On the Origin of Morality: The Sam Harris v Wm Lane Craig debate pt 2

reply to post by adjensen

As I said, you need to disassociate God from this discussion, because I'm not talking about the source of objective morality, I'm just saying that it exists...............

I would LOVE to be able to do that, but unfortunately, that is impossible, because in the debate being discussed, in which you insist that Craig won, Craig makes the claims that:
1. Without God, objective moral values cannot exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.
4. God is "good" therefore "good objective morality" comes from God, through God's "Divine Command."

Harris also claims that objective morality exists, but without the need for a god.

Both debaters agree that objective morality exists, yet, you give the win to Craig because:

Harris' basis there was that objective morality was about abject misery and wanting to avoid that? Unfortunately, "abject misery" is a subjective thing -- what one person deems misery might be embraced by someone else, so that argument cannot be the basis for objective morality. People like Harris need objective morality as a basis for their arguments in other areas.........

God is good, is a subjective claim! How do you NOT see that? Good is subjective. What is good for one person is bad for another, everyday, all day long!

(such as the problem of evil or, in Harris' case, declaring some people and ideologies worse than others)

How do you NOT see that Harris proves here, that God, if he exists, is not necessarily good? You, like Craig are twisting the argument. Harris is asking, "If God exists, and is inherently good, and all his objective morality is good and issues from God's divine command, then why is there evil and why are people who claim God's divine command doing evil things? (Like raping virgins)"

Craig fails to answer this question. Harris confirms his stance that objective morality can exist without a god.

Craig's case says that God's objective morality is good and that God's divine command makes us act toward the good that is God. Harris makes the case that morality comes from the act of moving away from what is bad. Why do you think one argument is better than the other? They are both subjective, based on the human perception of what is good and bad.

You claim that Harris' case can only reflect subjective morality. I say that Craig's case can only reflect subjective morality.

I don't need God to make my case, and neither did Harris. Why do you think Craig's case, that objective morality can't exist without God, was the winning case, but, you tell me that I need to drop God from the discussion in order to understand how Craig won the debate, when I object to your reasoning? What winning argument did Craig present that Harris didn't answer?

and it's the reason that you fundamentally and inherently know that rape is wrong, as opposed to "having to figure it out," which is the position that a subjective moralist would find themselves in.

If I thought that, then I would be obliged to stop "duck gang rape" when I saw it. But, I don't, because, objectively, duck gang rape isn't immoral. Rape is subjectively immoral in a limited, human context. Rape victims often believe, or are told, that it was their own fault, that they deserved it, or were asking for it. Some people think that the outcome of a pregnancy from rape is a good thing. Some think legitimate rape can't cause a pregnancy!

It is entirely possible that the source of objective morality is a natural, rather than supernatural one, but I think it is patently obvious that it exists.

I see absolutely no evidence of the existence of objective morality outside of natural evolutionary development.

reply to post by windword


There is no point in discussing the source of objective morality until we can agree that it exists, which does not seem possible. Oddly enough, that's been the case with the previous debates I've had on the subject -- in every case, the proponent of subjective morality couldn't let lose of the premise that, if they accepted objective morality, they needed to accept that such came from God, so they rejected it, in spite of the obvious failings of subjective morality.

That's why I don't want to talk about God, because he is beyond the scope of whether objective morality exists.

reply to post by adjensen

There is no point in discussing the source of objective morality until we can agree that it exists,

Maybe windword doesn't, and I totally respect her for that...but...I agree that it exists...

and would like to discuss it, and its source. So...may we? Shall we? Can we?

But, adj, I'm no "debate expert". So, if 'debate rules' are what you propose to use as a gauge, I know I'll lose before we even begin.

could you imagine if women in America were broken to the point that they felt rape was not wrong? they can be just like our pets, and only worth half what a man is.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

could you imagine if women in America were broken to the point that they felt rape was not wrong? they can be just like our pets, and only worth half what a man is.

Wut??

Women in America will never be broken to the point that they accept rape (feel it is not wrong).

"Just like our pets".....? Again....what the hell are you talking about?

Are you ranting against 'sharia law'?
That has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the subject of the debate in the OP.

say NO to drugs, atheism... and rape.

they kind of go hand in hand

reply to post by adjensen

in every case, the proponent of subjective morality couldn't let lose of the premise that, if they accepted objective morality, they needed to accept that such came from God

You see your bias? No matter what argument an atheist makes, even if they agree that objective morality does exist, in your mind, objective morality can't exist without coming from God, therefore, their objective morality is subjective. In your mind Craig won the debate before Harris even opened his mouth.

That's why I don't want to talk about God, because he is beyond the scope of whether objective morality exists.

In that case, why do people need to accept that "such came from God'? I take it that you don't believe in Craigs theory of "Divine Command" then?

in spite of the obvious failings of subjective morality.

I don't see any shortcoming in accepting that all morality is subjective, on the contrary, there is wisdom there. Nature has no distinction between right or wrong, good or bad. Sentient life evolves subjective morality for the good of the species. When a species is flourishing, like humanity is, it can afford to take the time and energy for altruism. And, we do see altruism in nature.

wildtimes
Are you ranting against 'sharia law'?
That has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the subject of the debate in the OP.

hell I am not ranting on Sharia, I am thinking about converting to atheism!

the morals and standards are much more laxed... it is what this topic ha[pens to be about.


don't worry ladies, rape isn't as bad if your drunk.

reply to post by windword

I don't see any shortcoming in accepting that all morality is subjective, on the contrary, there is wisdom there.

The obvious deficiency is that you have no position from which to say that society should take one position or not. The Spartans, who killed any infant born with a deformity that would prevent their serving in the military, are just as moral as any egalitarian society, because, by your thinking, they thought they were moral, and therefore they were. The Nazis can't be seen as evil by you, because morality is relative and subjective, so since they thought they were doing the right thing, they were.

That's one pretty obvious shortcoming in accepting that all morality is subjective.

ah atheism...

free love

reply to post by windword

In your mind Craig won the debate before Harris even opened his mouth.

Again, no. As a seasoned debater and debate judge, I believe that Harris lost because he failed to address many of Craig's points, which were directed at the topic, and he spent his rebuttals and closing statement attacking Christianity, which was irrelevant to the subject of the debate. I think that any unbiased judge, who is familiar with the rules of formal debate, would agree with that assessment.

wildtimes
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

could you imagine if women in America were broken to the point that they felt rape was not wrong? they can be just like our pets, and only worth half what a man is.

Wut??

Women in America will never be broken to the point that they accept rape (feel it is not wrong).

"Just like our pets".....? Again....what the hell are you talking about?

Are you ranting against 'sharia law'?
That has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the subject of the debate in the OP.

edit on 12/5/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

I think Sisyphus is really going off the deep end. But I digress.

While Sisyphus rants about rape, mentions nothing about long term sexual abuse that includes rapes over and over again. If Sisyphus would like to discuss the psychological torture inflicted on rape victims and sexual abuse victims, and how the victims must deal with this because societal standards of mores and taboos cause them to live with severe PTSD while society blames the victim. That isn't just an atheist problem.

While Sisyphus is placing the blame on atheists, he isn't addressing the core issues of subjective morality without a standard of objective morality, that one can choose to ignore or live by.

That may be the answer, that subjective morality without objective morality is impossible, if that objective morality isn't presented as truth. If the objective morality comes from society, and the society accepts taboos, then it would conflict with a person's own subjective morality, IF that person's inherent morality is good. But if the subjective morality of a person is not good, then no objective morality will cause that person to change.

While there may be objective morality, but comes from a bad place, then the objective morality is wrong. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, when objective morality was exchanged from God to the Third Reich. It did cause conflicts in people's hearts who refused to accept the Third Reich. That objective morality then filtered down to the societal level, and the greater conflict was in the subjective.

The Marquis de Sade chose a subjective morality, denying the objective morality of the church. He was a sadist, from whom the term originates. So I suppose that objective morality depends on the source. But even at that, one can choose to embrace or ignore the objective morality, to fall back on their own moral relativism.

reply to post by adjensen

The obvious deficiency is that you have no position from which to say that society should take one position or not.

And you do? On what authority can you claim the moral high ground?

The Spartans, who killed any infant born with a deformity that would prevent their serving in the military, are just as moral as any egalitarian society, because, by your thinking, they thought they were moral, and therefore they were. The Nazis can't be seen as evil by you, because morality is relative and subjective, so since they thought they were doing the right thing, they were.

Okay, here it is, the tired old fallacy that atheists can't hold moral values, because, God.....Nothing is stopping atheists, and us heathen non-believers from mass helter skelter if not for you religious folk, right?

Do you see the problem with your logic?

You have the same right to make a moral determination as I do, I just don't claim that my morality is superior because it comes from God. But your opinion of morality, on say birth control, is not more valid than mine because you claim "God".

You can't show that your morality is superior to mine. You can't prove that your version of morality comes from God's divine command and that mine doesn't. Your morality is just as subjective as mine.

If objective morality does exist, you and I will never see it.

reply to post by windword


Boy, this is at least the third time I've stated it.

Objective morality has nothing to do with God. It can exist, as Harris attempts to claim, in this debate, outside of God. Your continued association of the two indicates our inability to move beyond that basic argument.

reply to post by adjensen


Oh okay. So spending his rebuttals misrepresenting what his opponent argued, assuming facts not in evidence, feigning indignation, refusing to prove his assertions and refusing to answering questions by telling his opponent to go "read a book on it"....grandstanding and preaching the love of and teachings of Jesus, wasn't irrrelevant and a waste of debate time?

and he spent his rebuttals and closing statement attacking Christianity

Craig opened the door on that, claiming that the words and teachings of Jesus were "God's divine commandments"! Harris had every right to attack Christianity as "not the shiniest example of morality"!

Craig's claim that objective morality can be found in the doctrine of Christianity is subjective!

reply to post by windword


Geez, I don't know why you're not getting it. WildTimes has weighed in.

The basic nature of what we're talking about has nothing to do with William Lane Craig or anything that he raised towards Sam Harris. Until we can agree that objective morality, as opposed to your subjective morality, exists, there is no point to this discussion.

adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

Boy, this is at least the third time I've stated it.

It's the second time, I'm pretty sure.

Objective morality has nothing to do with God. It can exist, as Harris attempts to claim, in this debate, outside of God. Your continued association of the two indicates our inability to move beyond that basic argument.

Not as long as you assert this, we can't move on!

in every case, the proponent of subjective morality couldn't let lose of the premise that, if they accepted objective morality, they needed to accept that such came from God, so they rejected it, in spite of the obvious failings of subjective morality.

As long as you claim that objective morality comes from God then God is relevant in the discussion.

Geez, I don't know why you're not getting it. WildTimes has weighed in.

I would love to hear Wildtimes opinions and how she sees objective morality and it's source. And, I encourage her to post her views.

The basic nature of what we're talking about has nothing to do with William Lane Craig or anything that he raised towards Sam Harris. Until we can agree that objective morality, as opposed to your subjective morality, exists, there is no point to this discussion.

I'm discussing the reasons why you claim that Craig won the debate, and why Harris lost. You claim that Harris only presented subjective morality. I say, that's all Craig has presented, as well. So far, you haven't presented anything that comes close to proof of objective morality either, other than saying that it obviously exists and that subjective moralists have no moral compass.

Also, you have rejected Harris' claim that objective morality exists in the minds of sentient beings, and can be observed as the tendency to move away from "bad" towards "good" as subjective. How is this argument different from Craig's, that God's divine commandments urge us toward good?

So, I'll await, with eager eyes, for you and Wildtimes to expound on the evidence and reality of objective morality. Don't be surprised if I chime in.

reply to post by windword

1. Without God, objective moral values cannot exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.
4. God is "good" therefore "good objective morality" comes from God, through God's "Divine Command."

1 is an assumption, therefore 2 and 3 are false conclusions based on an assumption.

4 is circular logic, God is good because God created morality and through that morality called himself "good".

reply to post by windword

Oky doke, windy.
I fear you're misunderstanding what adj is saying; and I'm not sure what you think I'm saying...

So, I'll try to sort it out here...typing as I think..

adj says that Craig won the debate IN TERMS OF FORMAL DEBATE RULES and points only. Not that his argument was superior in content. I would almost venture to say that adj believes Harris has - and made - a perfectly valid point, and that his (Harris's) arguments for objective morality are self-evident and irrefutable.

If he "lost", it was simply that he didn't 'win points' in terms of a "Debate." He lost on 'technicalities.'
These aren't like political debates between candidates.

If it had been, I'm sure Harris would have had a majority - he amply proved how "God" as God is portrayed in the OT and by psychopaths like Hitler is not an exemplary, let alone 'benevolent' role model for morality. Craig refused to concede that point, and in my opinion, he was "shattered" by Harris.

Craig used lots of 'big words' like "epistemology" and "ontology" and other terms such as "red herring" - which, to my mind, was a desperate cop-out to try to derail the audience from hearing what Harris was saying.

But Harris's points were clear, whether or not he "followed the rules". MUCH clearer than Craig's were.

I agree with you, that God is not necessary for morality. Morals do Not Come From Religion or From God. They exist among humans as a social animal capable of reasoning out the "better" from the "insufferable".
Harris's point that the worst possible misery of everyone is 'bad' and that the best possible comfort of everyone is 'good' - and can be determined outside of "Divine Command" - was made, and made well.

I'm no debate expert, as I've said. But, I think that if this had been a political debate, no doubt Harris 'won' on simple persuasiveness. And with a room full of college kids - philosophy students - that's a good thing.

But it was a 'dialectic debate'. Maybe in class afterward the kids discussed who "won" based on formal rules, and also discussed different forms of "debate" in which Harris would have won (by audience vote), and others in which he did not "score formal points."

??????

adj, am I close at all?

God is Good

it's just missing the one "O" look at all the other words which were lost or changed in translation over time.

it's all good...

better yet, what is the origin of the word "good" linguistics and etymology?