I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?
I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?
It would depend upon what is meant by answering moral questions.
Even if scientists completely understood the mechanism whereby we make moral decisions that would not imply that we could develop a hypothesis about whether something is right or wrong.
But it could help us understand what we mean by right and wrong.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Hitchens has debated Craig. It was rather unilluminating.
I've pretty much reached saturation point with live debates, and I'm not really sure what they accomplish. If Dawkins debates Craig, most of Craig's followers will say Craig "won," and vice versa.
I really doubt you'll see much in the way of "debunking" that will persuade anyone who really thinks Craig has a great argument. (Frankly, Dawkins wouldn't be my choice for that task anyway. I expect that Craig's "armchair philosophy" and Dawkins' empiricism would just have them talking past each other the whole time.)
And ultimately, famous atheists have to say "no" to a lot of debate requests. If Dawkins debates Craig, then Theologian X will demand that Dawkins debate him, or else he's a coward, etc. etc. Then Reverend Y will do the same. And so on.
If it entertains some people in the crowd, and amuses (or pays) the participants to do so, then sure, hold a debate. But I don't think it serves anyone's "message" or cause, unless the message is "buy my book!"
Hitchens debated Craig on a panel along with Strobel, Douglas and a few others I can't recall. The moderator was even a christian which was annoying as I remember it. Nothing new although Craig offered no apologies for the tombs emptying when Christ allegedly arose. Wouldn't say if it was symbolic or literal. Kind of a cop-out.
I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?
The brain doesn't make moral decisions or any other decisions. We make them. It is not even wrong to suggest that the brain makes decisions: it is nonsense.
.
Has anyone seen the debate between John Shook and Craig? I think Craig got his butt kicked in that debate.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Note: you can also find other youtube videos that divided the debate into smaller parts. Those with slower internet connection might want to watch those.
.
I tend to agree with the idea that a debate is a waste of time. The Woo Masters do not care about, let alone know the facts. The debate would mostly be a PR contest where the Woo Master is most at home.
As an example, I give you my own personal favorite master of woo, Richard C. Hoagland. A few months back, Hoagie got this idea that Phobos is actually an ancient space ship. He further claimed that an ESA probe that flew by the moon provided iron clad data for this. One of the places he made this claim was on an Internet radio show called "The Unexplained". A few days later, this same show had on the chief scientist at ESA who was heading up the mission. He of course refuted everything that Hoagie said, but he just didn't come off as well. While the scientist had the facts, Hoagland was good at the PR end of things (his only real core competency really). So yes, I think debating Woo Masters is a waste of time and effort.
.
Has anyone seen the debate between John Shook and Craig? I think Craig got his butt kicked in that debate.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Note: you can also find other youtube videos that divided the debate into smaller parts. Those with slower internet connection might want to watch those.
.
Thanks for the links, pnerd. I agree that John Shook gave a more satisfying performance than others who have debated Craig. But I'm surprised that Craig is so often allowed to get away with some of the things he says. I'd really like to see Sam Harris debate with him: Harris's laid-back confidence would be the perfect antidote to Craig's smarmy verbosity.
Here are the parts of Craig's presentation that I'd like to see addressed:
1. When discussing the origin of the universe, I've heard Craig chide his debaters for attempting to explain it with regard to the scientifically-determined theories of this universe. Craig disallows argument in that direction because, he says, 'pre'-big bang, there was no space or time in which forces could act. And yet he apparently feels that the ideas of cause and effect at which he has arrived during his anthropocentric, macroscopic existence on this planet can be applied with validity to the same (non)arena from which he prohibits materialistic physics. This is despite the fact that causality is not a simple subject even within this universe. I want to see somebody bring him up on this brazen hypocrisy.
2. After stating that the existence of the universe requires a cause outside of current physics, he goes on to claim that the cause must be immaterial and personal. Immaterial, because it necessarily existed outside of the universe; personal, because the only immaterial things are abstract things, like numbers, and minds. Minds! Why is Craig consistently able to smuggle this absurdity into the debate unchallenged? Why does nobody ask Craig the last time he saw a mind that existed independently of a material body? At least in the debate linked to by pnerd, Shook highlighted the illogic of proposing an entity that is both conscious and changeless; but he didn't press that obvious weak point at all; it was the subject of just a single sentence.
3. Without fail, Craig uses the idea humans can apprehend an objective set of moral principles. He claims that, without a god, there can be no objective basis for morality, and that, if morality is merely subjective, Hitler's Final Solution is morally unimpeachable; similarly, we have no grounds for judging predatory paedophiles or psychopaths. Craig's debaters so often get drawn into semantic arguments about 'objective' and subjective', 'relative' and 'absolute'. I am yet to hear a debater concede Craig's point about the lack of objective morality, and go on to say that it doesn't matter. The answer to Craig's question, "What do we do with the psychopath or rapist?" is easy: we condemn them. We don't need to appeal to an objective morality for this: we just acknowledge that the guilty party is condemned by the consensual judgment of society. Those actions which undermine the kind of society in which we want to live are the actions that we consider to be immoral. We are conditioned - whether biologically or culturally - to think that way.
I wonder, if god was shown to WLC not to exist and it was convincing to him, would he suddenly become immoral? If so, those are not morals but doing good to avoid punishment/condemnation. Guess that means WLC really is an immoral bastard.
Ah yes, I think I remember that one. I half recall that Stenger pointed out the internal inconsistency of an omnipotent god having desires - such as the desire to create and be loved by humanity. I don't remember Craig giving a satisfactory reply though.
That's a good phrase, and I certainly agree that it applies to William Lane Craig. But the meat of his argument seems to be the same from one debate to the next. Despite the great rate of bollocks spewed by the man, its predictability - reliable almost to the word! - should prevent a prepared debater from becoming overwhelmed.
I'm quite sure that Sam Harris would be efficient and ruthless in exposing the unjustified assertions that Craig conceals in his blather. I'd like to think that Daniel Dennett would be too, but in a debate with Dinesh D'Souza, after the prepared opening statements, Dennett seemed to me to become quite blustery and shallow in his rebuttals. Being an admirer of Dennett, a scorner of D'Souza, and something of a junke for these debates, I was quite disappointed by the performance.
I wonder, if god was shown to WLC not to exist and it was convincing to him, would he suddenly become immoral? If so, those are not morals but doing good to avoid punishment/condemnation. Guess that means WLC really is an immoral bastard.
In fairness to Craig, his idea of the relationship between humanity, morals and God goes beyond one of punishment and reward. As I understand it, he does not think that it is necessary to be a believer in order to live a moral life, nor does he think that theologians necessarily have a greater understanding of morality. Rather, he claims that "morality is engraved on Man's heart" (those may not be his precise words, but that's the sentiment, anyway). Why the engraver must have been God rather than the same millions of years of evolution that shaped the social practices of other animals, I don't know.
Craig seems to accept the fact of evolution, yet still draws a boundary around homo sapiens, declaring that the other animals are not moral agents. Who knows at what point in our evolutionary history he would consider humanity to have gained the ability to perceive objective morality? And how is it that God's objective morality seems to exist on a continuum with the behaviours of other social species?
That's a good phrase, and I certainly agree that it applies to William Lane Craig. But the meat of his argument seems to be the same from one debate to the next. Despite the great rate of bollocks spewed by the man, its predictability - reliable almost to the word! - should prevent a prepared debater from becoming overwhelmed.
That's true. He uses the same five "arguments" almost all the time. His opponents should be better prepared. Hitchens was particularly ill-prepared in my opinion.
Rather, he claims that "morality is engraved on Man's heart" (those may not be his precise words, but that's the sentiment, anyway). Why the engraver must have been God rather than the same millions of years of evolution that shaped the social practices of other animals, I don't know.
My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?
In the debate against Hitchens he clearly said that he doesn't think the evidence for evolution is good enough and that's why he's agnostic about evolution . But I have read that he often shifts his position regarding evolution. Maybe he accepts it when it suits him.
I think it would be cool if people like Dawkins and maybe someone like Francis Collins would record themselves having just a lively conversation while drinking their drinks of choice. Not a debate, not an argument, but a discussion. Like people with differing opinions and beliefs who are friends or peers usually have. Have it structured however - maybe a random topic picked out of a magic hat - then they can give their opinions, ask questions, swig some brew, and just shoot the ****. Have any of these "experts" ever done anything like this? If so I'd love a link to it.
I think it would be cool if people like Dawkins and maybe someone like Francis Collins would record themselves having just a lively conversation while drinking their drinks of choice. Not a debate, not an argument, but a discussion. Like people with differing opinions and beliefs who are friends or peers usually have. Have it structured however - maybe a random topic picked out of a magic hat - then they can give their opinions, ask questions, swig some brew, and just shoot the ****. Have any of these "experts" ever done anything like this? If so I'd love a link to it.
Here's a debate that might be more like what you're after (at least in the later parts, after the formal presentations): Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza
D'Souza's voice and mannerisms grate on me something awful (I know, I'm terribly prejudiced), but generally I find Shermer very pleasing.
That's true. He uses the same five "arguments" almost all the time. His opponents should be better prepared. Hitchens was particularly ill-prepared in my opinion.
Yes, and in my experience, that's usually the way with Hitchens. Since the novelty of his vitriol wore off, I find his presentations to be often rather rambling and incoherent, with some gems thrown in here and there.
My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?
Thanks for the link. I'd heard him say something similar previously, but it's good to have it laid out in detail. It seems like some quite impressive doublethink is required to square God's message with his actions. The 'good' that describes God, and the 'good' that describes his prescribed morality are surely merely homophones!
Here's a debate that might be more like what you're after (at least in the later parts, after the formal presentations): Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza
D'Souza's voice and mannerisms grate on me something awful (I know, I'm terribly prejudiced), but generally I find Shermer very pleasing.
I think it would be cool if people like Dawkins and maybe someone like Francis Collins would record themselves having just a lively conversation while drinking their drinks of choice. Not a debate, not an argument, but a discussion. Like people with differing opinions and beliefs who are friends or peers usually have.
My thoughts exactly. Why is god's standard of morality any more "objective" than the one we possibly got through evolution?
Have you read this: Slaughter of the Canaanites
What he essentially said there is that genocide is immoral unless god commands it. So how can "thou shalt not kill" be an "objective" standard of morality if it is "subject" to who commits (or commands) it?
Wow - I find this guys defense of that passage about as abhorrent as the passage. I've heard variations of his defense throughout the years. I think it's one of the more popular explanations.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. But I have read that he often shifts his position regarding evolution. Maybe he accepts it when it suits him.
Have any of these "experts" ever done anything like this? If so I'd love a link to it.
True.