Friday, November 19, 2010

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Audio Debate - Apologetics 315

Well here is the closest we will most likely ever get to William Lane Craig debating Richard Dawkins in a one-on-one debate. This one was a 3 on 3 debate. Guess Dawkins knew he needed the help; not that it helped his arguments. It didn't. But at times you take what you can get and this debate is notable because neither side of the debate topic, Does the Universe have a purpose?, are light-weights.
It was William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett, and Rabbi David Wolpe answering "yes" with Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Matt Ridley on the other side. I really thank Brian Auten for posting the video and the audio and following his link I have also linked to comments from another brother-in-Christ I respect.



Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Audio Debate - Apologetics 315
Summary and Review of Does the Universe Have Purpose Debate (Dawkins v. Craig)
Enhanced by Zemanta

15 comments:

  1. Two important thing I noticed that the theist didn't want to seem to tackle was that human purpose isn't dependent upon the universe having a purpose, and likewise, if the universe has a purpose, there's nothing to say that we are part of that purpose or have purpose as a result.

    Not sure if you picked this up from Brennon or not, but his "analysis" of these speeches is one of the clearest and most glaringly obvious examples of confirmation bias I've seen in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree...but the debate was about if the Universe has a purpose. The question was not "does humanity has a purpose?". In this case, the theists just stuck to the subject of the debate. Your complaint only has merit unless you presuppose that if the universe has a purpose that means we do too. I don't think they made that point, so why should they defend it?

    Does it go the other way? If we have a purpose, does that mean the universe has a purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If we have a purpose, does that mean the universe has a purpose?

    Absolutely not. I said exactly that more clumsily in my original post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, no. You said that if the universe has a purpose it does not mean that we have a purpose. If they are independent purposes then this is not the same question.

    And you still missed the point of my response: Humanity's purpose was outside the scope of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm thinking maybe you didn't watch it? Sure, the topic of humanity's purpose was outside the scope of the debate, but two of the theists talked about that almost exclusively.

    My point that I'm not communicating well or your missing is that x's purpose and y's purpose can be related, or not. X can have a purpose and y can't, or vice versa. Humans can have subjective purpose (not sure why theist think that's such a horrible thing) while the universe has no objective purpose, or the universe could have a purpose that has nothing to do with our purpose.

    The whole thing is a false dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I Think the atheists talked more about human purpose more than the theists. No one said that humans can't or have subjective purpose, but it can can be bad.

    What is a person makes it their purpose to kill you? Are they wrong? Is that horrible? Where does their rights end and your begin? Is their transcendent value greater than yours? Why not?

    I understand completely what you arguing, but if you are right, then Shermer is wrong. There can be no transcendence. Of course the purpose don't have to be linked, but can you prove that they aren't?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marcus said "The question was not "does humanity has a purpose?". In this case, the theists just stuck to the subject of the debate."

    Then Marcus said "I Think the atheists talked more about human purpose more than the theists."

    Granted, but two of the theists talked almost exclusively about human purpose instead of if the universe has a purpose.

    Is their transcendent value greater than yours?

    What transcendent value???

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ask Michael Shermer who brought it up and did not not define what he meant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know what I mean by "transcendent" however if your purpose is subjective it could be meaningless to anyone and everyone else. Therefore your purpose cannot be both transcendent and subjective simultaneously.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course it can be both. If a large part of our meaning/purpose/morality is instilled in us by society/biology/culture/language/etc... then it's beyond us, i.e. transcendent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's transcendent for you, but not for people who will disagree with you in the future or now. If meaning/purpose/morality are subjective then it has no bearing or weight if it's rejected by others. It can't be both...and it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marcus, just asserting that it can't be both doesn't mean it's not both transcendent and subjective.

    Let me state again, much of what we see as our purpose/meaning/morality is instilled in us by society/biology/culture/language/etc..., meaning that it is beyond us, i.e. transcendent. However, since we participate in the creation of our society, culture and language, our purpose/meaning/morality is also partly subjective.

    Transcendent does not mean objective or eternal or supernatural. It simply means to transcend or go beyond.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ryan, you know that Shermer meant that you can have your own subjective purpose that has eternal significance and value. Let's be honest. I'm not even talking about "supernatural". I mean "purpose" that transcends you, your time, and understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Example...It's wrong to kill people just because you don't like them. In Hitler's subjective morality that was fine. Good even. Was he wrong or not? I want a "yes" or "no" and then why. Keep in mind that if purpose/morality is subjective and transcendent then it's fine to do what he did today.

    ReplyDelete