Sunday, April 10, 2011

William Lane Craig and the Ontological Foundation of Morality

John Loftus posted the following:

Since [Dr. William Lane] Craig made a big deal of this in his debate with Sam Harris, here is Wes Morriston's critique of it. Link. Here's a quote:
Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God's commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false.
Let's take a moment and look as Wes Morriston's premises in this quote. Why should the reasons why God gives his commands be superior to God? He made and set up those reasons also. He is not playing by anyone else's rules. God made up the rules, the environment, and is in complete control. Therefore divine command theory is far from rebutted. If one does not like the way Dr. Craig establishes the ontological foundation of morality, maybe one may prefer this quote Brian Auten posted this morning.

"If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgements conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."1

- Francis Schaeffer

Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig and the Ontological Foundation of Morality
Enhanced by Zemanta

29 comments:

  1. You should watch this if you haven't already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've listened to it and already posted a link to this.

    Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig Debates Shelly Kagan MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

    Congratulations on writing the link correctly.

    Good Job!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I knew you were going to make a quip about the link. Petty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, just read your comment on the debate, your comment (re: why stabbing someone is wrong) was addressed by Kagan at length. It's almost as if you didn't actually watch it, or just skipped through so you could listen to the William Craig parts.

    Question, do you really need a divine overseer to keep you from stabbing people? You may have worse problems then I originally thought...

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're too easy! What? You can make fun and it isn't petty? Double Standard. And look I didn't even have to make a single change my blog. You must have done it right for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not sure what to tell you computer wiz, I didn't get an error message when I included http in my html this time.

    Now, go watch the Lane/Kagan debate so you can give a more thoughtful response than you did previously.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wouldn't have brought it up if you weren't trying to make it all my fault and talk about my abilities as a web programmer and the design of my blog. And just like I said, it had nothing to do with my blog. It's hilarious to me. Next time be careful with your insults and you won't be embarrassed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm just saying Marcus, I don't have these problems on other blogs and they don't take over a minute to load on multiple computers. But hey, you're a genius web designer who also happens to believe the human race is over 175 million years old (i.e your a bit of an idiot and you've got too much pride to think you might not have made the best design decisions).

    Now, go watch that debate so you can actually make a meaningful comment about it (if you are even capable). Chop chop.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The point of the blog is to have videos and lots of images. It's what I want. It's not pride. It's a choice. IF you have a problem with my design choices maybe you should invest in better broadband Internet. I have no problem with speed on my end. (What are you on dial-up or something?) Upgrade please.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh and by the way - can't you carry on a conversation without name-calling? Guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. T3 at work. DSL at home.

    The point of the blog is to have videos and lots of images. It's what I want.

    The word "bloated" comes to mind.

    So, have you watched the debate yet?

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, I don't, and you know it.

    What did you think of the Kagen/Lane debate now that you've finally watched it?

    ReplyDelete

  14. No, I don't, and you know it.


    No you don't. I'm suggesting that if you want my blog to load faster and upgrade would do that. You have no reason at all to question my design sources because my goal was not to make by blog load fast on your computer. I had other design choices. It is the same thing when you question why the universe is structured the way it is. Why should God care about what you think the universe should look like?

    What did you think of the Kagen/Lane debate now that you've finally watched it?

    Watched? You do realize that Brian only posted the audio? I only linked to the article? Do you feel alright? Did you watch it? I'd sure like to know how.

    I did hear Shelly Kegan's attempt to provide a basis of morality. He failed to give a satisfactory basis for absolute morality (which you reject). No sane person would argue that atheists would argue that you need to know God to do right things or act morally. That's not what I nor WLC would argue. The question again is: why? Why should I care about harming anyone if I can get a way with it? Why is it rational to agree to help other and be kind? I agree it is but why? It's obvious why Kagan lost this one. He did better than Sam Harris though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No you don't. I'm suggesting that if you want my blog to load faster and upgrade would do that.

    Tell you what, as soon as I find at least one other website that loads half as slowly as yours, I’ll upgrade…

    Watched?

    Watched, listened, either way.

    Did you watch it? I’d sure like to know how.

    No, I listened to it via the veritas forum. You could watch it on youtube if you like.

    He failed to give a satisfactory basis for absolute morality

    Well sure he did, since that’s not what he was doing. He argued, pretty successfully, for an objective basis for morality.

    Why should I care about harming anyone if I can get away with it?

    Watch… or listen… to the part about the contact. But you worry me. Do you want to harm someone if you could get away with it?

    It’s obvious why Kagan lost this one

    Yes, it’s SOOOO obvious that his opponent felt the need to make excuses for his lack luster performance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tell you what, as soon as I find at least one other website that loads half as slowly as yours, I’ll upgrade…

    That's my point exactly: All websites load quickly on my system. Including other video and image intensive sites.

    Well sure he did, since that’s not what he was doing. He argued, pretty successfully, for an objective basis for morality

    I disagree. The last thing i want is a morality based on what seems good to other people. Remember slavery was legal in the US for over 200 years because the majority of America thought it was good.

    Watch… or listen… to the part about the contact. But you worry me. Do you want to harm someone if you could get away with it?

    I think you meant "social contract". I don't want to harm anyone who isn't trying to hurt me or anyone else because it's wrong. The question being asked is why is it wrong? Raping and subjugating black people just because they were black used to legal in the United States but it was always wrong. But it was part of a social contract. I'm glad morality is based on more than that.

    Yes, it’s SOOOO obvious that his opponent felt the need to make excuses for his lack luster performance.

    It's obvious because Kagan did not prove you don't need God to provide a basis for morality.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey! I thought you learned how to do absolute links. Guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is what went into my a statement, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7259

    Your site is buggy.

    I disagree. The last thing i want is a morality based on what seems good to other people.

    What you want and what he successfully argued for are two unrelated things.

    The question being asked is why is it wrong?

    Because it breaks the contract.

    ReplyDelete

  19. Your site is buggy.


    Oh, so now we are back to that? I told you I'm not having that problem. Nor have there been other complaints. You have too much pride to admit that you make mistakes. Sad.

    What you want and what he successfully argued for are two unrelated things.

    The experience of my ancestors in America proves that you can't have an objective morality based a "social contract". If you are a white male - then maybe you can make that argument, otherwise it does not hold.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You have too much pride to admit that you make mistakes.

    I would be happy to admit a mistake, but I still had my original comment in wordpad. Sorry. Maybe it has something to do with my browser or my computer, those are possibilities, but your blogspot site is LITERALLY the only place this happens. Maybe it's a combination of my browser, computer and your bloated site? Might be worth you looking into.

    The experience of my ancestors in America proves that you can't have an objective morality based a "social contract".

    Actually, we have "social contract" morality now, just ask [insert minority, lab animal, etc...]. Just because you can imagine something better, doesn't mean something better actually exists.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nor have there been other complaints.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who else would complain?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Back to absolutely morality, the problem is you (and I) can imagine that it’s not good to keep slaves (others would disagree with us), and that’s all well and good. But you (but not I) think you should never terminate a fetus in the womb, while I (but not you) think that you should never infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights.

    There are some things we can agree on, and other things we won’t agree on and problem something we can’t agree on. My theory is that you need to imagine that there is a divine law giver, not because you can’t imagine morality not being grounded transcendentally, but because you need to posit an authority (who agrees with you) to settle disputes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who else would complain?

    People with better equipment and internet service would have no need to complain. Surely, you are not deluded enough to think you are the only one who reads this blog are you? There is no parameter or setting that blogger has that controls that. What is so hard:

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7259

    Just because you can imagine something better, doesn't mean something better actually exists.

    That's exactly the point. Human beings are unable to come up with better. That is why we have the messes we have now, but we instinctively know it's not right. It's missing something. and without God you cannot not really know what it is nor even attempt to fix it.

    There are some things we can agree on, and other things we won’t agree on and problem something we can’t agree on. My theory is that you need to imagine that there is a divine law giver, not because you can’t imagine morality not being grounded transcendentally, but because you need to posit an authority (who agrees with you) to settle disputes.

    Thing is you totally misunderstand me. God does not agree with me. If I had written the Bible it would read a lot differently than what it does. It's not about God agreeing the me. It is about me agreeing with God. He is the standard...and I don't measure up. No one else does. I don't disagree with abortion because I think woman don't have the right to control their own bodies. I disagree with the abortion because it is wrong to murder children...semantics aside.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Surely, you are not deluded enough to think you are the only one who reads this blog are you?

    Reads? No, I’m probably not the only one, but as for folks who post comments, let alone links, I’m one of VERY few, if not the only one right now. So with that said, who else would complain about the posting link function being buggy?

    Human beings are unable to come up with better.

    Wait, didn’t we come up with the idea (eventually) that slavery was bad? I don’t think you get to have it both ways.

    Thing is you totally misunderstand me. God does not agree with me. If I had written the Bible it would read a lot differently than what it does. It's not about God agreeing the me. It is about me agreeing with God.

    I’m sure you believe that. I just don’t think there’s a god for you to agree with, so it’s the god you’ve made up (with some help from others of course) that’s agreeing with what you already believe.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So with that said, who else would complain about the posting link function being buggy?

    People, like you, who can't write html adequately to do direct links.

    Wait, didn’t we come up with the idea (eventually) that slavery was bad? I don’t think you get to have it both ways.

    Nope. And Not everyone on earth agrees that it is bad. Why are they wrong? The Bible tells us that the evil perpetrated by the slave system in the United States, Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as in the world today is wrong. On what basis do you go to places where slavery is still in practice and tell them it is wrong?

    I’m sure you believe that. I just don’t think there’s a god for you to agree with, so it’s the god you’ve made up (with some help from others of course) that’s agreeing with what you already believe.

    I didn't write the Bible. If I align myself to the Word of God - which pre-exist me - how is God "the god you’ve made up (with some help from others of course) that’s agreeing with what you already believe"? That is not very logical, even if you don't think there is a god.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I didn't write the Bible. If I align myself to the Word of God - which pre-exist me - how is God "the god you’ve made up (with some help from others of course) that’s agreeing with what you already believe"? That is not very logical, even if you don't think there is a god.

    I'll spell this out for you, then I'm done with this topic. You were born into a religious family and culture which influenced you (in turn, they were influenced by their families and culture all the way back), and you also formed your own opinions, independent of them (as did everyone all the way back). This mismash of ideas is your unique god. So your god is kinda like fan fiction. Based entirely on something else, but still unique to you.

    You can say stuff like "...without God you cannot not really know what [the problem] is nor even attempt to fix it", but then you have to ask which god? Which ultimately reduces to "your god", which is just you saying "Well I'm right!".

    ReplyDelete
  27. You can say stuff like "...without God you cannot not really know what [the problem] is nor even attempt to fix it", but then you have to ask which god? Which ultimately reduces to "your god", which is just you saying "Well I'm right!".

    Spoken as one whose presuppositions have blinded them to the fact that your logic only makes sense if there is no God and/or God had not revealed Himself through the Bible. Two things that you can't prove. Just because you have convinced yourself doesn't make it true. It all goes back to God and your relationship to Him. You don't know God so you pretend that there is no one to know. If I didn't know God, I'd come to the same conclusions and maybe even convince myself that I can make sense out of life without God. I understand where you are coming from - which is why I reject it.

    ReplyDelete