeping a slave). Similarly, let's grant that an objectively rational social contract can be defined in only one possible correct way, and that it would produce only one possible set of correct morals, which would therefore be a set of absolute morals. Still, this is again only one of several possible definitions of what qualifies as a moral. What this illustrates is the true scope of moral relativism: it's the umbrella that covers all of the different possible ideas that give rise to so-called absolute morals.
when i look at this topic , i can t see past the argument of objective morality and a higher power. how can a universe, which came to be on it s own, along with it come an objective morality? i can t see past this...]
@@stevejames5863 The definition of morals is "a lesson, especially one about what is thoughtful toward the future, learned through stories or experience." That's a pretty ambiguous definition, but it's basically a question about what is best for the future. You can use these stories and experiences to build certain goals towards a purpose. For instance, if the purpose is to maximize human well being, then there are goals that should be met concerrning maximizing human well being. One goal towards such a purpose might be to not hurt each other, because hurting someone doesn't always maximize human well being. It just so happens that human well being is an excessively complex topic with billions of variables that change every day. If we could possibly know all of those variables though, then we'd have a clear path towards the objectively best method of maximizing human well being. It's already there in the universe, we just have to discover it. Similarly, the universe provided us with math, we just had to discover it. An apple plus an apple is objectively two apples. Thanks Universe!
No person in their right mind would appeal to absolute morality. Both of the panelists avoid such terms precisely because they won't be able to make such a case. Anyways, I could just NOT grant your conclusion. v:
BTW, if they're absolute morals, you do realise there'd be a contradiction if they don't perfectly overlap with each other, right? If there's a contradiction, then they're not absolute.
@@malolazap5377 do you mean objective morality? or is there a distinction? i think if there is objective morality, some things can be: relative. what i m trying to say, if there is objective morality,and i think there are morals we can agree upon. where does this come from? it is a simple question. i don t think all morals are relative. there being a universe that just happened to come about, does not create morals that are objective.also, if you have an explanation for objective morality without a higher power- ok. otherwise, if morality is relative, that is different. if morality is relative then i think anything goes, why would we have laws, courts, and so on?
Hard to argue with you on that. It's at least problematic, and it could well be enough to prove that moral accountability is (in some strong sense) impossible. I think I agree with you, but just in case you're interested I'll share the other side's view. Compatibilists say that, even though all of our actions reduce to a bunch of chemical reactions (which we can't be responsible for), that doesn't prove that we're not accountable. You're accountable just in case you're able to use your reason.
I think the biggest issue with this contract theory, is that in a world obsessed with materialism, and it's accumulation, it is those who seemingly throw them away that gain the biggest advantage. At least in gaining material. When was the accumulation of material unimportant in the history of man? Not in it's written history, outside of the Bible. The Bible in contrast emphasizes the immaterial as having more worth. Other "holy books", have attempted to emulate this. But if you look those that have shunned moral right, in their greed for material wealth, it would seem the advantage from a survival point of view to be "dog eat dog". The biggest material winners are those who have thrown away this supposed moral contract. There is a difference between legal right and wrong, and moral right and wrong. It may not be illegal for international bankers to fund despotic regimes, but it is profitable, and highly immoral. But why is it immoral? This is something WLC completely fails at. The why. Because the argument I heard, was we make this moral contract, so others will like us. Ultimately it is what it boils down to. Why is that advantageous? Do you "like" the Rothchilds, the Trumps of the world? If you do what do you like? That every dollar of advantage they have over you makes every dollar you have of a lower value? Or am into an area of economics you don't understand? Why would you "like" or think it is an advantage that they make your life harder? The question was asked, "can atheists be moral without God?". Sure, as long as there is another set of laws that say you will do 25 years to life for murder, or 5 years for stealing. As far as I know, in western cultures no one is going to jail for adultery, and it happens a lot. I will concede it also happens in the churches, but that is because they are not following the tenets of the book to do so. But in a society, following the Bible with the belief in an ultimate judge, these crimes will not happen as often as the conscience becomes the policeman. A higher moral standard. This will only happen with the fear of God, and judgement. While there has been a lot of bad done in the name of religion, it wasn't done because they were following what the Bible told them. Crusades is a perfect example, as are The Inquisition. I thought the Nazi example was too extreme and thus easy. A better example would be 2 atheists marooned on an island with limited resources, and no one to put you in jail. At some point the contract will break down as they get hungry, and the battle over the resources becomes more urgent. How many of you good little moral atheists would starve before killing the source of your hunger, the one taking up the resources you need to live, without the idea of eternal punishment for doing it? If there is no God, and no police to punish me, why wouldn't I kill you to gain advantage? Would I rather be dead, or alone? With no afterlife, my guess the desire to survive would tip the scales over loneliness. Or how about in the USA, you have kids who grow up gun nuts, hunting, with the flawed "American exceptional-ism", this idea of "take care of number one", "the individual is more important than the whole", mentality. Who then goes off to the army, who trains them to kill, gives them permission and even a moral reason to kill, along with a overal general purpose of saving the world, get so mentally damaged by the act of war? Vietnam killed more men by suicide, at a rate of 5 to one, at least, than died in combat. More than 250,000 have committed suicide while only 58,000 died in the conflict. Or better yet. Going back to Nazi Germany. In the Ukraine during it's scorched earth campaign, they were killing civilians. One high ranking Nazi, who's name escapes me right now, I see the face, can't remember the name, skinny weasel with round glasses, sent a note back to Berlin, that they had to come up with another method, as the shooting them all was demoralizing the troops. Nazi's demoralized by killing the "sub-species" as they put it, bothered their conscience. It hasn't been that long since homo sapien started walking this earth. How old are we now? You evolutionists keep changing it. You never admit you were wrong the last time, but I digress. But being so fresh from the jungle so to speak, we have apparently lost our will to survive, as when confronted with it, it causes such great anguish. A primate doesn't show remorse for killing his dinner. In fact killing their own family members seems to bring a celebration, rather than remorse. Why are we so backward to all of nature? We are the most aware, but it seems to take us out of sync with nature. Almost like we don't fit. Not sure if you have noticed, but we seem to be at odds with nature. If nature made us, we must be the Stewie Griffins of the world on a mission to kill what produced us. Look at the statements on this page. You claim to be moral, but look at what you say. The only thing the comments really show, is your morality. That and your absolute quaking in your boots at the idea that someone believes differently than you. I mean, so what? Why is it such a big deal that you need to aggressively attack the person who holds this different belief? Why the need to mock? The false sense of superiority you are attempting to create? It comes across as insecurity to me. If all you did was address the issues, debated the points, you wouldn't come across so weak. But the need to "shoot the messenger", is obvious proof of this insecurity. Besides, all you have this time on earth. Why would a YT debate matter at all? Shouldn't you be out doing something to make your existence worth something? Saving puppies or something? No, you have decided to spend your precious seconds here, doing this, amounting to what? Proselytizing? Attempting to save people? If you ever were to take an honest look at what drives you to do this, attack belief in God, it would, or at least should trigger a deeper question. Why does the thought of God, and someone believing in Him, drive you so nuts?
When Shelly puts Craig on the spot and forces him to justify his view on the moral irrelevancy of torture without theism (about 57:00), Craig gets physically anxious and visibly unsure of his answer. His hand starts shaking. At least somewhere inside of himself he realized what he was saying was absurd. Of course torture matters whether god exists or not.
In a universe that is nothing more than matter and energy, then life itself is ultimately a Monte Carlo game. It has no purpose. It's just a collection of molecules. In fact, if we look at the words of genetics high priest, Richard Dawkins, then passing on your genes is the only truly moral imperative there is in the universe. Dawkins argues in his book The Selfish Gene that all life is programmed to do one thing… Pass on their genetic material. So in a universe of nothing more than matter and energy, rape is a highly moral thing to do! In fact, seems to be the only thing we can do that actually matters. That is until the sun expends the last of its nuclear fuel starts expanding and the earth evaporates like a drop of water on a hot skillet. Rendering everything that humanity ever did or thought utterly pointless.
An argument against morality coming from a creator lies in the Euthyphro dilemma. If morality is grounded solely in the commands of a creator, it raises concerns about the arbitrariness of those moral values. If a deity could dictate any set of moral principles, regardless of their content, then there is no inherent reason to consider those values as intrinsically good or just. This raises questions about the objectivity and universality of such moral principles. Furthermore, the dependence on a creator for moral values may limit the scope and application of morality. Different religions and belief systems propose conflicting moral codes, leading to a lack of consensus on what is considered morally right or wrong. This inconsistency suggests that morality is more likely a product of human culture, evolution, and reasoning rather than a divine decree. Moreover, the existence of moral dilemmas and conflicting ethical judgments also challenges the idea of an all-knowing and benevolent creator as the source of morality. If a creator were to provide a clear and absolute moral code, one would expect universal agreement on moral issues, which is not observed in reality. The Euthyphro dilemma and the diversity of moral views across cultures and religions cast doubt on the idea of morality coming exclusively from a creator. Alternative explanations rooted in human nature, evolution, and social norms provide a more plausible account for the origin and development of moral values in society.
Given what Kagan says between 48:27 and 48:51, aren't we left with moral nihilism? Kagan says at a certain point we just have to decide some things are meaningful, but he doesn't offer any justification for his values in particular or any account for how values could be justified objectively in general. So far as I can tell the principle of not being able to go from an "ought" to an "is", if true, leaves us unable to ground any values, moral or otherwise. We may still hold them, and indeed we inevitably will because they are an inescapable feature of our psychology, but we will do so without objective justification. Craig is equally vulnerable to this line of thinking and he seemed not to fully engage with it in the debate. I am sure this has been put better by many others in the past. What I am unsure of is whether there has been a powerful rebuttal to this argument. If anyone has come across a solution to the problem of objectively grounding values, please leave a reference.
He did offer an explanation, though, through his contractarian thesis. In the part you're highlighting he was trying to stop Craig from keep on using infinite regression... and he did that by showing Craig that he can play that game too.
It didn't seem like they were on the exact same page around this time. Kagan's argument made sense until he starts mentioning objective. I also didn't feel like Craig answered these (counter)arguments in the best way.
He also endorses genocide, so this is far from the worse thing he's done. We destroy him in debate and everyone complains we pick on easy targets. Can theists just get together and decide who's a decent serious apologist so we can debate those.
@@Ozzyman200who cares if it violates your right What’s your justification for why it’s wrong , I don’t wanna bear your opinion. Why ought not I commit genocide
Dr. Craig asked,”Why do humans think loving others is significant?” Dr. Kagan said,” Because I think it is good. It is just a special property of human.”
@@JohnGrove310 What could you possibly say to someone who has a problem with it? Say I'm a good little atheist who thinks 'morality' is for fools; if I rationally perceive that I am benefitting by not caring about the welfare of other humans and that I can keep getting away with it without anyone noticing, why in the world should I want to stop?
@@danieltemelkovski9828 Just like any other moral theory, the social contract does not expect everyone (especially the psychopathic type in your hypothetical scenario) to agree in harmony, so you're really making an irrelevant point.
@@onionbelly_ A proponent of a moral theory may not expect every single person to be convinced by that theory, but all moral theories are required to respond to objections and challenges to them. If my objection can be dismissed as irrelevant simply because not all people can ever be expected to adhere to a single theory, then so can all objections to all moral theories be dismissed as irrelevant, which would bring moral debate to a standstill.
Your question is a great one. Reason faces the same challenge that morality does... namely is there an absolute standard we can appeal to or is it simply majority consensus? Objective or subjective? If it's subjective, or up to the individual, then I think reason is quite unreliable since it really boils down to one man's opinion over another.
_urbansamurai,_ Maybe you've already discovered this in the 8 years since your comment, but reason is just the historic track record of arguments. * Some types of arguments were reliably true. We call those "logical". * Some aren't reliably true. We call those types of arguments "fallacies"; they aren't logical; they're mistakes. The big problem confronting theists has always been their inability to present a _non-fallacious_ argument for a god. (Craig just _says_ objective morality exists, and _says_ a god would be required for it, but that's fallacy of bare assertion. A mistake. So when (in other talks) he tries to use morality as his argument for a god, it all rests on a non-existent, flawed foundation.)
@@majmage Granting for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist, is there any logical problem with saying that God creates morality in the same way he creates existence itself? The theory that moral and rational claims are demonstrated through historical track records doesn't meet the ontological burden of proof; pragmatism and populism are not in themselves 100% reliable tools for deducing such proofs. Up until the 19th century, history and experience would have validated slavery as a moral institution, albeit there were dissenting voices throughout time. The historic track record argument fails for many reasons, namely the regressive and progressive tendencies of civilizations.
@@veritasagape4043 I feel like you're weirdly mixing up two topics. The development of logic over time is what led to us calling things logical. The development of morality over time is a separate thing (and yeah morality is a technology gradually discovered very similar the development of logic). So my comments on logic are an ongoing problem for theists because they have yet to provide a logical argument for a god's existence. The moral argument is just one example of logical errors used to try to say a god exists: Craig says things without evidence, and that's fallacy of bare assertion (and long ago we discovered that _just saying something is true for no reason_ isn't a reliable way to know truth; and that mistake of having no good reason is why we call it fallacy of bare assertion).
@@majmage Perhaps it's better said that the development of the tools of logic led humanity to recognize what things are true and false. I think your claim that theists haven't provided any "logical argument for God's existence" is simply incorrect. There are a multitude of logical arguments for God's existence, despite your disagreements as to the validity of those claims. What I think you're looking for is a "true" logical argument instead of something like the following: --- "All psychological scientists conduct empirical research. William James conducts empirical research. Therefore, William James is a psychological scientist." Notice, all of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion, but it’s not a valid argument. All psychological scientists do conduct empirical research, and so does William James, but that’s not what tells us that James is a psychological scientist. Some people who conduct empirical research - Rosalind Franklin, for example - aren’t psychological scientists at all. ---- This is not to say that all logical arguments for God's existence are valid, or that all are faulty as in the aforementioned manner; some do have full logical coherence and summationary truth value. You also claim that Craig "says things without evidence", but what do you mean by "evidence"? Are we talking the Oxford definition: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", or the Ballentine's legal definition, "The means by which alleged facts are proved or disproved'? Are you looking for video footage, eyewitness testimony, personal experience, abductive reasoning, inductive arguments, divine personal revelation? What is your criteria for evidence?
@@veritasagape4043 Again, we're discussing _existence._ That means being "valid" isn't enough. We need a _sound_ argument for god(s). Nobody has one. I provided a specific example of Craig's baseless assertion: saying objective moral values do exist. Well watch this entire vid and the entire rest of Craig's content, and you'll never find him supporting that claim with sufficient evidence to believe it's true. So again, with each argument for god one or more logical errors (fallacies) was made. And bad logic isn't evidence, it's _just bad logic._ That leaves us without a good reason to believe any gods actually exist. Yes, evidence is the body of facts indicating something is true.
An apologist is a philosopher who is not in search of truth, but seeks to prove his foregone conclusions with philosophical arguments. It's painful to listen to WLC:n incredibly poor, illogical arguments. He should be ashamed of himself, that he does not know the first thing about contemporary ethics.
+sauniz1 While I will say this is WLC worst debates but his arguments are sound and are based in logic. This happened to be one night that WLC was not as well prepared as he usually is. He almost looked confused at the questions and points Shelly was attempting to make and was not sure what angle to take. Yet again Shelly was unable to justify his point either but was able to look somewhat better doing it. The bases for morals will always allude naturalist unless they except that life is predestined to the mechanisms of the physical world and choices on morality really do not exist to the individual but are just a product of physics. How does rational thoughts on morality really come from irrational physical states?
+Casey Skipper What I'd like to hear from WLC is proofs for his christian premises: That Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus died for our sins, that the Bible is the word of God etc. You never hear these proven, because to him they proven a priori, through inner experience. Well, WLC, so claims every religionist on this planet. How is YOUR inner experience "more real" than these others'? His arguments with regards to ethics fail also. A) While it may be true that objective moral values would be nice to have, that does not mean they exist. He uses a sort of abductive reasoning towards the most convenient. Just because something would be nice, if it were true, does not mean it is. B) Contemporary ethics can point to natural laws to give us an objective basis for morality. That does not mean that it would not need to have a human interpretative component, but C) so do theists. How is the Bible an objective moral guide? Who has the objective way to read this incredibly ambiguous and multifaceted library of ancient literature? There are tens of thousands of christian sects right now who base their identities on a certain way of reading the Bible. Every interpretation is different and has it's basis on the situation at hand and the interpreters own values and world view. Even if the Bible was objective, unerring and unambiguous, where would we get an objective and unerring interpreter for it?
+sauniz1 I don't really argue for biblical truths but I have read it cover to cover. Old testament is very tough reading. The argument for a creator seems to be reasonable from other angles as well but the moral argument seems very troubling to me if I accept the naturalistic view. It seems that most naturalistic moral arguments begin with the assumption that life has a reason to want to continue living and reproducing. Why is a complicated arrangements of elements have a desire to want to continue on and make more of them. This gives meaning in the same way as two atoms creating a bond. Irrational to me and I reject the idea that rational thought can come from irrational building blocks. It's like arguing something (time and space) came from nothing with no cause. We have never in human experience seen or accepted a result without a cause until atheist asked us to. This is why theist will say atheist have more faith then they do and build a logical argument from there.
Phelan Exactly. Christians don't get the morality from the Bible, but from the wisdom of the world, which the Bible condemns as foolishness in God's sight. They adapt their interpretation of the Bible to the surrounding culture, values, practices etc.
Casey Skipper Science has not given us a solution to the problem of the first cause. It hasn't "proven" that a quantum flux, gravity or a natural law has started the universe. Until it has, we should keep asking these questions - these are most important ones there are. But we also should not assume that this creator, if there is one, is a human-like personality who is actively and directly involved with his creation. Why would you assume that this creator creates a universe in a Big Bang, let's it develop billions of years, but then has to go back to it and supernaturally give man rationality and ethics, rather than creating a universe in which these develop naturally over time? I think this makes the creator irrational. It seems to think that the creator would have created an imperfect universe to begin with which "he" has to fix later.
@ Time 1:18 on the video… Shelly Kagan says… "My view is that what morality boils down to is… don't harm and do help" That is as deep as it gets for Shelly Kagan. On Naturalism -- There is No real meaning, value & purpose to human existence. So, just make it all up with a social contract and don't harm anyone. William Lane Craig was clearly the winner in this discussion
+TheMirabillis What's the problem? He's talking about what he believes is the foundation for ethics. It can't get any deeper than that, and it wouldn't be any better if it could.
UkiWoDao What's the problem ? Craig is talking about what he believes is the foundation for ethics. It can't get any deeper than that, and it wouldn't be any better if it could.
+TheMirabillis If you're saying "it boils down to..." you're stating your foundation, the bedrock upon which your theory or belief rests. So, by definition, it couldn't get deeper than that. The point of contention is that you take, as Craig, "deep" to mean "ultimately" or transcendentally meaningfull. But I think Kagan asked a good question to which Craig never responded appropriately. How does the fact of our inevitable death make the good things we do any less good? If you're hungry and I offer you food, will you reject it on the grounds that it's "ultimately" pointless? I believe not.
UkiWoDao Craig did respond appropriately but either Kagan never understood what Craig was saying or didn't want to understand. If there is No God and all of life ends at the grave, then nothing does really matter. There would be no basis to say that child abuse, rape, or murder were really wrong actions.
+TheMirabillis Kagan asked: how is it that we either have ultimate meaning, or no meaning at all. Craig answered that it just seemed to him strange that we would have any significance, which of course isn't an answer, he's just repeating himself. And Kagan did give a basis for morality. Bad things harm you, so you want to avoid them. Others are mostly like you, so you should avoid it for them too. Rape, abuse and murder clearly do harm. So we shouldn't do it. Imagine a life in constant, agonizing pain. You would agree that no one would want that, not even for a day, let alone days or years. No one would like that regardless of ANY belief they might hold. You wouldn't want a day of constant, agonizing pain, even if you were told you were going to die the next day. You wouldn't want such a day even if you believed in the afterlife. This shows that It matters perfectly to you (and everybody else), not to be in constant, agonizing pain, regardless of you dying or having an afterlife.
Kagan: What makes something morally wrong or right? Reason does. Hume: Tsk, tsk...you call yourself a moral philosopher and you don't know that is's to ought's are a no-no?
I'm not a Christian so your question would be irrelevant to me regarding a claimed holy text. I'm simply asking do we have faith in our reason, is there any way we can objectively give credibility to it?
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:19 📚 The debate is about whether God is necessary for morality. The focus is not on whether belief in God is necessary for living morally.
00:47 🔄 Kagan acknowledges that morality has been discussed with and without appeal to God throughout history.
03:32 🌐 Kagan explains he will argue that belief in or existence of God is not necessary for morality.
07:12 💡 Kagan outlines his view of morality: right actions avoid harm and help others, even without invoking God.
15:12 🤔 Kagan explores whether moral commandments necessitate a commander or if requirements can exist independently.
21:53 🎯 Kagan asserts that moral philosophers inclined towards atheism can believe in a morality without God.
23:07 📢 Craig clarifies that the debate is about whether God is necessary for morality, not whether belief in God is necessary for moral living.
23:34 📍 Craig emphasizes that the question's answer depends on the definition of morality; some forms of moral behavior can exist without God.
23:47 🤔 Objective moral values are discussed - whether certain actions are intrinsically good or evil.
24:02 🤯 Both atheists and theists agree that God is necessary for morality to have objective significance.
25:50 🙅♂️ Without God, objective moral values would lack a foundation and might be seen as products of human evolution.
31:26 🦁 The absence of God questions the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong actions, as animals exhibit similar behaviors.
32:52 💡 Objective moral duties need an explanation without God's commandments as a basis.
36:30 ☠️ If there's no God, moral accountability seems to disappear, making actions ultimately insignificant.
38:48 🧐 The absence of moral accountability in atheism could lead to a cynical sense of futility in moral choices.
39:57 🤨 Atheists face a challenge in explaining the basis for objective moral values, duties, and accountability.
46:24 🤷♂️ Naturalism struggles to explain what makes human beings morally special and different from other creatures.
50:09 🤔 Dr. Kagan emphasizes that naturalism's explanation of moral significance may be subjective and based on personal beliefs.
52:15 😕 The definition of free will is complex and its compatibility with determinism is debated.
52:57 😮 If naturalism is true and determinism holds, free will might be lacking, which could impact moral value.
54:44 😶 Denying deeper meaning doesn't necessarily make ethics illusory; ethical significance exists on a human scale.
56:36 🤔 The significance of actions isn't just about cosmic impact, it's about personal, societal, and subjective value.
57:32 🤨 Disagreement about whether the lack of eternal significance renders actions entirely inconsequential.
58:39 😕 Objective moral values may exist, but on atheism, moral accountability might be lacking.
59:50 🧐 Moral viewpoint's adoption is questioned, especially in the absence of cosmic implications.
01:04:44 😕 The role of God in enabling free will is a point of contention.
01:05:55 😯 Objective moral values provide a basis for evaluating actions, even with human imperfections.
01:06:55 😮 Accountability in a theistic context and the potential tension between salvation and moral judgment.
01:13:10 🧐 Acknowledgment of human imperfections, sin, and the role of religious and moral education.
01:14:18 🤨 Examining theological aspects of salvation, punishment, and moral accountability in Christianity.
01:15:14 😕 Perspectives on the significance of actions within a temporal context and despite cosmic outcomes.
01:15:58 🐾 Theists argue that a Christian perspective provides a basis for ethical treatment of animals, seeing it as a divine responsibility to care for the Earth and its creatures.
01:17:36 🥩 Different perspectives on animal treatment: Theists emphasize responsible stewardship, while non-theists may argue against causing harm to animals and advocate for vegetarianism.
01:19:15 🌍 Discussion on cultural differences: Exploring how societies with various moral codes and treatment of marginalized groups can be evaluated based on transcendent moral standards or evolving moral truths.
01:20:53 👥 Moral assessment of societies: Theism allows making moral judgments about societies' actions, while non-theism might rely on gradual societal evolution in recognizing moral truths.
01:23:01 🕊️ Theism offers a foundation for objective moral values, duties, and accountability, with divine nature defining the good, while atheism might struggle to ground these concepts.
01:24:52 ⚖️ Atheistic perspectives on morality: Atheists propose that morality can exist as an objective reality through a moral contract formed over time, regardless of divine influence.
01:26:03 📚 Encouragement for exploration: Both sides encourage students to delve into moral philosophy and religion to better understand these complex issues and engage in informed discussions.
thank you for this outline!
Thank you!
This is how a Philosophical discourse is supposed to be done. The best I've seen so far. Thank you Professor Kagan and Doctor Craig.
Milo Ibrado eactly! This was very pleasant to watch, unlike Krauss, where I cringe everytime I watch his childish arrogance on display
@@Chicago-os9bl weeewwwa
@@Chicago-os9bl vivid
well... who won ?
@@mzkhan93 Does it matter?
First time I've seen Kagan not sitting on an antique podium, scratching it with his Converse.
I must admit, sitting cross-legged on the lectern, how gauche, I thought and there did confront my innate conservatism, that I didn't know I had XD But I persisted and came under the spell of a very fine teacher.
i like the energy of his lectures, he’s the kind of professor i would like to be one day
@@liam1561 ._.
😅😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
@@hinteregions you’re psychotic if you had such a visceral reaction to the way someone chose to sit such that they might be comfortable over a prolonged amount of time in the same spot
At 1:09.20 Craig says you "have to have God as an objective transcendent standard for moral value." But the "God" that he imagines to be the objective moral standard is the one he subjectively defines as "God." Craig is the one who is declaring, on no evidence at all, that God, in Craig's imagination, must be loving and kind and moral and just. This is a typically subjective human definition of what an "ideal God" would be. So he declares that this ideal God exists, then claims that he must exist if moral standards are cosmically objective. The circularity is spinning.
Yep the claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 Great example of circular reasoning.
I must use this as an example illustrative of informal logical fallacies in my next class.
@@lesliewilliam3777
Yep i find circular reasoning is something Christians frequently engage in.
And Prof. Kagan's 60 seconds about vegetarianism/veganism (1:17:30) is one of the most succinct and rational explanations why it is incompatible with an ethical life to brutalize and eat sentient beings simply because we can.
Why is sentient life more important than non-sentient life? Seems incredibly arbitrary to me. #PlantLivesMatter
Grim Theorist he didn't say they are more important, did he?
UkiWoDao By distinguishing sentient life as the type of life that is unacceptable to kill, he is directly insinuating that non-sentient life is acceptable to kill.
You must be trolling. There is a clear difference in importance.
The premise of Prof Kagan's utilitarian argument against non-vegetarianism is pain. Sentient life, or more specifically, complex organisms have evolved enough to register pain, whereas there isn't evidence available enough to suggest simple organisms like plants can. I remember reading a scientific journal saying that certain creatures which we domesticate and throw into the meat industry are able to suffer as well.
How fun would it be to watch Frank Turek try to debate Shelly Kagan
Try....and fail.
@@biggregg5 yeah I mean it would be fun to see Frank Turek
Because I … I mean I’m genuinely convinced that Turek just doesn’t see another alternative other than God for the concept of morality
WLC I think is too smart for that . He just lost
@@azophi Obviously, without God, there is no objective morality. Shelly Kagan lost.
@@terminat1 obviously?
I can see how people argue that but by my lights it’s just not… obvious… to me 😅
@@azophi Perhaps because you're a committed atheist.
The Veritas Forum had made it very clear that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment.
I think it's nearly impossible to have knockdown debates in philosophy, especially when both sides are well versed with the topics
The atheist was not stringently challenged.
@@thejaskrishna6061 Atheists have no reason to be moral since death to them is merely non-existence.
@@ThomasCranmer1959
Theism doesn't force people to be moral either.
That was kind of the point of "I can do evil and as long as I manage to recognise the saving power of Jesus in the accountability is not really there"... for which Craig couldn't really reply.
Appealing to divine revelation doesn't solve metaethics problems.
that's literally a quote from wikipedia, which is credited to Craig, explaining why he did so badly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelly_Kagan#cite_note-11 it comes right after Craig saying Kagan was lying! "the view Kagan defended in the debate was not his [Kagan's] view at all"
Open dialogue at 42:00
Thanks for this
Craig's Post-debate review:
Contemporary moral arguments
By the way, the curious thing about the view that Kagan defended is that it is not really his view at all! He is a radical consequentialist, who holds that the moral value of our actions is determined solely by the consequences of our actions. He believes that we are morally required to perform any action, no matter what it is, if it will eventually lead to the best result overall, the best defined in terms of human flourishing. If torturing and raping a little girl leads to greater human well-being in the end, then that's what you're morally obligated to do. Kagan admits that this sort of consequentialism is not only widely rejected by ethicists but is wildly implausible as well. I suspect that's why he chose not to articulate and defend his real views in our dialogue but to affect a position he himself regards as false, namely, the view that the moral thing to do is whatever ideally rational persons would agree one ought to do.
In our dialogue I argued that objective moral values and duties are grounded in God and His commands. So in answer to your question, "Don't we agree that normal people SHOULD be rational even if God didn't exist?": if by "should" you mean "morally ought," then on atheism I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to be rational. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation to be rational.
Contemporary moral arguments - The problems in Kagan’s pretended view
As for what's wrong with Kagan's pretended view, we need to keep clearly in mind the distinction I constantly emphasize between moral epistemology and moral ontology . Moral epistemology concerns how we come to know the Good; moral ontology concerns the foundation in reality of the Good. The view affected by Prof. Kagan, if it is to be relevant to my case for God as a foundation for morality, must not put forward merely as a prescription for how we come to know our moral obligations. That's not the issue before us, and the theist could agree that asking, "How would perfectly rational persons act in this situation?" might be a reliable guide to discerning one's moral obligations.
Rather Kagan must be taken to mean that our moral obligations are actually constituted by how ideally rational people would say we ought to act in a particular situation. But then the question I raised in our dialogue presses: why think such a thing? Why think that if you could assemble a committee of perfectly rational human beings and they all would agree that you should do some action A , this constitutes a moral obligation for you to do A ? As a foundation for objective moral values and duties this explanation seems wholly arbitrary.
Prof. Kagan in his book The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) has a good deal to say about the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He rightly maintains that "one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has" (p. 13). He insists, "This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don't have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true" (Ibid.) He anticipates the objection that all explanations must come to end somewhere . "Perhaps this is so," he responds, "but it would still be no license to cut off explanation at a superficial level" (p. 14). Short of an adequate explanation, he says, our moral principles "will not be free of that taint of arbitrariness" that characterizes ad hoc shopping lists of moral principles (p. 13).
Contemporary moral arguments - The explanatory inadequacy of Kagan’s pretended view
As I said in our dialogue, Kagan's pretended view seems to me to be characterized by just that sort of arbitrariness because it cuts off explanation at a superficial level. What we want to know is why the decisions of such an ideal committee has any objective status in grounding actual moral values and obligations. I can't see any reason to think that this is the actual ground of objective moral values and duties.
Indeed, given that perfectly rational people do not exist, how can his pretended account actually ground moral values and duties? There is no such ideal committee; it does not exist and has never considered or decided anything. So how can actual objective moral values and duties be grounded in such a non-reality? (If Kagan's pretended view grounded morality in the decisions of actual human beings, it would be just an affirmation that moral values and duties are not objective. They're made up or constituted by human beings. But then moral values and duties would not be valid and binding independently of whether anybody believes in them or not.) Asking how such ideal persons would behave might, once more, be a helpful guide to discerning our moral duties (like asking "What would Jesus do?"), but a non-reality cannot be the ontological foundation of some reality.
Finally, notice that there is an assumption underlying Kagan's pretended view which threatens to be massively question-begging, namely, it just assumes that all perfectly rational people would agree about what our moral obligations are! That simply assumes that what Kagan calls moral minimalists, like nihilists, egoists, and libertarians, are all irrational. But then he needs to show why the atheistic moral nihilist is wrong in thinking that in the absence of God objective moral values and duties do not exist. Otherwise, he's begging the question. So long as it is rational to maintain, as I argued, that in the absence of God, objective moral values and duties do not exist, minimalists cannot be excluded from the ideal committee, and so the committee will fail to agree that we have any moral obligations to do anything. In other words, to borrow Dostoyevsky's memorable phrase, all things will be permitted.
- William Lane Craig
Can I call you William? Dear William, Kagan's basing the objectivity of morality on our capacity to reason and be rational does not seem to me to be a naturalistic theory at all. It is not an explanation of how we came to create moral systems or why they express an objective reality. A true naturalistic theory would inquire as to how humans came up with moral systems: what were the precipitating factors, and what were the actions that allowed moral systems to become self-organizing and universal to all human societies? You both seem to presuppose different ideas about "objectivity". Your's is that objectivity comes from the omnipotent perspective of God's. Kagan's is that objectivity comes from the consistent use of reason. In some ways you are at an advantage, because modern philosophy has handicapped itself by falling into a useless debate about whether or not morality is based on anything real or whether it is just imposed on reality by our feverish imaginations. The fact is, we need imagination to understand anything that we cannot relate to directly. That would be God, reason, and objectivity. Remember, a naturalistic explanation is based on physical events and actions. As soon as you bring in metaphors like "reason" and "objectivity" to an explanation it isn't a naturalistic explanation at all.
naveen82376 it is idiotic to say that we need to assume that rational beings will agree about our moral obligations, when we know we agree and we are the only rational beings that we know of. What the hell does he mean he says that it is an assumption, from where i am standing it seems to be observation.
naveen82376 But were you predetermined to make such a response or did you choose to respond how you responded? If you are making a truth Claim you are rising above subjective reasoning and by doing so you Violate Determinism. ☕️
David Hartzfield sorry but it doesnt follow.
Naveen well said. I'll be honest? Is not how deep our wisdom nor know everything that needed to know that exists? Neither upon all dry GROUNDS nor all the things you can't see? My brother a candle that is truly lit? Is for that precious candle is to be lifted up to shine upon the dark that don't comprehend the true light? But a candle that is not lit? Just looking pretty? Our tongues? Our word has power? Our tongues uttered becomes our world? Your will be done? Like you can't force your wife to love you? Other prepare digital wife? Press button kiss me? Lol! Pressures of life? Many can't stand nor delight talking to God? But not all? These individuals are humble but yet a lion? Kings and priests you are? @LLOVE STAY BEAUTIFUL MY BROTHER I SHALL DO THE SAME. Removing death upon all dry GROUNDS of what sin nor anything goes? Has planted upon all dry GROUNDS. That brings opposite of God intended indeed. @LLOVE everything has time? Like the man who's throwing the bible and the Koran like trash his will be done? Stay beautiful my beloved brother? Many, many, many, true individuals are like a lamb. Rather wash your feet of showing their strength of humbleness? Yet, solid like the dry GROUNDS.
Craig was torn apart once again on morality. Kagan did amazingly. New fan.
How so?
Nah.
Yes, his presentation had a sense of natural expression unlike Craig’s rather scripted speech. Not that one is necessarily better than the other, but to my ears, Kagan could have been speaking almost off the cuff. He also managed to express complex ideas using accessible language. It would be a pleasure to be taught by him.
I was disappointed that Kagan didn't provide a real argument for "objective" morality. I suspect there isn't really a good argument for this so I don't blame him but it does ultimately mean he falls back on subjective morality
@@andyfireandairhow is harm subjective? It either happens or it doesn’t
Fantastic debate, obviously Shelly Kagan was much better prepared !
This is one of my favorite WLC debates, since Kagan really helps illuminate the question-begging coming from WLC (and his supposed "foundation" for morality). When Craig got to the part about, "What's so special about humans from a naturalistic perspective?", Kagan pointed out the incredibly obvious answer to that. Craig, however, refuses to accept it since he's defined human significance in terms of god from the beginning. This way, no matter what the naturalist points out, Craig just retorts with "so what"? Kagan saw this and brilliantly pointed out how we could do the same thing with god-prescribed morality, to which Craig just stubbornly refused and decided to stick to his preconceived notions.
Even though Craig is wildly incorrect on many things, he usually outperforms his opponents due to him being a good debater/rhetorician. In this though, Kagan really outclassed him. This was almost as good as the Sean Carroll debate.
Kagan had some very good answers but on others it doesn't seem to make sense. Or at least it makes very little sense. Whats good for one person is often bad for another - why should a person care about the collective? And whose to decide what's better?
@@weeklydaily4775 A contractarian or a utilitarian can offer an easy answer to this question - it is about what is the most rational/beneficial decision for all parties involved. I grant that these frameworks have criticisms, but this is just an example that helps show that we can navigate the moral terrain and discover better pathways than others...OBJECTIVELY. You can be dead wrong in thinking that a certain action is good, because your beliefs and thought processes about certain things may be objectively untrue.
The “so what?” argument against God doesn’t work. Simply being that God is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good and all just. The universe is not. God created humans with morals & intent, therefore we were intentionally design by an intelligent mind with purpose and understand morals instinctively.
What would feel more special? Finding a hundred dollars on your own, or someone giving you a hundred dollars? You’ll feel more valued if someone gave you a hundred dollars. God intentionally gave us life, therefore we value it more. With that value comes morals and eternal fate.
In a godless universe it’s easy for me to say “so what?” when it comes to morals because my eternal life isn’t destined with consequence. My morals are determined by the biological mindless chemicals that make up my brain, therefore nobody’s at fault for their actions. As Richard Dawkins said “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”
Now in a godly universe you can also say “so what?” when it comes to morals, but it wouldn’t be rational todo considering the outcome of your eternal fate. It would be self reckless. You’ll be taking the alternative route of Gods standard of good. Of course you can say “so what if it’s self reckless” but that would be your choice that determines your outcome.
@@HudClipz That's an interesting take on it, but it's hard to say whether there's an a priori basis for these "ought" statements in the first place. If you recall what Hume said on this, he made the distinction that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". So even if god is all-knowing, there is nothing you can say that can logically take you from "god knows X" to "god tells us we OUGHT to do X". This would still be a human intuition to lead from is --> ought which is not logically derivable from all-knowingness.
Defining god in terms of "all-good" is quite a loaded term in the first place. The origin for where we get good and evil is from consciousness itself. All the theist ends up doing is inflating this notion infinitely when it comes to god. It's projection, and gives no insight on what the nature of "good" actually is. If you recall the old Euthyphro dilemma, this is the exact point that it is raising - is god commanding something because it is good, or is it good because god commands it? No matter what answer you give, there can never be a non-circular definition that answers this question.
God's omnibenevolence is simply an extension of the human mind that we take for granted. This is akin to saying that god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and has the biggest biceps. Where did that come from? It was simply an extension of the experiences and attributes we give to ourselves as humans. If you want a sound definition of morality and you think naturalism can't give you an answer, then god certainly can't give you an answer either.
@@johnnylamaa2569 Let me address the all knowing part first and I’ll reply to the other statements since this will take up some space.
That’s Theological fatalism, and it goes like this
1: God foreknows we will do X
2: if God foreknows we will do X, we will do X
3: We will necessarily do X
The thought is that by this logic we will “necessarily” (or be forced to) do action X because of Gods foreknowledge.
The first two premises are correct. However, the conclusion and point 3 does not follow from the prior points because of the injection of the additional word “necessarily”. In order for this logic to follow, we must remove “necessarily”. Since it does not appear in any of the original premises. We are left with this.
1: God foreknows we will do X
2: if God foreknows we will do X, we will do X
3: We will do X
This is not logically coherent, but this argument no longer implies Gods foreknowledge forces action X, because action X is not necessary. The logic here only proves that there is a correlation between action X and Gods foreknowledge. Correlation does not imply causation.
Then why is there a correlation? Because our future action X dictates what God foreknows. It turns out that our action X causes Gods foreknowledge, but not the only way around. This correct causation is the reason for the correlation.
Fantastic debate. It's great to see WLC challenged in this way. Thank you for sharing!
When was he ever not?
I don’t think he was challenged at all. I think the challenge he was facing was that Kelly was being very slippery with rationalizing his worldview- even admitting that Determinism and Free Will can coexist (by some stretched philosophical argument).
Kelly even misquoted Craig’s quote of Ruse and was basically asking Craig to explain why Ruse thought the way that he did.
I felt Kelly was very defensive (naturally if you hold the belief the he holds) and that Craig was very patient with Kelly’s slippery logic.
@@hugomunoz9039 He can't be 'challenged,' he is a Christian. I've done Kagan's really excellent first year Yale course, and all I could think was how much Craig would benefit from that excellent dissection. Craig is no fool, he is an excellent thinker and fine speaker, but unfortunately for us all he is simply wrong. The last thing Shelly Kagan (there's no Kelly here) was is 'defensive,' that is pure fantasy on your part. Restrained, perhaps.
@@hugomunoz9039 "Man can will, but he cannot will what he wills" - Schopenhauer. Here, this, philosophy, as (not) opposed to theology: ua-cam.com/play/PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0.html
@@hinteregions Christians cannot be challenged? I have no idea what that even means.
Anywho…yeah I’m sure craig could learn from kagan….kagan could also learn from Craig….we could all learn from each other. Haha.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
the Bible tells us why. what are you talking about you fool 🤦♂️
@@bunnypoop4508 why should I or anyone accept the bible as an authority on anything?
@@jameslay1489 Jesus Christ
@@bunnypoop4508 which doesn't tell me why.
This seems like a flawed criticism of religion. After all, people who follow the Bible (Jews/Christians) can easily say that stealing is wrong because God decrees it thusly. In doing so, the Bible followers will have explained, through faith, why that act (stealing) is wrong. So, it seems like the central point of the comment is demonstrably incorrect.
This is probably the best debate I've ever seen involving William Lane Craig. I'm very impressed with Shelly Kagan's thorough logic and rhetorical skills. These are both things that Craig's opponents too seldom demonstrate.
@HuckFinn I disagree, logic and skillful debating tactics can and are sufficient for corralling Craig's case for theism. Most of the sophisticated rebuttals to his arguments come from published written sources (a fair share from professional philosophers), the debates are mostly for the interest of the public and getting a message out with an apologetics twist that is deemed important (from Craig's standpoint). Most of his opponents from what I've seen aren't particularly proficient in countering Craig's case (like outlining his assumptions with explanations on why they may not hold up). Craig is a sophisticated debater/apologist so he shouldn't be taken lightly, especially in public forum circumstances.
HuckFinn That’s a lot of talk with no substance! Mind sharing which of Craig’s premises are wrong?
HuckFinn You again provide no substance! I’m starting to wonder if... hmm... maybe you have no objections! What a fool. Goodbye clown😂
HuckFinn Still haven’t heard any specific objections!
@HuckFinn I'm not the one who got on the offensive with no specific arguments. I'm not here to debate Kagan's points. I'm here to see if you actually have something useful to say, since you're obviously very opinionated. You think you're oh so clever bringing up Kagan and calling Craig names but you prove over and over again that you can't debate the topic. How hard is it to point out one incorrect point of Craig's? You're probably some loser who's just filling your missing self esteem with the hatred of someone clearly very intelligent and accomplished. If that's true, I pity you. Whatever the case, you're a waste of my time, so I'm done responding to your insipid remarks.
Of all the philosophers that Dr. Craig has debated, Kagan has probably been my favorite. But his argument still screams subjectivism to me. Fantastic debate.
Yeah he made a ton of great points succinctly, but ultimately he's calling subjective morality "objective" (exactly like Craig).
What's your definition of objective/subjective?
@@majmage You ultimately cannot truly KNOW anything, unless you have omniscience, or know someone who does.
@@jibblecain What does that have to do with my comment?
@@majmage Craig has an actual basis to define something as objective
Honest questions: The phrase "a perfectly rational being" (1:04) seems to presuppose a kind of morality by which Shelly Kagan asserts morality is then derived. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? Also when in the "evolutionary" process does he claim this rationality begins?
I’m sorry, but your question is a little difficult to address with the time stamp you gave.
If we're starting at 11:09, you've completely mischaracterised what he said.
@@MissBlennerhassett876 I'm simply asking a question.
@@nathanfranckhauser Ok, I'll bite. Kagan didn't assert anything about how morality is derived. He was talking about moral principles and how we ground them, not our moral sense and where it comes from.
@@MissBlennerhassett876 This is incorrect both in terms of the overall debate: Kagan - "Is God necessary for morality?" (:26-:33 seconds in) And the context of my timestamp: 1hr 4min. (1:04)
It's very fortunate that morality is not _actually_ grounded in a celestial authority that previously condoned and mandated genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc.
Have you watched/read any responses to the issues you've brought up? I mean it would be cool if you did I promise the Bible isn't as immoral as you think it is
@@Miskeen-33 Yes, I've watched/read varying excuses people try to give to sugar-coat and justify things like genocidal infanticide, and as an ex-Christian I understand what it's like to be convinced that there's some divine goodness and rationale behind slaughtering little kids. I'll nonetheless reiterate that it's very fortunate that you don't actually get your morals from this deity.
@@onionbelly_ i certainly do Because the bedrock of society is judeo-christian ethics. Things like just war theory, and not lying.
I'm assuming you're talking about the God of the Bible. According to who's moral standard that God is immoral?
@@Miskeen-33 _"the bedrock of society is judeo Christian ethics"_
Hmm 🤔 I find it interesting that you use the phrase _"judeo Christian"_ . Can I just point out that both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not dear ...
I came here thinking Craig might slaughter him, Because in most cases Craig uses his "philosophical" background to kill off Atheist. But it was so refreshing to see a great Atheist Philosopher like Shelly use a thinking beyond the depths of Craig's abilities.
At best Craig uses his knowledge of philosophy to make it sound like he has a point to those who don’t understand his references.
If his goal was to be understood by speaking plainly, he would be de-converting people.
Instead, he keeps people in the pews by giving them the comfort that someone who sounds smart agrees with them.
@@sjd1446 At best, Shelley uses his knowledge to spew bs, such as " Compatibility". Shelley keeps idiot atheists comfortable with his bs.
@@sjd1446’ve yet to see one commented criticism of WLC that isn’t a character attack lol. Don’t take it so personally. You’re free to be an atheist. You don’t have to be rude to help you cope with your beliefs.
@@tristan8041 Describing dr. Craig’s actions is in no way tantamount to attacking his character.
I don’t see how anything I said could possibly be construed as rude. Why are you so sensitive about this?
Apologies if I hurt your feelings.
The reason I watch these videos is that I’m looking for a reasonable convincing argument against the position I currently hold.
The reason I comment Is to share why I am not convinced in hopes that someone might point out a misunderstanding that I may have about the arguments I’m hearing.
If you have anything to offer as far as that goes, I’d love to hear it.
@@robinrobyn1714 someone's triggered.
I have to agree with many of the comments listed below, Craig was clearly out classed. Shelly immediately stumped him with his first question and Craig was unable to provide a compelling response when he was able to respond. I guess it makes a big difference when you're sitting across from an eminent philosopher who happens to be an atheist; he's trained in the same discipline as you so you can't flippantly use your philosophical training to brow-beat, you must provide cogent arguments. Craig definitely didn't provide any cogent responses to Shelly.
I love Craigs responses and thought Kagan was quite inept in his arguments. Guess just different strokes for different folk. Craig is the best in this debate and pretty much every one i have seen.
@@ceceroxy2227Shelly won by a landslide
I have a feeling that Kagan is arguing for a morality more in the likes of Camus and Craig tryting to prove that Sartre's view is harmful.
Other than that Kagan faired his arguments better as after all it is his field of research. Craig found himself in a territory not quite his own.
Still, a very nice discussion, much better than the other atheist vs. Christian debates I've seen. Much more respect and no strawmen.
No strawmen? WLC was attempting one after another.
@@biggregg5 In your fantasy my guy
At 1:14:35 the look on Kagen's face when he get's WLC to use the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy almost word for word. Just great
WLC doesn’t commit the no true scotsman fallacy. No Christian tradition, church or the scriptures teaches that there is no accountability for sins that someone does even if they repent. God punishes sin in this life and in purgatory (which only Catholics and Orthodox as far as I know teach). The no true scotsman fallacy only works if the regeneralization is arbitrary, but it’s not, as scripture and Church tradition do not teach what Kagan is saying. Thus, genuine Christians believe there is accountability for sins or evil committed. Kagan doesn’t know what he is talking about here.
Almost everything they say I find myself disagreeing with. Strange to see that after 4 years I’v realized I’m neither an atheist nor a Christian, and yet I still believe in God.
I can sympathize with this. Do you also have the weird feeling that we're approaching this the wrong way?
well then probably just a Deist.
@@flapjackpanda
Nope. Classical theist. Deism is the worst idea.
@@whoami8434 Classical theism is a form of monotheism, so would you consider yourself a christian? or perhaps something else entirely?
@@flapjackpanda
I would consider myself a classical theist, but that doesn’t mean “Christian”.
To this day I still haven't heard an answer to why whether something is good or not, from a worldview without GOD as a basis. I kept hearing about a "social contract" and how it would be objective, but if a group adopted and opposing "social contract" how would we know who is correct?
I think the understanding is that, this social contract is not arbitrary where a group suddenly decides on what's moral vs immoral. The idea is that it has happened over millennia, collectively, organically, where the species has come to recognize what things contribute to human flourishing vs what does not. Hence why our collective understanding of what "morality" is, has also evolved.
For me, ethics can be more objective than the social contract framing, because we continue to hone our understanding of human health and well-being, what promotes it, and what diminishes it. Can I say that human health being morally good is a universal absolute that exists separate from humans? No, definitely not. But it's a common ethical goal for our species, and I don't see a coherent alternative. (It seems that the only times it is justified to forego health and well-being are when the ultimate goal is an even greater or more widespread degree of health and well-being, like any other situations in life where we sacrifice a small happiness to achieve a greater one. This logic still applies in a religious context too, just with an added spiritual dimension of values.)
Now, say there's a hypothetical group of humans, or another species, who actually have completely different conditions for their health and well-being (beyond just cultural norms). I don't think the issue with that scenario is whether their morality is *true*, but rather how we could get along with such a group - how our ethics can interact with theirs. That is a practical conundrum, but not so much a problem with the fundamental basis for ethics. I have no problem with the idea that other intelligent species could have different but valid ethics within their own species, because their health and psychology works differently. (We can make the comparison to other animal species on our planet, and figuring out how to coexist with them when they often have very different instincts and needs than humans.)
To return your question in the other direction: I keep hearing about "God" and how it would be objective, but if a group adopted an opposing "God morality" how would we know who is correct? In other words, it is easy enough to say there is an objective morality. But I think the real puzzle is *how we can know* what that morality is. And it seems to me that the puzzle of how to know is just as concerning, and even more challenging, for those who must try to figure out God's morality.
@Greeneye Ethics simply boils down to accepted social norms in the way you seem to describe it. I don't believe we disagree about the furthering of human health and well-being as a general priority for a vast majority, but as you said there is no way to universally and objectively state that it is "good" or "evil". That is the main point. The inability to justify 'good and evil', 'right and wrong', and 'darkness and light' is not possible without a transcendent, independent, and morally perfect being.
You brought up rival groups flying the banner of their GOD and proposing opposing idea's of what is morally good. That is the essence of most religious or anti-religious debate. Fundamentally, it is exactly, like you said, a competing of cultural ethics.
The fundamental difference in Christianity is that it clearly explains that the evil (sin) we commit is what will separate us from the infinite, all-loving, and morally good creator for eternity. That creator will not be in the presence of imperfection, hence the choice for that same creator (out of his love) to provide a way to perfect us and reconcile us to Himself. Hence, the need for JESUS CHRIST. All of those other "God groups" say to do more good than bad according to their cultural ethics, with no way to rectify past sin or evil.
I kind of got off topic, but I said that to say if there isn't a transcendent moral law giver, then any actions taken (whether individually or collectively) cannot objectively be deemed good or bad. Furthermore, if there is no judge or punishment for evil, then why should anyone care?
@@ThereIsHopeInCHRIST777 It's objective in the same way that medicine is objective in terms of human health. As to why anyone should care: Well, why should anyone care about eating when hungry, or sleeping when deprived of sleep, or healing an injury? Do we require the same kind of ultimate "reason" to care about those things?
Don't get me wrong, there are some troubles. Like, how do you justify human well-being to someone who truly doesn't care about it or feel any compassion? I don't know the answer to that. But do you? How do you justify religious ethics to the same person if they don't care about spiritual purity? For that question, we are in the same exact boat.
But I have no problem accepting that there might be no "absolute" moral good separate from the experience of living beings. That is very far from saying there is nothing for me to care about. As a human, I am quite well fit to caring about the human experience, and about the nature of the world I live in.
P.S. I would definitely challenge your claim that non-Christians have no way to resolve past evils. But I think that's a tangent we don't need to go on. And by the way, even if I accept a transcendent basis for a moral good, that still leaves the question of **how to know** what that is. How to figure out the morally good behaviors. Me, I'm gonna look for something more objective than the words of a holy text. And I mean that with all due respect to the wisdom contained in any given one.
@@gerardjayetileke4373You are explaining the origin of morality, that is you are outlining how and why morality came to be. However, putting aside this simple ontological aspect of morality, the harder question to answer is why should one ought to be moral.
Why should I care for morality if it just is a societal consensus? If morality is merely decided by a majority vote, then it means nothing to me - it follows that I should do whatever I like without any regard for morality.
Moral value is succinctly described by evolutionary psychology and similar fields. We can observe this rules in other animals.
This has bothered me for years & bothered me further b/c I've not seen a comment addressing it: anyone else awe-struck by the casual dropping of the so-called "No True Scotsman" fallacy at 1:14:36? Does that alone not seriously undermine the "objective" morality argument that Craig had been on the ropes with for the better part of the beginning topic? Who among you can w/ authority define the genuine characteristics of a christian properly w/o contest or complaint? I would like to know why this isn't a tacit admission of defeat.
Pardon me, I simply don't understand what it is you're trying to say here. Is this a response to my question or a kind of proselytization?
All right, so proselytization.
+Kujo Johnston, I noticed a bit of laughter from the crowd at that point, I think some of them got it!
He is saying that there is no accountability since the rapist or murderer knows that they can still find god someday at the time of committing the moral wrong. I think that's far fetched and Craig is right in saying that a Christian cant think that way because no human being would think this way.
If they are not Christian or say an atheist then absolution wouldn't be something they considered possible even if they planned to find god etc. I highly doubt someone who is "100%" sure that Jesus's promise is real would be the same person committing that crime.
Hey Steve Frank, thanks for the comment. . . .
"A christian cant think that way because no human being would think this way" (sic)
So I am not sure what exactly that means. Are you sincerely trying to posit that no Christian, never mind a human being, not only has never, but in fact could never, think that it was possible for them to commit a crime (or crimes) then repent upon their deathbed & be forgiven by God & remanded to Heaven everlasting? That to think in such a way would somehow negate their status as quote-unquote Real Christians?
It's really fruitful argument ever I have heard! 💕
How odd that Craig, a philosopher, resorts to personal incredulity as a relevant objection to Kagan’s claims.
I think Kagan won handily. When your arguments are well thought-out, you iron out any problems and they make intuitive sense, and then you don't struggle to answer questions. Craig clearly struggled several times. Kagan never did.
@@geki9063 Exactly! It seems amazing to me that Craig would even contemplate debating an accomplished moral philosopher like Kagan in defence of an argument that is widely recognised in the philosophical community as being one of the poorest arguments there is to account for morality. Here Kagan shows unequivocally that not only can you successfully ground morality in a robustly defensible secular framework, but that there are multiple robustly defensible approaches (as there are!) that could have been called upon. Of course, Craig never once does what he should do to defend his position, which is to show systematically the flaws in all these approaches and why theism is the answer. Of course I understand that this is a time constrained discussion forum, but just the same he does not even give a cursory nod to competing explanations. This lack of honest engagement (and acknowledgment of competing views he has a duty to show are flawed) can leave believers with the false impression that there are only two explanations of morality, when there in fact dozens. And then to see Craig, an accomplished philosopher, shamelessly commit the no true Scotsman fallacy when pressed hard by Kagan, was truly pitiful.
How is your claim justified if, in his opening statement he claims that God is the ontological foundation for morality and that without him objective moral values and duties do not exist. If that is the argument he is making, then it is not the case that he is resorting to personal incredulity.
“But that proposed fact wouldn’t be emotionally satisfying to me, so that counts as strong evidence that it’s false.” Talk about fallacious reasoning. This isn’t the first time Craig has made this kind of argument, either.
@@itehtruthi1I don’t see personal incredulity claimed, but I could be wrong.
The failure of the argument is obvious, immediate and catastrophic to the careful critics thinker. If OMs exist independently of minds, as Craig claims, and god has a mind, then by axiomatic definition they exist independently of god’s mind. god cannot be the author of something that exists independently of his own mind.
Craig uses special pleading to get around this and will cite OMs as being a function of his being. But this opens up modified horns of the Euthyphro dilemma that infinitely regress. Add in divine command and the fact that theism can’t get an ought from an is, and this argument falls on its own sword.
In terms of cosmic consequences, I think Craig has it exactly backwards - the importance of human suffering is magnified vastly if this really is our only life on the universe. For infants born with, say, heart defects who exist for only hours in anguish, if they're to be rewarded with eternal bliss, the proportion of their suffering to their pleasure is negligible. The mind of the believer in cosmic justice is soothed. For moral people who don't believe in an afterlife (including many Jews), it becomes vastly more of a problem and a spur to action.
In fact, his comments on speciesism are sound, but atheists like CosmicSkeptic don't use that as a reason to constrain their circles of sympathy, they use it as grounds to limit the scale of behaviour which causes suffering which they're complicit in.
There are no "cosmic consequences" in a materialist universe, there is no reason for existence, no value to life at all. All information will degrade and become irretrievable with the heat death of the universe - pain never mattered, nor does a full life or even a life of billions of years, it is but a flash in the pan to be utterly destroyed for infinite eternity. Only in a universe where there is a design for something greater, a place where we are building to, a way for everything to add up to something new, does anything matter.
@@Maxalthor It only matters by fiat: Euthyphro’s dilemma. Terror management theory compels us to lie to one another about an extension of our ego, then to further abandon empathy as a basis of our interactions with each other.
@@gamerknown There is no dilemma, good is of God's nature and pushes towards greater revelation, divine growth or destiny, all that is not of God will perish and become meaningless. Being fearful is irrelevant, you have no basis for anything to matter at all without some form of spirituality, you are taking for granted an implicit faith or you are in denial of reality.
@@Maxalthor Wrong, every living thing dies, you’re special pleading for humans
@@gamerknown Yeah, who else to have a bias for humans than humans. We must be the center of everything.
Why would a loving, generous, just, faithful, kind God commit the atrocities described in Leviticus?
Because it's not loving and is a creation of human imagination.
@@CesarClouds Wrong
@@manne8575no. He's correct
@@paulnejtek6588 I can assure you he's not
@@manne8575 no, you can't. I'm not assured at all. Most likely you'll be unable to answer basic questions about how Christian belief even plausibly makes sense, much less is actually true
I'm convinced that one of two things are true about most posters here:
1) They never watched this debate and are just spouting what they already believe
2) They are not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge or allow themselves to understand Craig's rock-solid logic.
Most of the posters here fit into the category of "don't confuse me with the facts, I already know what I believe." Their faith in their non-theistic worldview has so blinded them to common sense and logic, that they are simply unable to open their minds to other views, even if they are well formed and articulated. This is not meant to be an ad-hominem attack, just a realistic, honest assessment as I see it.
"don't confuse me with the facts, I already know what I believe." I'm putting this on a shirt. Nothing seems to better express some of the comments in this section.
Craig just made fallacious appeals to emotion and personal incredulity, no logic here whatsoever. He even admitted defeat.
Craig keeps associating aspects like love, goodness, etc. to god, of which he knows nothing about. You can't say that god is unknowable, therefore here are his attributes, and only those attributes that I myself ascribe to.
It's funny how god never once has any kind of conflict with and of his followers. his will is always 100% their will.
precisely
You have no idea what "dying to the self" or "taking up your cross" means. But yes, there are many wolf in sheep's clothing these days...(hypocrites). Also, God is not unknowable. He gave us the bible for a reason. His attributes are in His word.
@@K1370 you missed my point.
@@squirreljester2 What was your point? The second half of your comment was wrong. The first half was also wrong. God is not completely unknowable because we have the bible to describe His attributes.
@@K1370 Craig and most of Christianity would disagree with you.
You get the impression that Craig doesn't have a clue what is going on in half of these debates. He has had this permeant deer in the headlights look on his face for the last decade. I can only assume his pride or his wallet still compels him to go out to these things.
Also, a quick point Craig wasn't allowed to expound on this but according to the Bible, we act morally because we want to follow God's objective command for X or Y, NOT for the SOLE reason we will be rewarded, so Craig's point that moral reasons and prudent reasons will conflict for the Christian and the Christian ought to chose the moral reason.
I think Craig in the interest of time seemed to concede the point that because we will be rewarded for choosing the moral over the prudent, it is actually prudent to chose the moral reason, when while he acknowledges that we will be rewarded, and we often know this, it is not the basis by which we act morally.
Kagan talks about the "contract". What contract? Who wrote it? Who signed it?
I'll answer this using the question WLC absurdly asked of Shelly Kagan during the back and forth portion. For WLC to say "well what if someone in society does not sign the contract" and then act as if that is the straw that breaks the camels back is a misunderstanding of social contract theory. It, in no way, threatens social contract theory. When talking about social contract theory, I often find that people misconstrue what the actually "contract" means. The contract is not some physical document that everyone HAS to sign and HAS to agree to at birth - and I'm not claiming that you in particular make this claim, but I've heard it made before - the social contract is, instead, an immaterial societal agreement that is encompassed in the form of our traditional norms, folkways and general traditions that make any particular group of people who they are, as distinguished by their culture. So now the question, what if someone doesn't sign the contract?
Well, we have the same label for them that anyone else in society would have for them: we would call them criminals, and we would call them general deviants. Those types of people are unavoidable, every society of people has it's deviants. Everyone has a contract, whether you like it or not, if you are born into a society where people live socially then you are living in the terms that they have created. Now, whether or not you choose to deviate from the contract is up to said individual, keep in mind the definition I gave of what the "contract" represents. WLC argues that in order for their to be good, there has to be evil, for without the evil, we cannot possibly know that what is good is good. We can apply the exact same reasoning to social contract and, in fact, I could ask the same type of question and say "well what if someone doesn't obey god?" Does that destroy the god argument? Of course not, because all you have to say is that the said individual will face repercussions from God for not obeying. The social contract line of reasoning is the same, except instead of said individual appealing to God for disobedience, they appeal to the repercussions they will face from society for their disobedience which will take the form of social ostracism, time spent in prison, and other ways that we humans punish our own.
I wish that Kagan would have really laid the wood to WLC here, because he certainly had the opportunity, as it was clear that WLC had a scant understanding of what the actual contract represents. But this is part of what makes theories like social contract, consequentialism, and utilitarianism so effective. They are common sense theories. It is not hard, nor a reach, to believe that human beings, through everyday social interaction over time, develop the foundations for the societies they live in. You almost want want to say, well duh. It doesn't require nearly as much mental gymnastics that WLC has to go through to justify his beliefs.
there is a clear common usage of contractarianism in philosophy. Look shit up.
Kagan says “Let us all imagine a contract because we’re all perfectly rational” I suppose Kagan will be the perfectly rational human? Good luck maybe all of our politicians will sign it! What an a absurdity!😂
Craig talked about his invisible non-existent friend.
Carlos Danger Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems as if your explanation and Shelly’s explanation are different. The major difference is that Shelly did NOT include “societal norms” in his explanation. He said, this contract is what would be agreed upon by “perfectly rational” beings. This is a statement that seems to transcend societal norms, and presents a “sort of” objective foundation for morality.
My problem is with “perfectly rational beings”. It’s a thought experiment that assumes the outcome. For instance, why would “harming someone” be bad? There are different reasons people can come up with, but there seems to also be reasons why people are perfectly fine to harm someone just because they want to (what WLC pointed out, even if you only consider it 1 reason as opposed the “the” reason). So why think that perfectly rational beings would agree on the outcome that he is expressing? It seems to be begging the question IMO.
However, I am genuinely open to increasing my understanding of why you explained “social contract theory” differently than Shelly did IN THIS VIDEO. I’m open to you telling me the areas where I am wrong as well. Hope that makes sense.
Around 19:18 Kagan makes the point that if you brought four different secular moral philosophers on the stage you would likely get four different stories on how to ground morality. I have had this debate playing in the background, so I think I've missed something; however if I'm not mistaken I'm fairly certain that the nature of objective morality plays a role in the debate. That said, if four secular moral philosophers have four different explanations of grounding morality, wouldn't that imply that on the secular view morality isn't objectively grounded at all?
Not necessarily, though that is a good point. There could be, even under objective analysis, multiple mutually satisfactory moral answers to a problem. There could also be fuzzy or unknown answers due to limitations, but we can still try for the _best_ answer in an objective fashion. And there could be moral philosophers who are mistaken. I don't think one should make too much of that statement in the way you characterize it, since his point there was more just to concede the fact that moral analysis is difficult and not as unambiguous as certain areas of human analysis, though that doesn't make it not objective in some respects at least. The objectivity comes from the fact that it's objectively verifiable if you are or are not "not doing harm, and doing help."
BINGO!
If four scientists argue about the mass of a star, that doesn't mean that there is no objective mass to the star.
The point that Dr. Kagan is making is that there are many logically consistent versions of morality that do not rely on God. He's not arguing which one is the actual correct interpretation. This is the same for Theistic views on morality, which have many different flavors and nuances. If disagreement within the atheistic camps means they are wrong, than the same must be said for the Theists.
This was an incredible debate, especially the back and forth. Excellent arguments and objections on both ends.
I thought WLC's arguments were absurdly weak. Delivered confidently, but weak.
then who won
@@mzkhan93 The one who didn’t loose.
@@GeoPePeTto ok. whos the one that didn't loose and won?
The only thing kagan did in this entire debate was defend an inferior position aggressively. He pushed that he was okay with subjective moral relativism and no more. At some point Craig can no longer compete because his opponent admits he is satisfied with less. Kagan's ideology is in no way realistic or liveable because it runs into so many problems. Craig presented this well by asking what if a certain individual didn't want to sign the contract? What makes him morally obligated to do so if he feels he stands to gain more by not signing? What if he feels he's being harmed and not helped by being forced to sign the contract? Kagan won nothing, there's just only so much Craig can say to someone who finds an illogical position comfortable.
Also, just because a contract is made and signed by the majority it doesn't follow that this proves the contract is good. It's merely functional.
Craig really showed his hand in this debate. He honestly believes that unless our lives have a cosmic, eternal purpose, than our lives don't have any meaning at all. The mere concept that maybe this life is the only life we have, and one day all humanity will be lost out to sea due to the inevitable entropy of the universe very clearly scares Craig. It seems pretty clear to me that the basis for his theistic beliefs are out of fear and wishful thinking.
And notice how Craig dodged the point Kagan raised in regards to the justice system of Christianity. If all that it takes to be saved and rewarded in the afterlife is to recognize your wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness, then it really doesn't matter what the consequences of your actions on this earth are. You can be Hitler, and as long as you genuinely repent your sins and pray for salvation before your death, it will be granted. If you were one of Hitler's Jewish victims who died without holding the belief that Jesus is lord, then you will be sent to Hell. Actions are not rewarded in Christianity, but merely beliefs are. This is not a just or moral system, yet this is the very system that Craig espouses to be objective and perfect, and him claiming that no genuine Christian would act this way doesn't wave this problem away.
All Craig did was vaguely describe a powerful, supernatural entity that supposedly created the universe and gives us our morality. Yet this entity isn't in any way objectively proven to exist in the first place, and faith is completely required to believe in it. And you honestly think that presupposing on faith this entity is somehow more realistic in determining how humanity should behave as moral creatures, than the rational approach Kagan offered?
Psalm 14:1
+rimrattler8 To be fair to both speakers, scope of the discussion wasn't designed for Kagan to expound on his views regarding compatabilism, or for Craig to argue for the existence of God or examine Christian morality. Even if Craig is right about the necessity of God for an objective morality, his argument is as such that God doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian god. Of course, both Kagan and Craig explore these topics on other lectures and videos.
Kagan answered that point when he said that the moral contract is something that is implicitly imposed on us all by our existence with one another. Kagan's answer provides an obvious response to your questions, showing them to be nonsensical. The social contract does not harm harm us more than help us, because it born of correct reasoning, so if someone feels they are harmed more than helped by it, that is merely the instance of someone who is irrational. They are wrong about the contract, but cannot see it.
The contract is a metaphor, but your questions treat it as a paper with a signature, which means you obviously did not understand it.
Firstly, I don't think Kagan's only point was that he'd be okay with moral relativism. If anything, he seemed to propose an objective moral framework from a naturalistic perspective.
On a completely unrelated note, every moral system can be destroyed with a simple objection: "I don't care." You can go on and on about why murder is wrong because it destroys the harmony of the social group or that it psychologically damages the people close to the victims as well as the perpetrator, but if the person you're trying to convince doesn't care about any of it, you can't convince him/her. The same is true of theistic moral frameworks; why should I not have extramarital sex? Presumably because God will send me to hell but I don't care about that. It's an intellectual dead end.
What's more, just because God commands something doesn't necessarily make it good. This implies goodness is not contingent upon God, a conclusion which decimates the foundation of theistic ethics. Of course, we can try to get around the problem by defining goodness as that which is in accordance to God's commands. While this move solves the problem, it creates another problem just as devastating. If we define goodness as that which comports to God's commands, we've turned goodness into a meaningless concept. It just means that God is what he is and he's not what he's not.
That's all I had to say.
Craig really got exposed here, he basically admitted that he chose theism because naturalism depresses him. His expressions are very telling, when Kagan tells him that the idea of "no absolute meaning" isn't depressing to him, Craig looks utterly dumbfounded as if the prospect of a meaningless universe should shock everyone to the core- he's just a weak boy inside.
Motivated reasoning and argument from consequences writ large.
i dont like the prospect of calling craig weak for his views. kagan truly has an amazing and mature mindset, though
It very possibly could depress him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't actually believe what he says
It’s about what corresponds to reality. So for example the natural world is survival of the fittest and the world is cruel. Everything is trying to survive.
The fact we even have a concept of good or know it when we experience it is telling. Why do we have it if the universe is uncaring and the natural world is pure raw survival.
This line of thinking that since there is no ultimate purpose or meaning you can do whatever you want.
The Nazis took this worldview seriously. Darwinism/survival of the fittest. If the only thing is Nature then what they did corresponds to reality.
Nobody can live moral relativism out. If you say there is no meaning or purpose to life then you can’t say anything is wrong or right objectively.
Yes you may be able to give your subjective morality but that’s akin to giving an opinion. Basically meaning it has no value or correctness in reality
We know naturalism isn’t true because we get convicted of stuff that is wrong. What is guilt. Idk it seems to me where the evidence points to
Craig’s first point is to define God into existence (God = good/good = God and God = morality giver, so since we have morality and “good” God must exist)
Which is why it is up to the atheist to explain how Morality and Goodness can be justified without God.
Because Craig's equation seems to be correct.
Kagan's closing summary was superb and practically wins the debate by itself.
WLC argument is so full of logical fallacies that he loses even before Kagan responds. :-)
Craig really exposed himself here; he didn't really counter any of Kagan's points, his most telling response was: "Isn't that depressing?". There you go. That's the foundation of most people who believe in religion/god: fear.
Look up John Lennox instead. I've seen Craig do better ones, but I'm just personally not a huge fan of his.
My SO says that Craig's books are good, but he gets flustered when he speaks and doesn't get to any of his points lol
@Jaqui Cx
I find John Lennox to be much worse in terms of making viable arguments, though he is much better at speaking on his feet than Craig, but this amounts to little more than him simply being better at off-the-cuff sophistry resting on a foundation of suppositions, question-begging, and emotional appeals whether by quote-mining or by telling anecdotes. Craig at least tries to stay on a somewhat-academic philosophical approach to his arguments
_Jesushadasister,_ Eh Craig did counter the most important point by pointing out Kagan has no objective basis for saying things are objectively good or bad. I agree with most of what Craig says in his criticism of Kagan.
It's frustrating because Craig makes the exact same mistake by calling _his own_ subjective morality "objective". He doesn't have evidence of objective moral values, or god(s), or those god(s) causing objective morality, and he'd need all three for his position to be sound.
It's also frustrating because basically everything else Kagan said is fantastic, but for such a key element to be out of place feels bad.
Well-being is even the best framework for morality I've heard. I wish it was easier to just say "hey, well-being is pretty great, right? Let's figure out how to maximize it" and entirely skip the subjective/objective part of the conversation to get at the more interesting topics much deeper into the field (we need to not only make people aware of tools like the Veil of Ignorance, we need to develop new ones that constantly refine our shared morality).
Lastly, it's frustrating that I just want to see Craig debate on morality against someone who _isn't_ calling subjective morality "objective". Kagan did it here, and Sam Harris did it in another debate, and I feel it's just a softball toss into a "well provide evidence that what you're calling objective morality is objectively good or bad" at which point the atheist can't do that (nor can the theist, because nobody can apparently do that), at which point it makes Craig seem like his position is better than it is.
@@majmage The problem is their different definitions of "objective". When Kagan says "objective morality" he's alluding to a secular ethical system that is objectively beneficial to human beings. When Craig says "objective morality" he's alluding to a almighty being who dictates what is good and bad.
One of these two is basing their morality on something real, the other is delusional.
all i have to say is this: Shelly Kagan is a philosophical beast
It's amazing to hear him instantly eviscerate the heart out of any moral argument Craig makes as if he's pondered the exact point many times before
@@superdog797 But he never actually justified why anyone has any moral duty or obligation to behave in any certain way.
@@j2mfp78 It's a discussion about morality. We have moral duties by virtue of social contract, human reason, the ability to appreciate immorality and consequences, etc. Kagan addressed all these.
@@superdog797 But those are just assertions. Who decided this was the criteria and that anyone has any obligation to accept or follow it? Someone could come up with a completely different set of criteria. Why would 1 be more valid than the other?
@@j2mfp78 Those aren't assertions. They are statements of fact. Someone could choose to ignore them if they want but they still exist. An assertion is an unjustified statement about some fundamental truth of reality. Kagan talked about this in the debate - he pointed out that the moral community comes to consensuses on moral positions. You ask "well what if someone changed [some aspect of morality]?" Well so what if they changed it? What's your point? On a separate note what do you make of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
00:02 Belief in God not necessary for morality
02:02 Is moral behavior dependent on belief in a deity?
06:07 Exploring justifications for harming or failing to help in moral philosophy.
07:57 Morality is objective and centered on reasons to help others and avoid harm.
12:09 Ethical rules originate from a hypothetical bargaining session behind a veil of ignorance.
14:13 Morality does not necessarily require a moral lawgiver
18:38 Morality can be grounded in a secular fashion without the need for God.
20:35 Morality does not require a divine enforcer
25:09 Without God, moral values are not objective
27:40 Human morality is viewed as a biological adaptation.
32:34 Without God, no basis for objective moral duties
34:54 Without God, there is no objective moral law or accountability.
39:35 God is vitally necessary to morality
42:16 Debate on why inflicting harm is considered wrong on a naturalistic worldview
46:16 Evolutionary process leads to moral behavior
48:08 Exploring the uniqueness of human beings and their inherent value
51:40 Debating the compatibility of determinism and free will
53:23 Discussion on ethics being illusory and deeper meaning
57:22 Objective moral values must have significance beyond the cosmic scale
59:15 On atheism, prudential value and moral value are often in conflict.
1:02:44 Prudential reasons are not necessarily superior to moral reasons under naturalism.
1:04:46 God is necessary for free will and genuine moral choices.
1:08:49 Objective moral values require a transcendent standard like God
1:10:55 Objective morality is not contingent on perfect rationality
1:14:39 Our moral lives matter and make a difference regardless of cosmic doom.
1:16:42 God's stewardship involves caring for animals and the environment.
1:20:52 Evolution plays a role in societal moral progress.
1:22:52 Importance of God's existence for morality
1:27:02 Theistic beliefs not essential for grounding morality.
1:29:11 Cosmic significance not necessary for morality
It seems to me this contractarianism is simply, we make up a story about an event that never happened where perfectly rational people set down some moral rules and we try to make it as believable and realistic as possible. Even if you got that right, all you’d have is a very believable story, not an actual event where we all sat down and drew out a social contract. How can we have any moral duty to behave as if this myth were true? It never happened. Nobody discussed the matter and nobody agreed to anything. We made it up. There is no social contract. But we have a moral duty to behave as if there was one because it’s a very believable myth. I’m afraid I don’t find it believable and I think if everyone were perfectly rational and sat down to draw out a social contract, not only would the resulting contract look radically different from anything anyone might imagine, it probably would result in a war.
In one of Kagan's responses, he says that the reason we would regard human harming human as wrong, and not baboon harming baboon as wrong, is that humans have rationality, i.e. the ability to think.
The fact that he leaves it there, makes his point quite unsatisfactory. For why does this ability to think suddenly make it wrong that we harm another creature? Thinking is the ability to be intellectually aware of objects. So why does the ability to be intellectually aware of objects make it so that we ought not to harm another human being? There must be something, within Kagan's view, about the act of "harming another human being" that makes doing the act + being intellectually aware of the act, wrong.
WC rightly points out that rationality may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Kagan's reply to this point is just as unsatisfactory:
He says that the reason thinking matters, is because, if I have rationality (can think), then I am aware of reasons NOT to, for example, murder. This would mean that the necessary and sufficient condition for an act being wrong, is that I can think of reasons not to do it. But this has the absurd conclusion that helping a dying person out of a ditch is wrong if I can think of any old reason for not doing it - for example, "if I don't help this person out of a ditch, then I can catch up on my homework".
Samuel Bennett In my opinon there is no need of rudeness here and if you decided he is not worth your time to refute than the sole reason for the very existence of your comment it simply to present unnecessary negativity. Now, that being said I do agree that trough Kelly's logic it's perfectly viable to think of a reason NOT to help the old lady and it'll be morally acceptable to leave here there, however what reason will that be ?
Certainly the "homework" example will not do here. The reason you can think of for not helping the old lady out has to in some way out-trump the importance of her life. Unquestionably the homework example does not out-trump her life but let's take for instance an example where there is another ditch right next to her and in that ditch is your wife/mother/daughter. And you have time to save only one of the 2 stuck individuals. Yet, unless one life is compared to another (like in my example) I cannot think of other situations where something else can out-trump a life.
Simeon Vasilev Hello Simeon...so you are claiming that the reason I am wrong to not help the person out of the ditch in order to do my homework, is that the reason for doing my homework is not as good as the reason to help the person out of the ditch. I certainly agree. But notice you have introduced the idea that certain reasons for acting (i.e. certain goals) are better than other goals.
So it seems your suggestion implies (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason you can hold someone morally responsible for what they do is that, in virtue of having rationality (ability to think), they can be aware of goals, as well as aware of how certain goals TRUMP other goals, i.e. that certain goals are better than others.
But, in Kagan's response, he said that people are morally responsible for actions JUST by being aware of reasons for not doing something, i.e. that all you need for humans to be worthy of praise or blame is for them to be aware of reasons not to do something. But it looks like you need something extra, as you pointed out: there needs to be certain goals that are better than others.
The reason it is wrong for me to do homework instead of save a child, is not simply because I can think of a reason to not do my homework and save a child. For I can also think of a reason to not save a child and do my homework. The key, as you said, is that my reason for doing hwk is worse than my reason for saving the person. And since this reason is worse, and, qua rational, I can be aware of these reasons, I am morally responsible. But Kagan said that being capable of being aware of reasons for actions (and of course being able to control your actions) is sufficient for being moral. It seems you need the extra bit about certain reasons being superior to others.
To put it differently: simply because my thoughts do control my actions according to the intentions I make, doesn't make me morally responsible. That fact PLUS the extra fact that certain states of affairs are better than others (the state of affairs where "my hwk is incomplete and the child is alive" is better than one where "my hwk is complete and the child is dead"), makes humans worthy of praise or blame.
So basically what you're arguing for is that Shelly's "Moral System" system is in a way incomplete ?
Well, I have to say ... I agree with you!
Simeon Vasilev Right. Contra Kagan, simply the fact that humans are rational (can know and can control behavior) won't get you the result that humans are deserving of praise or blame. Cs if all states of affairs had equal value, no goal would be any more laudable than another.
Samuel Bennett That's a pretty good point. Not sure why the other dude was anti it if he wasn't trolling (I've seen lots of atheists claim to use 'reason' and 'logic' even though all they've done is reject some parts of the old testament and call people idiots if their thoughts aren't in agreement with them...I'm not one of those type of atheists)
But I think what Kagan means is that we can think about our morality, and it's not just that we can think, but we can distinguish, as it was pointed out in the debate, between what's prudent to do, and what's right to do.
By being able to think, we can distinguish between what's prudent to do (like doing your homework) and what's right to do (like helping out a stranger). You clearly have this capability, to distinguish these two, and so do most people. Just because we can think of reasons not to do each doesn't justify our actions. That just means we can think. But at the end of the day, we can distinguish between what's moral and what's simply prudent. It's not just about thinking, but it's that we actually can think 'morally.' Seems to me there's something in our thought process that lets us 'think' morally.
Shelly Kagan is the one who really takes WL Craig apart. Really shows the difference between a thoughtful intellectual and an apologist. Others have gotten lost in his circular logic and strawmen. Even a great intellect like Hitchens didn't flay him open like Kagan has no problem doing. Thank you Prof. Kagan!
+lrathome He did nothing of the kind in this debate. I will say WLC was a bit lost in the debate and seemed not sure what Shelly was even attempting to argue or defend. Shelly truthfully never really made a logical point either but instead made assumptions about morality and accepted them as true without logical defense. WLC pretty much answered alot of these arguments with Sam Harris quite well and avoided the red herrings that were tossed around. Shelly may have looked better he made no real defense in this debate.
I agree.....the format helped. I thought Harris did a god job too. Hitchens was not his sharpest with WLC, but the reality it's that Craig really didn't bring anything significant to the table.
This was much more informative than the standard debates that Craig appears in, and Kagan was a great interlocutor in terms of bringing out the nonsense in some of Craig's arguments. "Absent God, our moral choices don't matter because of the heat-death of the universe billions of years from now." Does anyone actually buy that argument?!
unfortunetly many WLC fanboys.
yes
yes, those who stand with truth
Tacking on the heat death bit is irrelevant to Craig. He would be perfectly happy saying “Absent God, our moral choices don’t matter”.
What exactly is the counter argument? Seems pretty self explanatory that in the long run, given the heat death of the universe, nothing matters in the long run as nothing is lasting. Things only have temporary value to creatures who are themselves only temporary
The problem is this: if we don't have free will, then we're not morally responsible for our actions. But if we're not morally responsible, then we don't have any moral duties, and right and wrong are just an illusion.
This isn't an airtight argument, though. Lots of philosophers think that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism; what matters isn't that we're absolutely free, but that we're able to use reason. I think that's the right view, myself, but it's not obviously true.
I think what Craig wanted to say was “those who break the social contract have not evolved to the same level as others”
Kagan fails in his argument that morality depends upon your position in society, and "what kind of creature you are." It fails because that position is relative, not objective, and as such it applies individually and recklessly with no firm boundary. For instance, the Nazis thought their position in the social sphere was superior to all others. They then used that personal view of themselves to kill and do harm - and justified it. This is what Craig means by morality must be objective, and not based on some fanciful notion of position. Kagan hasn't really thought through his argument.
Kagan seems to be a very intelligent and thoughtful person…I would be less flippant about accusing a Yale professor of not "thinking through his argument." Kagan does not fail…yes the Nazi's used subjective reasons to commit atrocities…the rest of the "social sphere" i.e. the society as a role looked at the situation objectively and came to the correct moral conclusion.
We don't need a God to be accountable to…it's enough to be accountable to each other.
jdplanas I'm not sure how stating that Kagan hasn't thought through his argument is "flippant", but oh well. Just because a person has a degree from a prestigious institution does little to impress me on subjects like this. That's because it's often the case that the person's emotional and personal views get in the way of their common sense or "smarts." Intellectual skills often take a back seat to personal worldview, and I think that's the case here for Kagan.
In the case of the Nazis, you note that "the rest of the "social sphere" i.e. the society as a whole looked at the situation objectively and came to the correct moral conclusion."
And...your point?
The issue is that morals can and are just subjective points of order without an objective source to lay the moral framework. Using Kagan's point of view, there's no reason to believe that his morals are any better or more beneficial than mine are, or the Nazis were. Craig is correct - Kagan is not - in spite of his Yale degree.
dweezel theyounger "Using Kagan's point of view, there's no reason to believe that his morals are any better or more beneficial than mine are, or the Nazis were."
Err, what? There's no reason not to think the Nazis morals was beneficial? You might want to reconsider that statement.
dweezel theyounger My first point wasn't an argument from authority. I don't agree or disagree with him because he has a Dr. in front of his name. Kagan's point is that we can be our own source of objective morality and he he laid out a good argument. My point is that a Yale University professor of philosophy (who has dedicated his life's work to the subject) has probably spent a good deal of time thinking through his position. You may have very valid points for disagreeing (or not), but accusing him of not thinking it through is insulting. So when someone disagrees with you it's because they haven't thought it through enough?
And if you take some time to think it through, you'll see the real argument from authority comes from the religious. They claim their god is the only source of morality and then claim exclusive access to speak for that god. That is not objective morality, it's divine command authority. What was the excuse used by Nazi's during Nuremburg? It wasn't my fault, I was ordered to do it. The whole line of reasoning that without God the Nazi worldview is just as valid as anyone else's I find ridiculous and relies on a known logical fallacy reductio ad absurdum. It's not like the Jews were wandering around the desert and didn't figure out murder was objectively wrong until forty days after they reached Mt Sinai.
jdplanas If there is no single point of morality, then what morality do you choose, and why would one choice be better than the other?
--
Kagan was talking ethics and rationality theory. Craig was talking moral ontology and existentialism.
Kagan was being dishonest because he knows on moral ontology and existentialism there is a lot more than what he is just talking about.
1. Why would human existence even have moral value & worth to begin with ?
2. Why not live according to self interest if this is the one and only life that you have ?
3. If all life ends at the grave, then ones destiny of the grave its totally unrelated to ones behaviour in life. Therefore, it does not really matter how one lives their life as it all ends up the same.
4. Who or what is laying any real moral oughts or shoulds upon anyone if there really are none ?
So, Craig was addressing these questions where Kagan was not. Craig won the debate.
Therefore, Kagan bluffed his way through and because many people don't know about moral ontology and existentialism -- then they thought Kagan won when he didn't at all.
Well i know what existencialism is,but i'm not convinced that craig won the debate.
He simply said that we should not harm other people BECAUSE they can feel pain,therefore they get unhappy,therefore it is bad.
To be unhappy simply means that we are experiencing something we don't want to experience,AND that we want to go away.
The fact that we are helping other people may have relative value,but it has value nontheless.
luca montermini
You wrote….
// He simply said that we should not harm other people BECAUSE they can feel pain,therefore they get unhappy,therefore it is bad. //
Craig never said that.
Yes i'm Sorry i meant kagan
What are you talking about? Kagan addressed all these questions in the cross-examination.
Dr. Crag asked,” Why do you define harming others is absolutely wrong.” Dr. Kagan said,” Because I am able to realize the definition (Because I am able to realize this behavior wrong.)”
I would say definition of morality is not harming others. No more, no less. And since God cannot change moral laws with his will, that means moral laws are independent of anybody's will. Moral platonism also suggest that, so we can eliminate the middle man, God.
@@goranmilic442 It's not that God can't change moral laws with his will, rather that God's will or God's nature is the moral law. This is why the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
1. Are things good because God wills them?
or
2. Does God will things because they are good?
Rather, God as the greatest maximal being is maximally good, therefore being more like God is good and less like God is evil. God is neither arbitrarily determining things to be good or held to a higher standard that is itself good, rather since God is good, he wills good things.
@@grantgooch5834 "Since God is good, he wills good things" doesn't really explain why this would be a false dilemma. You didn't explain who and how decided that, for example, rape is bad. You just said that God is good, rape is bad, so God is against rape. That doesn't explain why did God decided that. To put it simply, when God created rule "rape is bad", he either had reason for that or he hadn't have reason for that. If there was no reason, then all moral rules are arbitrary, there was nothing to stop God to decide rape is good. If there was reason why rape is bad, then those reasons are always valid, even without God, so you don't need God to realize that rape is bad.
@@goranmilic442 what about cheating on your wife or sleeping with your best friends wife without anyone knowing. No one is being hurt, what about lying about your SAT score to get into college. What about peeping and watch someone take a shower without them knowing. No one is being harmed. those things seem immoral to me.
The problem with God/bible based morality is that it is so easily set aside and then recovered when convenient. The worst, most reprehensible acts are simply waived away by a deathbed confession and acceptance of Christ as your lord and savior, clearing the path to heaven. On the other hand, someone who does not accept the teachings of the bible but leads a perfectly honorable life will be denied any path to heaven.
If this were premeditated then God would most certainly catch this, he knows peoples hearts and by definition he will execute justice perfectly. Much more perfect than any Judge.
@@DX48H9WM How could any rational person possibly think that a god decided that the best way for him to be able to forgive man, for being evil & immoral by breaking rules that god knew in advance that they would break when he made those rules and created evil. Was to send a version of himself down to earth then sacrifice himself to himself. Thus preventing his need to punish his creations for something their ancestors did before they knew the difference between right and wrong. 🤔 ???????
☝️☝️ I mean just actually think about that for a minute 🤔🤔🤔
Yes, you could have a sudden death acceptance of faith and been terrible in life and still go to Heaven. But, you will be judged. God is perfect justice and you will get your justice perfectly. As for the other point, that person chose that they didn't want to be with God in that scenario. God made free will and will not force you to be at his side if you don't want too.
One of very few debates where Craig was outmatched. Now nothing Craig has ever said has convinced me, I think his arguments are many assertions and a lot of inference that he can't back up but he is a phenomenal debater and I have to give him all the credit in the world for that he has outmatched some of the best atheists on the planet. Here's the thing about debates, just because you lose doesn't mean the other person is right and that includes atheists. If an atheist wins a debate it doesn't mean that a God doesn't exist. Sometimes people are just better at debating and William Craig is a perfect example of that because his position is ridiculous but he could debate that 2 + 2 = 6 and when in most cases. Here he got out matched and there's only been a few times that has happened. I think it's funny how he always talks about Richard Dawkins being scared of debating him when he won't debate dillahunty. I think that William Lane Craig fans would love to see him have a discussion with matt and I know that dillahunty fans would love to see him have a debate with craig. If you're going to call someone scared you better not be running from someone else.
William Lane Craig is an excellent orator, and that skill combined with the depth of his familiarity with scholarly philosophical work is what tends to give him the edge in debates with non-experts. His famous debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are, broadly, pretty favorable for Craig. This debate shows what happens when Bill is made to debate an actual expert on the topic of the debate. Shelly Kagan shows quite competently that God is simply not necessary for morality in any serious way. Craig is quite the speaker, and he has a fantastic ability to present relatively clever arguments in a clear, concise way. His biggest problem is that his views just don't hold up. In fairness, he did have the much harder task in this debate, I think. Craig needed to show that God is necessary for morality, while Kagan only needed to make a case that God is very plausibly not necessary for morality.
I totally agree. Kagan makes the kind of straightforward points that I'm left wanting in the debates with Sam Harris and friends (and I say that as a big fan of Sam Harris). On one hand, it's a complicated structure to lay out, but on the other hand there are very common sense conclusions if we'll focus on the parameters of the present rather than getting caught up in questions of origin and the final state of the universe.
While I think Craig didn't do too well here, I don't see how Kagan fared better. Ultimately he didn't prove nor provide any evidence for the objectivity of morality. There wasn't a single point that couldn't have been refuted quite easily by going a bit deeper. Craig tried, but the nature of the debate doesn't really allow it. For example, free will clearly matters for morality, yet it was deemed a whole different topic.
Presuppositions also matter. For example, even if objective morality exists without the need for God, why would we have access to that knowledge? How would we have access to it under naturalism?
How does Kagan know what maximally rational beings would agree on? What if maximally rational beings agree there's no objective morality? Aren't the maximally rational beings just a substitute for saying "God"?
I wanted to hear a good argument for objective morality from a naturalistic point of view, because I struggle with that. But there doesn't seem to be one.
Even if objective morality somehow exists, why am I to agree with it? Why should I even want to pursue it, and not abuse the world to the extent my comfort allows me?
@@atanas-nikolov Kagan is arguing for an objective morality in the form of a logical system derived from nature: We are conscious, creative and social creatures with the capacity to appreciate what harm does to another. In order to thrive in a society comprised of such creatures, avoiding hurting one another is in everyone's best interest. This is at the foundation of our morality and it shouldn't be hard to imagine how this fundamental truth evolved into the ethical systems we have today, we've had millions of years to develop it. This is secular "objective morality" and it makes perfect sense, does it not?
On the other hand, theists argue for an "objective morality" in the form of an absolute authority: god. God is the supreme being, whatever he says is as concrete as the constants in the universe- law. This doesn't make sense in 2 big ways.
1. You have to first prove god exists.
2. Where does god get his morals? Does he not rationalize it? Isn't that subjective by definition?
This is so simple I'm not even sure how it's a debate, watch how painfully basic Kagan's first comments are towards Craig during the open discussion. It's like he's talking to a child.
@@ianwho4244 Why should we thrive? Why should we not simply do away with humanity?
Avoiding hurting one another may be in everyone's best interest as a whole, but is in no one's best interest in particular. Meaning that I can by disregarding morality achieve more in a society with current moral norms, and there is no objective reason for me to not do that.
Also, morality doesn't become objective just because the majority of people agree on it. That's not how objectivity works.
Again, I want to know where we derive that objectivity from (currently not explained, as I cannot find morality under a microscope, and I cannot derive an ought from an is). Also even if we do prove morality is truly objective, what reason do I have for going along with it? Why shouldn't I simply abuse it for my own personal gain?
As for the take of theists, your objections present a different topic altogether. Yes, they must prove god exists, but that's another debate. The question is something like "Can objective morality exist without god?" It has preconditions for the sake of the argument. It only asks "Is X the case only under Y?" It doesn't argue whether Y is true or not, or whether X is true or not for that matter. It only asks if X can be true only if Y is true.
As for your second objection, that is a much better one for sure - The Eutyphro dilemma. Afaik, theists' point is that god doesn't decide what is good. God is the Good in and of itself, and whatever is good is a reflection of god. So to say something is good is only to say that it reflects god, or ultimate reality. Or maybe as Plato put it - something is good if it is in accordance with its telos, but that would also be related to the prime mover.
@@atanas-nikolov >Why should we not simply do away with humanity?
Because we don't want to? And that's an objective statement. Lol. It's that simple. Again, this all perfectly stands on its own; there is no need for a divine authority. If one wants to appeal to god, and come off as logical, they would have to first prove the existence of this ultimate authority.
>Avoiding hurting one another may be in everyone's best interest as a whole, but is in no one's best interest in particular. Meaning that I can by disregarding morality achieve more in a society with current moral norms, and there is no objective reason for me to not do that.
Can you provide an example?
>Also, morality doesn't become objective just because the majority of people agree on it. That's not how objectivity works.
>Again, I want to know where we derive that objectivity from (currently not explained, as I cannot find morality under a microscope, and I cannot derive an ought from an is)
"Objectivity" is a hazy word. It's accepted by many that we are able to make objective statements about subjective ideas. For example: 2+2 = 4, many would say that's an objective statement, but it isn't really, isn't it? I personally wouldn't bother faulting a person for holding either position.
One of the biggest issues with this debate in particular is the haziness of the word "objective", both sides suffer from it. But the point is: secular humanism perfectly stands on its own as a logical system, while morality from divine commandment makes no sense and isn't backed up empirically. But, again, both sides are guilty of using the word in a slippery way.
>Also even if we do prove morality is truly objective, what reason do I have for going along with it? Why shouldn't I simply abuse it for my own personal gain?
If you somehow pull it off that would make you an outlier, it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively true that avoiding harming another person is generally in your and everyone else's best interest. Again, it isn't a divine command from some imaginary sky daddy; no one is stopping anyone from bending or breaking the "rules" - it isn't objective like how the laws of physics are objective, it's objective like how math can be considered objective, it's a logical system that is perfectly consistent and applicable, yet it isn't real, no? It's just a tool we use to help navigate through life, much like the secularist's idea of objective morality.
Personally, I'm more concerned with what works and whether or not the idea is logical. Whether or not it is objective is honestly just a headache. Secular humanism works and is internally perfectly consistent and logical, you cannot say the same for the morality of a religious person, lol.
I enjoyed this debate. My question is for Dr. Kagen, who asserts that a higher level of morality can be achieved through more rationality. In a purely naturalistic worldview, there is only molecules in motion, so how do we arrive at "better" rationality?
Natural selection.
Rationale is, from a biological perspective, an ability to comprehend an individual's circumstance. A more rational being would be more able to make decisions that lead to personal success.
If we assume that, to a notable degree, rationale is inheritable (or more precisely, the capability to reason is imheritable), then it follows that those individuals with rationality can benefit from the rationality of their ancestors.
Because of this, a more rational species would be more likely to succeed. Such a species would continue to refine its capability to reason through the interbreeding of rational members. Those members who are less rational (insanity perhaps) make poorer choices becuase they cannot as clearly comprehend what course of action would most likely lead to the benefit of the individual, its group, or its species. Because of this, they are less likely to succeed and/or produce similarly defective offspring.
In addition, more rational member would more capably recognize which individuals are most rational, and similarly, would choose better actions to be more successful. This more likely success breeds (literally) more successful offspring. Eventually, this results in a natural and inevitable selection of more rational beings to comprise a population.
This process therefore generates improved, "better" rationality. And if we define morals as those beliefs which are most likely to contribute positively to the success/prepetuation of a population, a more rational being is more moral, because violating such morals would be irrational.
Bit long winded I know, but I hope this helps.
Empathy... the answer is empathy.
@@insouciantFox this basically ignores the entire objection of, but why does X axiom matter - why does morality helping our species survive obligate us to follow it ?
@@fahim-ev8qq It doesn't. You're not truly obliged to do anything, assuming free will. If not, then morality is moot because whether something is right or wrong is irrelavent to the actions that we take, except in an academic sense.
The fact that we're comprised of molecules doesn't mean that we're _nothing but molecules in motion_ incapable of moral reasoning. We're still a sentient and social species that indisputably benefit from rational thinking (i.e., we're not inanimate and brainless objects).
Shelly said morality is outside us, we don't just made it up, two minutes later, morality is something we create and give to one another (as a social contract)
moral rules
Two different schools of thought that can seem contradictory but studied independently, I personally wouldn't come to this conclusion. It's no different from someone believing in the bible and then deciding that following the rules of law on roadways, was conducive to an overall moral good.
"1. Context is "everything"
2. You are able to assume "everything" and "Nothing"
3. You will "question" anything
4. "True" and "False" exist "separate", without "Context"
5. "Good" and "Evil" can not exist without "Context"
6. "Morality" exists "separate" from, but not without "Context"
7. "Context" "Evokes" "Anything"
8." That which "Invokes" "emotion" is also "anything" "unknown" and "Absolute"
"Thanks." "Very" "helpful"
@@zucc4764 lol... Im surprised you can read
@@zucc4764 I'm wondering if you know what those words are defined as, and if you have the ability to ponder the meaning...
@@georgerigby2705knowing absolutely nothing about this guy you stupidly say your surprised he can read. He's not mocking the certainly unprofound msg. Just the silly, vague way you're communicating it.
Craig is arguing for objective morality but some of his points go against the idea.
For example, he asserts that morals are objective, ie applicable to everyone, everywhere and every when. Then he goes on to describe the animal kingdom where morality doesn’t exist according to him. Lions don’t have morality. Baboons don’t have morality. But humans do…and it’s not just an illusion we have created for ourselves somehow. It’s actually real. A fundamental part of the creator of the universe? I don’t see it. If we were to use just our planet to test the objectivity of morals….it fails miserably considering that humans are the only species to have it. Why would we assume our idea of morality maps onto other planets when it doesn’t even map onto our own? He says himself “why is it wrong to harm members of our own species?” My question is, “if it’s objective, why is it just wrong to harm our species?” If it were objective as he claims, it shouldn’t be limited to just certain species. That’s not what objective means after all.
One little species of ape on planet earth has the one and only objective form of morality in the entire universe is the assertion by Craig it seems and that’s not even a strawman like he did with the atheistic view where he claimed that the atheistic view is that we are just animals, which isn’t the atheistic view at all, as was explained by Kagan’s opening argument. Lagan gave more than one example of atheistic morality not asserting that ‘humans are just animals’. I know this is Craig’s opening argument but it goes to show how dishonestly he frames the opposition from the beginning.
Fascinating comment. I'm kicking myself for not seeing this objection the long time ago. Very perceptive.
@@lepidoptera9337 “better” by what standard?
@@lepidoptera9337 Did you understand why it's a contradiction?
* Objective means something is true _independent of any opinion._ If something is objectively true, it's true _universally:_ for lions, for humans, even for rocks.
* Craig then claims lions don't have morality. So then that contradicts the idea that this is an objective truth.
It's like if Bob argued 2+2=4 was an objective fact, but then weirdly argued lions don't do math so it's not objectively true for them. (Then some commenter Larry tries to defend Bob by saying lions have worse lives than humans, as though life quality mattered.)
Surely you agree there's a _huge_ difference between the best and worst human lives, right? Well are you saying morality varies between them? If not, why do you think a "better life" has any relevance whatsoever to the conversation?
WLC seems not even to have understood the contractarian thought, even after several times in this debate where Kagan explained it to him. Statements like "What if he doesn't want to sign the contract ...."
show this clearly .... Or later when the animal question comes up and Kagan has yet again to explain his position
"My view wasn't survival of the fittest ...." This must have been annoying for Kagan ...
Another win by Dr. Craig. the fact that he has never lost a debate is testimony to the truth of his arguments.
***** Kagan is an amateur. Dr. Craig wrecked him, that much is apparent.
Never lost a debate? That's funny, I saw him get absolutely pummeled by Lawrence Krauss, and in a more cordial exchange, bested by Christopher Hitchens. You must be quite biased.
***** "You must be quite biased. "
Irony.
However, both Krauss and Hitchens are intellectual jokes and do not even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.
numb nuts
willzer808 You are obviously a scholar! How can anyone counter that brilliant argument?
great debate! I have couple of thoughts. 1. It seems to me that both interlocutors agree that morality is beneficial for the society. William Lane Craig insists upon morality being mandated by a greater being as an assurance of its significance for the Universe while Shelly Kagan claim its a self-contained virtue. I myself have a pragmatic point of view so my question is: how does it matter? Isn't the existence of moral values and sticking to them by a vast majority of our society enough? It's like arguing that getting to NY by a bus means less than getting there by a car (assuming both routes take the same time). The aim is to get to NY. If we agree upon morality being necessary for an efficient function of a society what difference does it make whether moral code comes from ourselves or a higher being? 2. William Lane Craig presents the higher being as a moral god, good, forgiving etc. What if it is not? Then, the moral code it mandates will not be in our best interest. What if it asks, as he wouldn't never, to sacrificce our oldest son as a sign of our devotion to it? Is it moral to follow its instructions even if intrinsically we know they are wrong?
WLC's point is that morality is objective, that is totally independent of human subjectivity, with a transcendent source that is God. Without this level of objectivity, morality is only apparently objective, and in reality only a consensus amongst a moral community. The implication is that there is no guarantee that what we hold to be good/evil will continue to be the case historically and geographically, and there would be no basis apart from consensus to argue for such.
I too agree that it probably does not matter. Whether or not morality is grounded in a god, or within humanity itself, nothing changes. Crimes are certainly not being committed on this basis (that we know of). And ironically, the ones that do are the religious cults. And even if our moral framework evolves, it'll do so organically along with us. On your latter point however, it seems more on the lines of "the end justifies the means" rather than an argument for moral progress.
What you've pointed out resembles the old Euthyphro dilemma. Even if god exists, he is just the messenger on the moral truth, and something being "correct" is independent of his existence. Also, I think it's kind of strange that Craig is using god as an "objective" source of morality - god is literally a SUBJECT. If he wants to define god as "the good", then it just becomes a circular definition. And as you pointed out, if god wants to condone slavery or human sacrifice (or any other abhorrent act), we would have to just blindly follow him.
I think it makes much more sense for morality to be reason-derived, even pragmatically. We can think about the steps in our moral thought processes, and see what is wrong with them. This helps us improve on our ways of thinking and could help us reach more sound conclusions. On the god theory, however, we have a celestial big brother telling us what to do, without any justification other than "it came from me". There's no room for growth here.
With the transportation analogy, it might be okay to have god tell us what the fastest route to NY is. But if we wanted to go to Philadelphia instead of NY, what would we do? We'd have to consult god. However, if we reasoned through things (and found out WHAT criteria makes for an efficient path), we could find the best path for every single worldly situation - whether it be NY, Philadelphia, LA, or any place of your choosing. Ethicists are the tour guides to morality - this is what they study and think about. "Divine command theorists" in today's time are not taken seriously because of this fact; they have nothing to appeal to other than "god said so because god said so".
1. Because if morality comes from a god, its alleged representatives can dictate what we ought to do, whereas a secular moral code is open source as it were.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 Even assuming such a source exists, what method is there to determine what its objective moral code is? Craig doesn't consider the Qur'an a holy text, even though it's just another revelation from his god.
Where in history or geography has it ever been the case that a religious community agreed on anything though?
@@aspacelex that's precisely the point. As long as the said source (God) itself isn't accessible directly apart from interpretation, it will always be subject to change, not unlike the morality from a secular point of view. I do believe there can be an argument for morality based on historical tradition, be it religious or otherwise, but it still wouldn't justify a metaphysical source in an absolute sense. It's just not grounded in the real world.
25:58 The problem here is that the Bible comes nowhere near to describing a God that is morally good...More often than not the Bibles God is morally repugnant...
What makes God morally evil/repugnant/maleficent? And, what gives mankind the ability to say this if such a being exists?
@@flyingphoenix113 The faculties of reason and logic. Don't give them to us if we can't use them.
Are you a parent? Would you divide your children by telling one of them it's chosen over and over for a lifetime? If you answer yes I can guarantee you your other siblings will hate both you as a parent and the chosen offspring. You've sown ineptitude and discord as a parent and this is inarguable! In the words of Trump, you should be fired from parenting!
@22alexraider Please go ply your unsubstantiated Jewish bullshit somewhere else...But If Yahweh/Yeshua brings back his preferred method of marriage: polygamy, then I guess I won't complain too much!
But what about Yaakov's situation? What about more than one wife? The clear halacha is that both min haTorah (on a Torah level) and mid'rabbanan (through rabbinical legislation) a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them). No one implies that this is less than moral nor in the least bit abnormal.
And don't forget good ole Yahweh never changes so we know the laws on polygamy never change! Who needs a fickle God!
Somehow I got the impression Craig argues on individual and cosmic level, but 'skips' the population level that would be most relevant in a naturalistic view
If it is "ultimate" objectivity that is necessary to have morality, then I'm deeply sorry, but nihilism gets the last laugh...always.
Where do morals come from? --> God
Why does God pick those specific morals? --> God is good/perfect
Good/perfect by what metric? Compared to what? How would we tell the difference between a perfect god and a mediocre god? --> God just is...
And so on and so on.
So your answer is basically infinite regression.
Right. Like nihilism can't be "refuted" by infinite regression.
In my view, Shelly offers the greatest challenge for WLC in any debate I've seen him in. However, as intriguing as his story is, I have a concern. Why would a "perfectly rational" moral agent need a "community"? Isn't it because he or she requires a plurality of perspectives of those navigating the context of the time in which they live? Isn't Omniscience the optimal measure of that exercise? But oughtn't we also consult moral agents of other time periods and sociocultural contexts? Isn't Omnipresence to optimal measure of that exercise? And doesn't moral agency require not just the perfect rationality Shelly proposes, but the capacity to fulfill those obligations, or omnipotence?
Rationality is not the same as isolationism, so there is no conflict between perfectly rational and a need for community. If there was a contradiction though, then your suggestion that God could be the perfectly rationale actor would also mean they shouldn't want to create us as they would also have no need of a community. Any reason they have to create us could apply equally to why a rational actor could want a community too.
The need for community in a perfectly rational actor isn't related to a need for a plurality of opinions, but rather that a perfectly rational actor would realise that they could achieve more in a community of like minds than in isolation, e.g. for survival. This would again not be true of a God.
No. Omniscience is not the perfect exercise of rationality: it is perfect knowledge. I can KNOW that a biscuit is bad for me but still choose to be irrational and eat it anyway: rationality is about how decisions are reached, not the knowledge possessed.
No, a perfectly rational being wouldn't need to consult moral agents from other cultures and time periods any more than a perfect doctor would need to hear the opinions on blood letting and trappaning from the middle ages. Kagan explained it well that regardless of the society we live in, an ideal moral agent would still reach the same conclusions, we just might not be able to appreciate why if our culture or time blinds us to the reasoning.
And finally no, perfect rationality does not require that we can fulfil the actions we deem moral. If I see someone drowning and am unable to save them it does not mean I am incapable of appreciating that it would be moral to save them IF I COULD.
I hope this answers your concerns. Have a nice day.
@@oliepickfordscienti6449
*"your suggestion that God could be the perfectly rationale actor would also mean they shouldn't want to create us as they would also have no need of a community."*
I'm not sure I follow. Is it not possible that there would be other reasons for God to create us apart from what you are suggesting (enigmatic as that is to me)?
Is it not possible that God would create us so that he could die for us? An expression of love that had never been expressed. The spending of oneself for another and in the most extreme of example? An extreme that would make our willingness to die to save the life of a bug pale by comparison. That the creator of the universe would die to make whole the life of a traitor.
I think that that is what Christianity says at least.
Romans 5:6-8 says,
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
and
Ephesians 1:3-6 says,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him *before the foundation of the world,* that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, *to the praise of his glorious grace,*
It seems that the Ephesians verse is suggesting that *grace* was a thing worth creating and that the plan for it being a necessary thing came before anything was created. It was not a Plan B.
@@samdg1234 fair point. And similarly I guess I could have left it at "Rational actors may not need a plurality of opinions but may instead have some other reason for wanting a community." my point was simply that the original poster's suggestion that perfectly rational actors would not need a community did not imply that they wouldn't want one.
@@oliepickfordscienti6449
That is pretty good that you remembered what you posted about 4 weeks ago.
I'm not at all sure I understood what either of you was talking about. I think it has been over a year since I watched all of the discussion between Kagan and Craig.
My point was to counter what seemed to be the need for community for the act of creation.
I don't see this as a necessity for that act nor do I see it as what the bible teaches.
I freely admit that what I'm saying has mostly come from a sermon that can be found on UA-cam under the title,
Why Did God Create the World?
The speaker says in part,
"When God created the world, he did not create out of any need. I grew up hearing God made Adam and Eve because he was lonely. That's heresy. That's absolutely heresy. We serve a triune God who has been infinitely happy in the fellowship of the Trinity forever. The Father enjoying the Son. The Son enjoying the Father. The spirit surging with personal energies of love between the Father. This was a complete society of love and he didn't make us because he needed anything."
I admit to finding the idea of creating the universe so that love (the spending of oneself for the good of another) could exist and be a reality and more than just an idea, even if it entailed the costly expenditure of one's own life, to bring about what was envisioned.
@@samdg1234 can't believe it was 4 weeks tbh 😅. Very enjoyable discussion (if a bit unbalanced) but didn't expect a reply as comments were so old.
To be honest the original post just seemed a bit of a walk down a very specific path which didn't support any of the conclusions as necessary. I tried to recreate that style in the part you quoted to highlight the issue with arguing that way. But the rest of my post was just pointing out the same mistake more bluntly. Maybe I should have done that for all of them to be clearer.
As for not having seen it in a while, the comments weren't related to the video as Craig didn't try to argue omnipotence etc from perfect rationality as they are unrelated, which was my point I guess. Sorry if in rambling I confused the issue. A habit I'll have to try to work on I guess.
Bottom line is that even if there is no god, we are still accountable to each other and ourselves. Morality comes from empathy and the ability to assess and reason if something is good for us or for our society. The insertion of god is irrelevant to be honest.
Precisely. We as humans are capable of molding our own morals and what we view is subjectively right and wrong based on our conscious existence. We feel ill when something is wrong and if we are an immoral person, then we have no problem committing evil acts. Just the pure fact that people acted evil in the name of God is evident that God (if a deity exists) does not control our moral actions nor do we form morals based on his existence.
@@billt1928 Who is this "we" you speak of. Many societies and people haven't felt ill about certain horrific acts. What ties your definition of moral to the cosmos that would somehow automatically make that objectively true for all sentient beings. There's nothing there. It's just an opinion you guys try to force people to believe is a fact.
@@ZekeMagnar Why do you insist on cosmic significance? Kagan addressed this point in the debate quite clearly. He also pointed out that - just like the OP said - we are _still_ ACCOUNTABLE to ourselves and to each other because we _have to MAKE an account_ for our actions - that's what it _means_ to be _accountable_ . It's part of human nature - we are, in fact, accountable to each other, because we have the capacity to ask and even demand of one another "Why did you do that?" The _MERE_ ability to _ask_ the question makes accountability objectively exist. You can always push this back further and further (which Kagan also pointed out in the debate) and ask "But what's special about accountability?" etc. At some point you just have to say - have to _realize_ or _accept_ - that these things are simply significant in and of *themselves* - and for humans, that's just PART of what it means to be a human. Other animals don't _do_ that - they are not _accountable_ for their actions in that way because they cannot _make_ accounts. But we can, and that's why it is objective. Again, you can just say "well but there are people who don't value accountability, and societies that sacrifice children." That's true, and those people that act like animals we call sociopaths and psychopaths and consider them to be deficient in a basic human capacity, and the societies that engaged in perverse actions like that were morally wrong and shouldn't have done it. Notice that, in _fact_ they REALLY shouldn't have done it - what good did throwing babies into volcanoes do? It LITERALLY did 0 good, was based on a delusion (incidentally a religious theistic delusion, though of course some secular societies have taken actions that were immoral too of course), so it's just _obviously_ objectively morally wrong and those moral agents were simply delusional. So your assertion that secular moralists are just "insisting" on their opinion as fact is just vacuous. And if you're STILL not persuaded because you want to rely on theistic morality, the God does not _change_ any of the _morally relevant facts_ of the situation, so how could it impact the moral outcome at all? The only way it _could_ is if you say that God is going to punish you if you do something, in which case the _facts_ of the _situation itself_ become IRRELEVANT to your consideration because there is a _much more pressing_ fact - the fact of God's punishment - that you have to take into account of moral consideration. Thus, one can see that God in the mix doesn't change the moral analysis - it just shifts the focus from the _facts of the situation itself_ to some abstract set of assertions someone makes about God. One might _argue_ - and Kagan conceded this point in the talk on "cosmic enforcers" - that it might would be _nice_ if there were a cosmic enforcer who could enforce every single perfectly objective moral conclusion, but again, that's not _relevant_ - the only relevant considerations are the _facts_ of situations, and we have to make do with the situations _regardless_ of whether or not there is such a cosmic enforcer.
@@superdog797 I've either conversed with you before or have seen your posts, but I don't quite remember. Either way, I'll respond and see where that takes us. I''m going to be brutally honest with you here. If you either don't get the points being made or, TO ME, sound as though you care more about arguing than you do about truth, I'm out. I'm done with this conversation and this'll be my last response. So read carefully and THINK before you reply. If you need to take a few days, do that. Because it'll show if you just pounce on my posts and reply with the same exact mentality that you have now.
You wrote, "Why do you insist on cosmic significance?"
Because that's PRECISELY the definition of "objective." That's why. For something to exist INDEPENDENT of your own mind or your neighbors mind. INDEPENDENT of "ourselves." Here's the actual definition.
*GOOGLE:* "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
*DICTIONARYCAMBRIDGE:* " based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings"
*MERRIAM-WEBSTER:* " 1 : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions" and "2 : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world."
*DICTIONARY:* "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"
Yet here you are telling me, "Oh, well, when TWO or MORE people FEEL something, THAT makes it objective." Really? DESPITE the definition of "objective" being that a fact is, "NOT influenced by FEELINGS?" Are you serious? Feelings + feelings equates to feelings, rendering your view subjective, BY DEFINITION.
You wrote, "Kagan addressed this point in the debate quite clearly."
And? He was clear, but he was wrong. What do you think? That we don't understand what he's saying? We get it. Craig got it as well and he even cringed while listening to Kagan. Being clear does not equate to being right. I think it's clear when I make the claim that 2 + 2 = 5, yes? Am I clear? Of course I am . But am I right? Of course not. So clarity doesn't matter. We understood what he said. We just don't agree with it.
@@superdog797 You wrote, "He also pointed out that - just like the OP said - we are still ACCOUNTABLE to ourselves and to each other because we have to MAKE an account for our actions - that's what it means to be accountable ."
1) All you've done is made an assertion. That's it. But who cares what you think? You're giving weight to your assertion that it doesn't actually have. Someone can take your stuff and feel as though he's not only NOT accountable, but that he does NOT have to GIVE an account for what he did. What are you going to do? Go run to your parents and tell on him? What happens if HIS parents disagree with YOUR parents? Their account to you would be, "DEAL WITH IT!" You ask him "why did you do that?", and he simply walks away. What then, champ? There's nothing outside of your mind from a materialist standpoint that would make what he did objectively wrong. Nothing! You're just claiming that it's wrong, but a claim isn't a fact. It's a claim. A claim that has yet to be proven to be the case, no less.
2) When you say "ourselves", yet again, you're referring to nothing more than feelings, rendering your view subjective. How is this not clear to you?
3) Who is this "ourselves" you're referring to? By chance would it include any of the world's tyrants of days past and THEIR society?
4) The planet has never COLLECTIVELY been on the same page with one another in terms of morals. You're always going to disagree and at times even violen;tly so. So when you or your society says "this" is "wrong" and another society says it's "right", who's right? Who's wrong? And most importantly, WHY? "Oh because we said so" is NOT A VALID ANSWER. Hello? Why is that "rightness" or "wrongness" true DESPITE what either of you think? You cannot ground what you believe in ANYTHING beyond "we said so", but "we said so" is literally the DEFINITION OF SUBJECTIVE. Social contracts don't magically turn 2 or 3 SUBJECTIVE opinions into an OBJECTIVE fact of reality.
All 10 pixels in this video are amazing
What point are you trying to make?
Shelly Kagan without effort shows the inadequacy of a sort of theistic meta-ethical framework, in particular Christianity.
I don’t think Craig was challenged at all. I think the challenge he was facing was that Kelly was being very slippery with rationalizing his worldview- even admitting that Determinism and Free Will can coexist (by some stretched philosophical argument).
Kelly even misquoted Craig’s quote of Ruse and was basically asking Craig to explain why Ruse thought the way that he did.
I felt Kelly was very defensive (naturally if you hold the belief the he holds) and that Craig was very patient with Kelly’s slippery logic.
@@hugomunoz9039 Compatibilsm (determinism and free will coexisting) is a very popular view in philosophy, more so than the robust free will view Craig believes-just so you know. As far as quoting Ruse, the gist was to point out WLC fallacy that things don't need to be eternally significant in the cosmic scale to be significant now. WLC wasn't able to demonstrate that this significance is necessary to objective morality which he defends
Kagan is so good 😳 and Craig asks good questions 😌
at 1:14:12, Kagan asks a question about accountability and death bed conversion allowing an evil person to be absolved..
To which Craig answers at 1:14:35 .. "Well, I mean, no genuine Christian would think like that.. "
I love the laughter as a lot of people caught it. EXCEPT Craig himself.. oblivious, I suppose.
But Kagan got the silly Scotsman fallacy.. He obviously thought it was hilarious. I think so too.. Craig was ridiculously hilarious.
52:17 who wants to see another debate with the amazing Shelly Kagan vs Craig but on free will?!?!?! ❤🎉
there's a piece missing on the video? it cuts off to the dictator part
49:28 If we agree that we all have these values, then why does the explanation for why we have them matter to morality itself? Would it change the fact that we have the same values by which we can objectively evaluate good and bad actions? No, we already agree that is the case. So I don't see how it would change anything about the way we do morality, therefore I don't see what it matters. Supposedly Craig wants them to come from God because then there would be an objective source we can point to by which to agree on them, but he starts his argument by saying that this is already done.
It matters infinitely. For morality to matter, people have to matter. But if we are just accidental collections of atoms, there is no reason to think people do matter because a 150-pound man is then of no more value than the collection of atoms that makes up 150 lbs of dead leaves.
All these secular attempts to ground morality assume that human life has value but if there is no God, there us no reason to think it's true. They're forced to play make-believe and say, well we can create value and meaning inside our heads. But somehow this idea is suddenly out of bounds when someone makes up God inside his head. Make-believe is suddenly not only out of vogue but the target of ridicule.
The grounds for a lasting moral code has to exist first outside of every human head because no matter what secular philosophers tell you, a bunch of people getting together and agreeing that human life has value is not the same as human life actually havung value.
@@davidplummer2619 Money doesn't have inherent value. Are you just making believe that whatever currency you use to buy things and accept as payment at your job is worth anything? Did God imbue the dollar with purchasing power or was that western society?
"no matter what secular philosophers tell you, a bunch of people getting together and agreeing that human life has value is not the same as human life actually havung value."
No matter what theists tell me, a bunch of priests getting together and agreeing that God wants us to value certain things isn't the same as people actually valuing those things.
Value is relative by definition: water is the most valuable thing in the world to someone lost in a desert but nearly worthless to someone vacationing in an oasis. Philosophers don't arbitrate that, and neither does God. We either agree or disagree on the value of something based on our own subjective experiences and act accordingly, regardless of if it has any "actual" value; this is demonstrable reality. Value serves no purpose outside of influencing how people act in accordance with it, so the very idea of an objective "actual" value existing ethereally beyond us is nonsensical. The best you can do is point to God's subjective values and try to justify following those based on his actions, but you're gonna have to demonstrate his existence first.
Can you show me ANYTHING in reality that doesn't reflect value as subjective?
@@davidplummer2619 Furthermore, on a purely naturalistic account, any existing moral inclinations we have would be better treated as obstacles to overcome rather than ideals to nurture. The sooner you stop feeling bad about committing an 'immoral' act, the sooner you can start taking advantage of opportunities to act immorally. Those bad feelings are just 'in your head' and have no meaning or significance beyond that.
The answer is no.
Shelly struggles to ground his "objective" morality. We recognize that hurting people is wrong so it is objectively wrong on his view. He gives us no reasons for why "hurting people" is wrong. Objective morals seem to float in the universe like stars, or like laws of nature waiting to be discovered.
Suppose the Germans had won WWII. And that all dissenters of the Nazi philosophy had been exterminated. Everyone remaining would recognize that hurting people, especially non-Arian people was actually good. The moral "recognition test" is always subjective not objective. Unless one thinks the universe spits out morals the way it does quarks, and atoms, galaxies and planets, there are no such things as morals.
Now Shelly is right to say he can live morally without belief in God. But he seems to join a long line of philosophers who want to bootstrap an objective account of morals without God and then spends over an hour discussing the issue without one reason for why we should believe it. He should give up and go the way of the existentialist who had the courage to say all morals are subjective and illusory.
Uber Genie
The creatures we need to take under moral consideration are the sentient one.
Sentience is the capacity to be affected positively or negatively. It is the capacity to have experiences. It is not the mere capacity to perceive stimuli or react to some by action, as in the case of a machine that performs certain functions when we press a button. Sentience, or the ability to feel, is something different, namely the ability to receive and react to such stimuli consciously, by experiencing them from the inside.
If we take this as a criteria, we can easily set some objective requirements as to not undermine the autonomy of conscious beings , not to harm conscious beings , not to deprive them from potential happiness etc.
With well being as the moral goal i think we can make a very distinct, non relative indicators that need to be met.
Regardless of what you believe in , murder will not contribute to the recipient's well being nor will it respect his autonomy.
stefan klisarov Thanks for your reply. I agree with your perspective. And my cats are thankful I have that perspective. That said, my problem with Shelly and numerous other philosophers that hold this view of morality is no reason is given why we should hold this view. What does he ground his morality on? Is moral truth of the variety, "Sentience is the criterion for creation or moral codes," something we just discover, like the law of gravity?
Why on Darwinian Evolution isn't the view of the Nazi's more appropriate as a criterion for moral codes, if cultures are to out-compete their neighbors for limited resources?
Why is it wrong for a man not to rape as many women as possible in his fertile lifetime in order to maximize the propagation of his DNA? Especially given that a large number of my ape ancestors raped early and often in order for me to even be here. Why not continue the family tradition? Especially if sentience is the criterion, animals are sentient and yet a large portion of them are raped during the mating process. Why don't we call it rape? Why call it rape if two homo sapiens are involved? Isn't that speciesism?
So we actually agree wholeheartedly on moral values, but the grounding of them is what I am interested in getting at? And if we don't anchor them properly we end up with the values of Nazi German with no idea how we got there.
***** Thanks for your thoughts. Consider my reply to Stefan. The Germans redefined the term "people" to be "superior people" and they eliminated chaos and discord in society. All dictatorship eliminate chaos and discord, often quite literally. And on Darwinian Evolution, why would I help a competitor for limited resources instead of striving to survive by out-competing. Often that means killing and eating competition in other species. I need a better explanation why that would all of a sudden not apply to me just because I have a more developed frontal lobe.
"To Serve Man" is the new book on morality that I am writing. Don't tell anyone, but it is actually a cookbook!
+Uber “Genius” Genie The Golden rule is simple and straightforward and grounds our behavior objectively without recourse to an entity with cosmic significance. If you are doing something bad to another animal, typically causing pain, you know that is the case because if that was done to you then you know that would be painful and you wouldn't like it. In the latter case you would consider it wrong to have pain inflicted on yourself, and similarly a normal conscious and sentient person would accept, as an objective fact, that to inflict that pain on another living being would also be wrong. Those objective facts to not need further grounding by appeal to a deity.
Yes there are sentient beings who do not consider it wrong to inflict harm on others. Some enjoy it, and some even have no feelings whatsoever. We identify such people as suffering from various levels of psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders. It is possible for whole communities and societies to fall into destructive and psychopathic behaviours. Recourse to a deity is not needed to understand and identify that objective fact with regard to the Third Reich or to consider the specific causes of those particular events.
Indeed there are destructive and psychopathic behaviours around much of western culture that again does not require recourse to a cosmic deity or overlord to understand. Nor, more importantly, to understand the objective truth of alternatives behaviours and outcomes that would be less destructive and psychopathic
+myroseaccount You said you were going to ground morality objectively and we got a restatement of golden rule and other moral codes. Plato and Aristotle ground it in God(s). Not the God of the Bible but something outside and above human. Why are the atheists from Hume on who reject objective moral values as unground able wrong.?
For absolute morality, those unconditional obligatory aughts, if God necessary for their very existence, then from whence does God gain the authority to issue such aughts?
God cannot issue the law that grants himself the right to issue moral laws, because before such a law exists, God cannot have the right to do so.
If absolute morality exists, it has to exist, itself, absent creator or causer. Therefore, God is not necessary for either subjective or absolute morality.
He really pushes that in his closing statement also, claiming that the theistic view is much more "attractive." And as you said just because it is an easier answer does not necessarily make it true. Although it is hard to justify objectivity in a atheistic moral standpoint does not mean that it is not there.
Let's grant for the moment that God has created absolute morals, and that these morals can be discovered. Even so, this definition of what we mean by "morals" is just one of many possible definitions that we can choose to use. For example, someone might disagree with God's set of absolute morals, and many indeed do (including people who think that it's ethical to punish someone for keeping a slave). Similarly, let's grant that an objectively rational social contract can be defined in only one possible correct way, and that it would produce only one possible set of correct morals, which would therefore be a set of absolute morals. Still, this is again only one of several possible definitions of what qualifies as a moral. What this illustrates is the true scope of moral relativism: it's the umbrella that covers all of the different possible ideas that give rise to so-called absolute morals.
when i look at this topic , i can t see past the argument of objective morality and a higher power. how can a universe, which came to be on it s own, along with it come an objective morality? i can t see past this...]
@@stevejames5863 The definition of morals is "a lesson, especially one about what is thoughtful toward the future, learned through stories or experience." That's a pretty ambiguous definition, but it's basically a question about what is best for the future.
You can use these stories and experiences to build certain goals towards a purpose. For instance, if the purpose is to maximize human well being, then there are goals that should be met concerrning maximizing human well being. One goal towards such a purpose might be to not hurt each other, because hurting someone doesn't always maximize human well being.
It just so happens that human well being is an excessively complex topic with billions of variables that change every day. If we could possibly know all of those variables though, then we'd have a clear path towards the objectively best method of maximizing human well being.
It's already there in the universe, we just have to discover it. Similarly, the universe provided us with math, we just had to discover it. An apple plus an apple is objectively two apples. Thanks Universe!
No person in their right mind would appeal to absolute morality.
Both of the panelists avoid such terms precisely because they won't be able to make such a case.
Anyways, I could just NOT grant your conclusion. v:
BTW, if they're absolute morals, you do realise there'd be a contradiction if they don't perfectly overlap with each other, right?
If there's a contradiction, then they're not absolute.
@@malolazap5377 do you mean objective morality? or is there a distinction? i think if there is objective morality, some things can be: relative. what i m trying to say, if there is objective morality,and i think there are morals we can agree upon. where does this come from? it is a simple question. i don t think all morals are relative. there being a universe that just happened to come about, does not create morals that are objective.also, if you have an explanation for objective morality without a higher power- ok. otherwise, if morality is relative, that is different. if morality is relative then i think anything goes, why would we have laws, courts, and so on?
Hard to argue with you on that. It's at least problematic, and it could well be enough to prove that moral accountability is (in some strong sense) impossible.
I think I agree with you, but just in case you're interested I'll share the other side's view. Compatibilists say that, even though all of our actions reduce to a bunch of chemical reactions (which we can't be responsible for), that doesn't prove that we're not accountable. You're accountable just in case you're able to use your reason.
I think the biggest issue with this contract theory, is that in a world obsessed with materialism, and it's accumulation, it is those who seemingly throw them away that gain the biggest advantage. At least in gaining material.
When was the accumulation of material unimportant in the history of man?
Not in it's written history, outside of the Bible. The Bible in contrast emphasizes the immaterial as having more worth. Other "holy books", have attempted to emulate this.
But if you look those that have shunned moral right, in their greed for material wealth, it would seem the advantage from a survival point of view to be "dog eat dog".
The biggest material winners are those who have thrown away this supposed moral contract. There is a difference between legal right and wrong, and moral right and wrong.
It may not be illegal for international bankers to fund despotic regimes, but it is profitable, and highly immoral.
But why is it immoral? This is something WLC completely fails at. The why.
Because the argument I heard, was we make this moral contract, so others will like us. Ultimately it is what it boils down to. Why is that advantageous?
Do you "like" the Rothchilds, the Trumps of the world? If you do what do you like? That every dollar of advantage they have over you makes every dollar you have of a lower value? Or am into an area of economics you don't understand?
Why would you "like" or think it is an advantage that they make your life harder?
The question was asked, "can atheists be moral without God?". Sure, as long as there is another set of laws that say you will do 25 years to life for murder, or 5 years for stealing.
As far as I know, in western cultures no one is going to jail for adultery, and it happens a lot. I will concede it also happens in the churches, but that is because they are not following the tenets of the book to do so.
But in a society, following the Bible with the belief in an ultimate judge, these crimes will not happen as often as the conscience becomes the policeman. A higher moral standard. This will only happen with the fear of God, and judgement. While there has been a lot of bad done in the name of religion, it wasn't done because they were following what the Bible told them. Crusades is a perfect example, as are The Inquisition.
I thought the Nazi example was too extreme and thus easy. A better example would be 2 atheists marooned on an island with limited resources, and no one to put you in jail.
At some point the contract will break down as they get hungry, and the battle over the resources becomes more urgent.
How many of you good little moral atheists would starve before killing the source of your hunger, the one taking up the resources you need to live, without the idea of eternal punishment for doing it?
If there is no God, and no police to punish me, why wouldn't I kill you to gain advantage? Would I rather be dead, or alone? With no afterlife, my guess the desire to survive would tip the scales over loneliness.
Or how about in the USA, you have kids who grow up gun nuts, hunting, with the flawed "American exceptional-ism", this idea of "take care of number one", "the individual is more important than the whole", mentality. Who then goes off to the army, who trains them to kill, gives them permission and even a moral reason to kill, along with a overal general purpose of saving the world, get so mentally damaged by the act of war? Vietnam killed more men by suicide, at a rate of 5 to one, at least, than died in combat. More than 250,000 have committed suicide while only 58,000 died in the conflict.
Or better yet. Going back to Nazi Germany. In the Ukraine during it's scorched earth campaign, they were killing civilians. One high ranking Nazi, who's name escapes me right now, I see the face, can't remember the name, skinny weasel with round glasses, sent a note back to Berlin, that they had to come up with another method, as the shooting them all was demoralizing the troops. Nazi's demoralized by killing the "sub-species" as they put it, bothered their conscience.
It hasn't been that long since homo sapien started walking this earth. How old are we now? You evolutionists keep changing it. You never admit you were wrong the last time, but I digress. But being so fresh from the jungle so to speak, we have apparently lost our will to survive, as when confronted with it, it causes such great anguish.
A primate doesn't show remorse for killing his dinner. In fact killing their own family members seems to bring a celebration, rather than remorse.
Why are we so backward to all of nature? We are the most aware, but it seems to take us out of sync with nature. Almost like we don't fit.
Not sure if you have noticed, but we seem to be at odds with nature.
If nature made us, we must be the Stewie Griffins of the world on a mission to kill what produced us.
Look at the statements on this page. You claim to be moral, but look at what you say.
The only thing the comments really show, is your morality. That and your absolute quaking in your boots at the idea that someone believes differently than you.
I mean, so what? Why is it such a big deal that you need to aggressively attack the person who holds this different belief? Why the need to mock? The false sense of superiority you are attempting to create?
It comes across as insecurity to me.
If all you did was address the issues, debated the points, you wouldn't come across so weak.
But the need to "shoot the messenger", is obvious proof of this insecurity.
Besides, all you have this time on earth. Why would a YT debate matter at all?
Shouldn't you be out doing something to make your existence worth something? Saving puppies or something?
No, you have decided to spend your precious seconds here, doing this, amounting to what? Proselytizing?
Attempting to save people?
If you ever were to take an honest look at what drives you to do this, attack belief in God, it would, or at least should trigger a deeper question.
Why does the thought of God, and someone believing in Him, drive you so nuts?
Could you try again, I'm not sure I'm following you.
😀
biggregg5 it's hard to follow mentally challenged person who thinks that legal system is synonymous with morality.
"The primate doesn't show remorse for killing his dinner."
Well, do you show remorse afer eating your burger?
When Shelly puts Craig on the spot and forces him to justify his view on the moral irrelevancy of torture without theism (about 57:00), Craig gets physically anxious and visibly unsure of his answer. His hand starts shaking. At least somewhere inside of himself he realized what he was saying was absurd. Of course torture matters whether god exists or not.
About hand shaking, Craig has neuromuscular degeneration, his hands are always shaking
I don't think that "rape is wrong" can be objectively true if truth is completely dead. In that sense, God is necessary for moral facts.
In a universe that is nothing more than matter and energy, then life itself is ultimately a Monte Carlo game. It has no purpose. It's just a collection of molecules. In fact, if we look at the words of genetics high priest, Richard Dawkins, then passing on your genes is the only truly moral imperative there is in the universe.
Dawkins argues in his book The Selfish Gene that all life is programmed to do one thing… Pass on their genetic material. So in a universe of nothing more than matter and energy, rape is a highly moral thing to do! In fact, seems to be the only thing we can do that actually matters.
That is until the sun expends the last of its nuclear fuel starts expanding and the earth evaporates like a drop of water on a hot skillet. Rendering everything that humanity ever did or thought utterly pointless.
An argument against morality coming from a creator lies in the Euthyphro dilemma. If morality is grounded solely in the commands of a creator, it raises concerns about the arbitrariness of those moral values. If a deity could dictate any set of moral principles, regardless of their content, then there is no inherent reason to consider those values as intrinsically good or just. This raises questions about the objectivity and universality of such moral principles.
Furthermore, the dependence on a creator for moral values may limit the scope and application of morality. Different religions and belief systems propose conflicting moral codes, leading to a lack of consensus on what is considered morally right or wrong. This inconsistency suggests that morality is more likely a product of human culture, evolution, and reasoning rather than a divine decree.
Moreover, the existence of moral dilemmas and conflicting ethical judgments also challenges the idea of an all-knowing and benevolent creator as the source of morality. If a creator were to provide a clear and absolute moral code, one would expect universal agreement on moral issues, which is not observed in reality.
The Euthyphro dilemma and the diversity of moral views across cultures and religions cast doubt on the idea of morality coming exclusively from a creator. Alternative explanations rooted in human nature, evolution, and social norms provide a more plausible account for the origin and development of moral values in society.
Given what Kagan says between 48:27 and 48:51, aren't we left with moral nihilism? Kagan says at a certain point we just have to decide some things are meaningful, but he doesn't offer any justification for his values in particular or any account for how values could be justified objectively in general. So far as I can tell the principle of not being able to go from an "ought" to an "is", if true, leaves us unable to ground any values, moral or otherwise. We may still hold them, and indeed we inevitably will because they are an inescapable feature of our psychology, but we will do so without objective justification. Craig is equally vulnerable to this line of thinking and he seemed not to fully engage with it in the debate. I am sure this has been put better by many others in the past. What I am unsure of is whether there has been a powerful rebuttal to this argument. If anyone has come across a solution to the problem of objectively grounding values, please leave a reference.
He did offer an explanation, though, through his contractarian thesis.
In the part you're highlighting he was trying to stop Craig from keep on using infinite regression... and he did that by showing Craig that he can play that game too.
58:54 - Brilliant counterargument from Professor Kagan
It didn't seem like they were on the exact same page around this time. Kagan's argument made sense until he starts mentioning objective. I also didn't feel like Craig answered these (counter)arguments in the best way.
@Tony Droid give me a second brother, I wrote this comment 2 years ago and have no context. Hahahaha
He also endorses genocide, so this is far from the worse thing he's done. We destroy him in debate and everyone complains we pick on easy targets. Can theists just get together and decide who's a decent serious apologist so we can debate those.
Under your view, what's wrong with genocide?
@@austinmorris3422 Easy. It causes suffering, it robs conscious beings of potential future happiness. It violates rights. How about under yours?
And silence...
@@Ozzyman200who cares if it violates your right
What’s your justification for why it’s wrong , I don’t wanna bear your opinion. Why ought not I commit genocide
@@DA-og5pj I love when theists end up having to ask those types of questions.
WLC (1:01:50): ".. for the good of the universe."!!
Seriously?? Whats that even supposed to mean?
Determinism & Free Will is a clear contradiction
Compatibility is an excuse to use any of them when needed.
Dr. Craig asked,”Why do humans think loving others is significant?” Dr. Kagan said,” Because I think it is good. It is just a special property of human.”
and you have a problem with that why?
@@JohnGrove310 Come ooon, you know! You know!
@@JohnGrove310 What could you possibly say to someone who has a problem with it? Say I'm a good little atheist who thinks 'morality' is for fools; if I rationally perceive that I am benefitting by not caring about the welfare of other humans and that I can keep getting away with it without anyone noticing, why in the world should I want to stop?
@@danieltemelkovski9828 Just like any other moral theory, the social contract does not expect everyone (especially the psychopathic type in your hypothetical scenario) to agree in harmony, so you're really making an irrelevant point.
@@onionbelly_ A proponent of a moral theory may not expect every single person to be convinced by that theory, but all moral theories are required to respond to objections and challenges to them. If my objection can be dismissed as irrelevant simply because not all people can ever be expected to adhere to a single theory, then so can all objections to all moral theories be dismissed as irrelevant, which would bring moral debate to a standstill.
Your question is a great one. Reason faces the same challenge that morality does... namely is there an absolute standard we can appeal to or is it simply majority consensus? Objective or subjective? If it's subjective, or up to the individual, then I think reason is quite unreliable since it really boils down to one man's opinion over another.
_urbansamurai,_ Maybe you've already discovered this in the 8 years since your comment, but reason is just the historic track record of arguments.
* Some types of arguments were reliably true. We call those "logical".
* Some aren't reliably true. We call those types of arguments "fallacies"; they aren't logical; they're mistakes.
The big problem confronting theists has always been their inability to present a _non-fallacious_ argument for a god. (Craig just _says_ objective morality exists, and _says_ a god would be required for it, but that's fallacy of bare assertion. A mistake. So when (in other talks) he tries to use morality as his argument for a god, it all rests on a non-existent, flawed foundation.)
@@majmage Granting for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist, is there any logical problem with saying that God creates morality in the same way he creates existence itself?
The theory that moral and rational claims are demonstrated through historical track records doesn't meet the ontological burden of proof; pragmatism and populism are not in themselves 100% reliable tools for deducing such proofs. Up until the 19th century, history and experience would have validated slavery as a moral institution, albeit there were dissenting voices throughout time. The historic track record argument fails for many reasons, namely the regressive and progressive tendencies of civilizations.
@@veritasagape4043 I feel like you're weirdly mixing up two topics.
The development of logic over time is what led to us calling things logical.
The development of morality over time is a separate thing (and yeah morality is a technology gradually discovered very similar the development of logic).
So my comments on logic are an ongoing problem for theists because they have yet to provide a logical argument for a god's existence.
The moral argument is just one example of logical errors used to try to say a god exists: Craig says things without evidence, and that's fallacy of bare assertion (and long ago we discovered that _just saying something is true for no reason_ isn't a reliable way to know truth; and that mistake of having no good reason is why we call it fallacy of bare assertion).
@@majmage Perhaps it's better said that the development of the tools of logic led humanity to recognize what things are true and false.
I think your claim that theists haven't provided any "logical argument for God's existence" is simply incorrect. There are a multitude of logical arguments for God's existence, despite your disagreements as to the validity of those claims.
What I think you're looking for is a "true" logical argument instead of something like the following:
---
"All psychological scientists conduct empirical research. William James conducts empirical research. Therefore, William James is a psychological scientist."
Notice, all of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion, but it’s not a valid argument. All psychological scientists do conduct empirical research, and so does William James, but that’s not what tells us that James is a psychological scientist. Some people who conduct empirical research - Rosalind Franklin, for example - aren’t psychological scientists at all.
----
This is not to say that all logical arguments for God's existence are valid, or that all are faulty as in the aforementioned manner; some do have full logical coherence and summationary truth value.
You also claim that Craig "says things without evidence", but what do you mean by "evidence"? Are we talking the Oxford definition: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid", or the Ballentine's legal definition, "The means by which alleged facts are proved or disproved'? Are you looking for video footage, eyewitness testimony, personal experience, abductive reasoning, inductive arguments, divine personal revelation? What is your criteria for evidence?
@@veritasagape4043 Again, we're discussing _existence._ That means being "valid" isn't enough. We need a _sound_ argument for god(s). Nobody has one.
I provided a specific example of Craig's baseless assertion: saying objective moral values do exist. Well watch this entire vid and the entire rest of Craig's content, and you'll never find him supporting that claim with sufficient evidence to believe it's true.
So again, with each argument for god one or more logical errors (fallacies) was made. And bad logic isn't evidence, it's _just bad logic._ That leaves us without a good reason to believe any gods actually exist.
Yes, evidence is the body of facts indicating something is true.
Hats off to both of them. A good discussion.
May you please add the functionality to do clips of this youtube video, in order to share with friends?
An apologist is a philosopher who is not in search of truth, but seeks to prove his foregone conclusions with philosophical arguments. It's painful to listen to WLC:n incredibly poor, illogical arguments. He should be ashamed of himself, that he does not know the first thing about contemporary ethics.
+sauniz1 While I will say this is WLC worst debates but his arguments are sound and are based in logic. This happened to be one night that WLC was not as well prepared as he usually is. He almost looked confused at the questions and points Shelly was attempting to make and was not sure what angle to take. Yet again Shelly was unable to justify his point either but was able to look somewhat better doing it. The bases for morals will always allude naturalist unless they except that life is predestined to the mechanisms of the physical world and choices on morality really do not exist to the individual but are just a product of physics. How does rational thoughts on morality really come from irrational physical states?
+Casey Skipper What I'd like to hear from WLC is proofs for his christian premises: That Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus died for our sins, that the Bible is the word of God etc. You never hear these proven, because to him they proven a priori, through inner experience. Well, WLC, so claims every religionist on this planet. How is YOUR inner experience "more real" than these others'?
His arguments with regards to ethics fail also.
A) While it may be true that objective moral values would be nice to have, that does not mean they exist.
He uses a sort of abductive reasoning towards the most convenient. Just because something would be nice, if it were true, does not mean it is.
B) Contemporary ethics can point to natural laws to give us an objective basis for morality. That does not mean that it would not need to have a human interpretative component, but
C) so do theists. How is the Bible an objective moral guide? Who has the objective way to read this incredibly ambiguous and multifaceted library of ancient literature? There are tens of thousands of christian sects right now who base their identities on a certain way of reading the Bible. Every interpretation is different and has it's basis on the situation at hand and the interpreters own values and world view. Even if the Bible was objective, unerring and unambiguous, where would we get an objective and unerring interpreter for it?
+sauniz1 I don't really argue for biblical truths but I have read it cover to cover. Old testament is very tough reading. The argument for a creator seems to be reasonable from other angles as well but the moral argument seems very troubling to me if I accept the naturalistic view. It seems that most naturalistic moral arguments begin with the assumption that life has a reason to want to continue living and reproducing. Why is a complicated arrangements of elements have a desire to want to continue on and make more of them. This gives meaning in the same way as two atoms creating a bond. Irrational to me and I reject the idea that rational thought can come from irrational building blocks. It's like arguing something (time and space) came from nothing with no cause. We have never in human experience seen or accepted a result without a cause until atheist asked us to. This is why theist will say atheist have more faith then they do and build a logical argument from there.
Phelan Exactly. Christians don't get the morality from the Bible, but from the wisdom of the world, which the Bible condemns as foolishness in God's sight. They adapt their interpretation of the Bible to the surrounding culture, values, practices etc.
Casey Skipper Science has not given us a solution to the problem of the first cause. It hasn't "proven" that a quantum flux, gravity or a natural law has started the universe. Until it has, we should keep asking these questions - these are most important ones there are. But we also should not assume that this creator, if there is one, is a human-like personality who is actively and directly involved with his creation. Why would you assume that this creator creates a universe in a Big Bang, let's it develop billions of years, but then has to go back to it and supernaturally give man rationality and ethics, rather than creating a universe in which these develop naturally over time? I think this makes the creator irrational. It seems to think that the creator would have created an imperfect universe to begin with which "he" has to fix later.
So many comments and nobody mentions arthur schopenhauer?
@ Time 1:18 on the video… Shelly Kagan says…
"My view is that what morality boils down to is… don't harm and do help"
That is as deep as it gets for Shelly Kagan.
On Naturalism -- There is No real meaning, value & purpose to human existence. So, just make it all up with a social contract and don't harm anyone.
William Lane Craig was clearly the winner in this discussion
+TheMirabillis What's the problem? He's talking about what he believes is the foundation for ethics. It can't get any deeper than that, and it wouldn't be any better if it could.
UkiWoDao
What's the problem ? Craig is talking about what he believes is the foundation for ethics. It can't get any deeper than that, and it wouldn't be any better if it could.
+TheMirabillis If you're saying "it boils down to..." you're stating your foundation, the bedrock upon which your theory or belief rests. So, by definition, it couldn't get deeper than that. The point of contention is that you take, as Craig, "deep" to mean "ultimately" or transcendentally meaningfull. But I think Kagan asked a good question to which Craig never responded appropriately. How does the fact of our inevitable death make the good things we do any less good? If you're hungry and I offer you food, will you reject it on the grounds that it's "ultimately" pointless? I believe not.
UkiWoDao
Craig did respond appropriately but either Kagan never understood what Craig was saying or didn't want to understand.
If there is No God and all of life ends at the grave, then nothing does really matter.
There would be no basis to say that child abuse, rape, or murder were really wrong actions.
+TheMirabillis Kagan asked: how is it that we either have ultimate meaning, or no meaning at all. Craig answered that it just seemed to him strange that we would have any significance, which of course isn't an answer, he's just repeating himself. And Kagan did give a basis for morality. Bad things harm you, so you want to avoid them. Others are mostly like you, so you should avoid it for them too. Rape, abuse and murder clearly do harm. So we shouldn't do it.
Imagine a life in constant, agonizing pain. You would agree that no one would want that, not even for a day, let alone days or years. No one would like that regardless of ANY belief they might hold. You wouldn't want a day of constant, agonizing pain, even if you were told you were going to die the next day. You wouldn't want such a day even if you believed in the afterlife. This shows that It matters perfectly to you (and everybody else), not to be in constant, agonizing pain, regardless of you dying or having an afterlife.
Kagan: What makes something morally wrong or right? Reason does.
Hume: Tsk, tsk...you call yourself a moral philosopher and you don't know that is's to ought's are a no-no?
I'm not a Christian so your question would be irrelevant to me regarding a claimed holy text.
I'm simply asking do we have faith in our reason, is there any way we can objectively give credibility to it?