The internet is inundated with debates on religion and atheism, often, I'm sorry to say, with intellectually embarrassing performances on both sides. Fortunately, today you have a chance to expand your mind and see two professional philosophers go at it.William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, argues that an objective morality can only make sense in the context of God, and that any naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview is ultimately inconsistent with a morality universally binding on everyone. On the other side, Dr. Louise Antony argues that even if God existed, God could not possibly be the source of any morality worth having, and that if God were morally good, It would have to be good for secular, and not religious reasons. Both points are, of course, natural implications of Antony's beautiful articulation of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Whatever side of the issue you stand on, you are sure to be stimulated.
Of course, Craig's attempt to show the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma only moves the problem one step back... to exactly the same problem, as this brilliant cartoon demonstrates:
You might also want to check out a debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath, or between Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens on similar topics.
Did anybody fall for the ontological/semantic distinction? Total distraction, but what a slick move!
In this great battle over whether God is necessary for morality, both
ReplyDeleteWilliam Lane Craig and Dr Louise Antony argued brilliantly, but I am going to have to give the victory to Dr Antony. William Lane Craig asserts that if God does not exist, that we are not morally obligated to do anything. Craig poses the question of just who poses moral obligations upon us, and the very origins of moral obligations. He claims that without God in the equation, heinous acts like rape and incest are merely " subjective impressions arising and engrained into us by societal and parental conditioning”, and it is the atheists view that rape and incest are not biologically or socially advantageous, so in the course of human development, have become taboo. He feels that without God in the equation, a rapist that goes against the herd mentality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably, like the man who "belches loudly at the dinner table.”
Lane continues on, dropping in a few obligatory quotes, namely one from Fyodor Dostoyevsky; "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” Nice touch, but I could quote my Uncle Frank, who cares?
Dr Antony, an atheist, asserts that her position on this dilemma is actually the perfect position for religious people to adopt, and is a “more pious position” than Dr Craig’s, a better position for theists to hold. Dr Antony says," If God exists and is perfectly good, then her position is the one that God wants his creatures to adopt.”
She continues” Only if morality is independent of God can we make sense of religious worship, and that any of us can "have a moral basis for adhering to God’s demands. Dr Antony says that Dr Craig’s position is actually destructive to morality.
Dr Antony’s words resonated with me, and made more sense. I live my life to my high expectations, with no regard for what God or what the world thinks. If I had to rely on the accolades of my fellow man for sustenance, i would be starving right now.
If i had debated Dr William Lane Craig, my last words to him would have been "Now go home and get your shine box!"
ReplyDelete