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

reply to post by wildtimes

But we must contain "objective" to the human sphere for purposes of this debate; not extend it to all of creation. Humans are deeply social creatures; with reason and intelligence. I simply do not see 'religion' as the only source of morality.

That is often the problem that people who object to objective morality have -- while I believe that God is the source of absolute morality, I have not made that my argument, rather that there is an objective morality that does not change, regardless of its source.

I have had this argument in the past, and I really fail to understand how anyone can take the subjective morality position. Are we a more moral society, now that we no longer allow slavery? The subjective moralist can't say that, because there is no such thing as a "more moral society" -- without a base "this is good, this is bad, always was, always will be" to measure from, such a comparison cannot be made.

While you have excellent debate skills, and are able to say that Craig "won" in terms of 'formal debate' (and I do not - I took debate in high school, but am still learning what all the terms mean) - what do you think of Harris's points?

I was finally able to listen to the debate, and my memory was fairly accurate. As a debater, Harris failed by trying to turn the debate into "why I am not a Christian." If that was the subject of the debate, I might have sided with him, but the subject was "Is God necessary for morality", and I didn't think he addressed the subject sufficiently.

I did notice that one of the questioners called him on the subjective nature of his "worst possible world" premise, which he waved off dismissively, saying that you can say that about anything, so it wasn't a valid criticism, though it hits right through his argument for a natural objective morality. I think that such could exist, but it isn't what he proposes.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

you are a product of the environment you are in now, and you possess the qualities good or bad of the home you grew up in.

PS; street level professionalism is called RESPECT

You don't know anything about my life to make that claim. You don't know the good or bad of my childhood, so it's a little disrespectful on your part.

And if you think I am disrespectful to you in disagreeing with you, then you don't all there is to know yet. I tried to respectfully give you advice, but to me, personally, you seem to be very arrogant. Do you think I would side with everyone just because I want respect from them? There are two other Christians on this thread, Adjensen and I. We don't get respect for siding with people, we get respect for honestly presenting our beliefs with the ability to back up what we say.

But I'm not going to worry if I don't get respect, I'm not going to be arrogant. But if a Christian is wrong, I have a duty to tell them. And you are wrong in your methods. Very respectfully I say this.

Do you understand that in the history of Christianity, that when Christians failed to correct other Christians, they got by with a lot of things that they should not have done in the first place. And this is a point that atheists and other religions are still holding Christianity accountable to, and Christians should be accountable when they do wrong things. Don't think it's disrespect, it's about holding Christians to what they say they believe in.

A good word in due season, that's what you should be attempting.

SisyphusRide
you make wise crack jokes on someone you don't know or on their personal honor, in some place like Detroit or LA you'll get a cap in your arse!

I don't see how that's even remotely relevant. If you want to talk street, then that's where you oughta go. Not here. Meanwhile, the topic on the origin of morality is patiently awaiting your return.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Rape in the bible

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

more here:
www.evilbible.com...

if you hand someone the bible which is full of these kinds of “values” and then tell them that the bible is not just a good it’s THE good book, then what do you think that will do to someones morality?

reply to post by SisyphusRide

you make a joke on somebody in the environment I grew up in (Arl Virginia) you'll get a beating, right in the mouth. That is unless the individuals are friends..

I do not respect AfterInfinity's opinions no... nor do I Dawkins, Dawkins is the bane on my existence, if someone other than myself mentions his name I go ape!

-pun intended

You truly have no idea how much this post reveals about you.

Beaten (punched in the mouth) for 'making a joke on somebody' at some point.

No respect for AftIn or Dawkins....
because they rub the wrong way.

Admits rage and hatred for those opposed to personally held views.

Hmmmm...........
Probability of making a good debater (on a scale of 0-100): 20. Maybe.

Probability of childhood trauma/injury by authority figures: 100

Probability of being -
respectful to opponents: 10
persuasive: 5
objective: 0

WarminIndy
You don't know anything about my life to make that claim. You don't know the good or bad of my childhood, so it's a little disrespectful on your part.

true, we are who we are.

I am not willing to try to tell anyone different.

racasan
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Rape in the bible

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

more here:
www.evilbible.com...

if you hand someone the bible which is full of these kinds of “values” and then tell them that the bible is not just a good it’s THE good book, then what do you think that will do to someone morality?

Can I point out a few things here, the first verse you posted starts with IF, do you see that? IF is not a command. But IF you do rape a woman, you are obligated to take care of her. In the ancient world, it meant financially, and that was culture across the board, not only for the Hebrews.

But in that ancient world, if daddy said he was gonna' cut your thingy off, then that's what happened. To say IF means that God approved, then that's just silly. IF does not mean a command or an approval.

And the second verse, again, implies that God didn't approve of rape, but if you do rape, then same terms apply. You are responsible for what you did.

Do you see how in your misinterpretation led you to think God commands or approves of rape? No, because if you do it, then you have to take care of her.

Read the verses again. IF is not a command or an approval. IF means a lot, so you probably should read that into the context.

IF you become enamored of her, allow her the time to mourn, which is an ancient cultural tradition everywhere, then you can marry her. But it says he did have to marry her, because he took from her the one thing that was most valuable to women in those days.

Read the IFs, then you might understand, it was not God who said to rape or allowed it. But IF you do, you have to take care of her.

reply to post by wildtimes


the others are minor jokes...

Dawkins now, I have never experienced such a profound hatred for someone in my entire life, I absolutely have hatred for Dawkins and I am sure I never experienced it before. I mean I have disliked people, and people have pissed me off but even after 911 I didn't hate on Muslims.

It feels terrible, my only consolation is that I know God will take care of Dawkins in the end...

reply to post by WarminIndy

I think there is an objective morality for all humans, no matter who or where they are. My brother pointed out the other day that the one moral view for all cultures is "do not kill". That seems to be the one point of morality for everyone, so it must be objective.

But at the same time, there seems to be subjective morality. I don't know at what point an objective morality becomes subjective. It must come when an individual embraces the objective and makes it subjective.

Wonderful response.

Yes. I'm glad you have a brother who is close enough to you that you can discuss these things. I discuss them with my mom, my kids, my husband....and you friends here on ATS.

As I've said before: The Golden Rule is the one universal truth, as far as I'm concerned.

Now...that goes for 'developed' countries. I don't claim to know what the 'uncontacted tribes' believe, but I do know that they have spirituality, and feel a connection with all living things (including the earth).

I understand that morality from my pov may be different from their pov....
and the local culture is certainly influential.

I'm sorta on the fence, too....
but, I don't believe a "God" is necessary for this to have occurred. Human beings develop moral codes amongst themselves. As divergent as those codes may be from one another (e.g. Amazonian tribe vs American intellectuals), they are 'consensus' among the community that matters.

I think that humans have developed the capacity and intelligence to agree on certain rules. Is a "God" necessary for that to occur? No. I don't think so.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

It feels terrible, my only consolation is that I know God will take care of Dawkins in the end...

Hmm.

Thanks for the disclosure.
So, if it turns out God is not 'vengeful' against Dawkins....but that instead Dawkins' soul will travel its own path until it eventually reunites with the Divine - just like everyone else: then what?

Vengeance and hatred are horrible burdens. I've had to learn to let them go. I feel much better now.

reply to post by wildtimes


man, wildtimes, you are just way too generous.

The probability of Sis convincing me has been set at 0....and I'm supposed on the same team. At least AfterInfinity has a lot of patience and has never threatened violence.

How old is this person anyway? Dawkins is the bane of existence? Then just don't watch Dawkins, life would be so much easier.

G.K. Chesterton one time said "The mark of true intelligence is the ability to listen to an idea without having to accept it". You have to listen first, then judge whether or not it is acceptable. But in a debate, threatening violence because an idea wasn't accepted, that's just not debate. That's just a fight.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by wildtimes

 

the others are minor jokes...

Dawkins now, I have never experienced such a profound hatred for someone in my entire life, I absolutely have hatred for Dawkins and I am sure I never experienced it before. I mean I have disliked people, and people have pissed me off but even after 911 I didn't hate on Muslims.

It feels terrible, my only consolation is that I know God will take care of Dawkins in the end...

You're nuts.

You are not the judge of Dawkins' heart or eternity. You really hate Dawkins this much that you would say this?

And why did you name yourself after a Greek god of deceitfulness? Sisyphus still rolls that rock to this day for his deceitfulness. I think there's something wrong about you. I don't trust you.

reply to post by WarminIndy


my beliefs do not require you to... nor Dawkins to believe in God, for he is going to Hell

SisyphusRide
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

my beliefs do not require you to... nor Dawkins to believe in God, for he is going to Hell

Again

You're nuts.

Why don't you and I have a debate on the subject of "Is Religiosity Dangerous". I am a Christian so it might be interesting. We can go to the debate forum and hash it out there. The mods will moderate.

reply to post by WarminIndy


maybe he is just going back where he came from?

attack the topic not the person...

Well, seeing as how this thread isn't going anywhere we haven't been a hundred times before, I'm gonna split. No one is going to convince anyone of anything here.

See you around.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


actually the thread is solved... and can be tagged as such.

I have shown that Harris' assumptions that theistic beliefs are considered by him to be Psychopathic and Delusional.

this can't be true and breaks the whole foundations of every one of his arguments and discredits them. It is unprofessional and unbecoming of proper conduct.

He is basically a cheater and a stand up comedian.

WarminIndy
I don't trust you.

Would you trust an advanced atheist or even a beginner atheist who couldn't define to you that rape is wrong in a split second, but instead give you some lengthy explanation of how is is wrong "unless" or better yet because it is observed in nature it must be natural and we're animals too...

over a simpleton who believes in an ultimate and Just moral goodness and that is it the light of life?

yes... this is 2+hrs of determining if rape is wrong or if it is ok, atheists Vs Christians.

reply to post by adjensen


My position is that all morality is subjective and that there is no objective morality. William Lane Craig asserts, and you say that you agree, that objective morality exists, and that it can be seen in God's Divine Command.

I'll ask you again, where can this "divine command" be found?

Is it in our hearts? Is it in the Bible? Where is it?

If you and WLC say that "divine command" can be found in the Bible, then the Hebrews had God's divine command to rape. Therefore, since we both agree that rape is not good, God's divine command is not good and God is not good or moral.

If you say that objective morality lies in our hearts, then why are humans so immoral?

If you say that only God can know his own morality and dispenses morality as he sees fit, then God's morality is subjective.

I say that there is no evidence of objective morality, and there is no evidence of God's divine command.

Humans, as well as all sentient beings, act out of morality according to their own evolution. Therefore, all morality is subject to our evolutionary status.

And with your subjective morality, you would have to agree with them, that they weren't doing anything wrong, because they thought it a moral act. I, on the other hand, can point to objective morality to say that it was wrong, regardless of what they thought of it.

Please! Where is the "divine command" from which you gather your objective morality and the conclusion that the Hebrews were acting immorally when they claimed that God told them to rape?

Believing that morality is subjective, doesn't preclude one from judging if an action is moral or immoral, in context with the perception of what is good and what is not good. On the contrary, if you believe that God gave the Hebrews divine command to rape, then rape is good, because you believe God is good.

There is no evidence of objective morality, of God's divine command or that God is good and moral. Not in nature, not in the mind of mankind and not in the Bible. It simply doesn't exist.

reply to post by windword


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, 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.

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.