Idiot Ray Comfort (Banana Man) Blames Children's Murder on Dawkins and Hitchens (page 3)

cantleave

Do you think we could have gotten there WITHOUT the "god given laws" to point to what was right and wrong?

I think you know my answer to that...

PSacramento

I would assume that you think that our morals would have evolved to this point, yes?

The formation of societies were in the individual's interest. Communities provide avantages for hunting, for defence and for breeding success. Once these societies where formed, acceptable social behaviours became necessary. Without them the groups would break down and the individuals who didn't follow the social mores would be outcast. Once this happened the the chances of survival were considerably reduced.

Ticker

Cofty, I'm glad to point out we have this in agreement that there are objective moral values and duties.

To say they are objective is to say they are valid and binding independent of human opinion. The following is an example used before but it applies so well I will draw from it and summarize the points to clarify. An illustration - To say that the holocaust is objectively evil is to say it was evil even though the Nazis thought it was good. It would still be evil even if they had won the war, brainwashed or stamped out every opposer and everyone thought the holocaust was good.

so on this premisis we have:

1. If God exists we have a solid foundation for moral values and duties.

2. If God does not exist we do not have a solid foundation for moral values and duties.

Theism provides a solid foundation for objective moral values. Moral values have to do with what is good or evil and in the theistic view are grounded in God. God is love, joy, peace,kindness, goodness, faith, etc. - Galations 5:22-23 So if God exists these objective moral values exist completely independant of human beings. Theism again provides a sound foundation for objective moral duties. In the theistic view they are constituted by God's commands reflecting his essential character as in the prior point. This whole moral duty of man can be summed up in Luke 10:27 - Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, strength, and your neighbour as yourself. On this foundation we can distiguish between what is objectively right (Love,self sacrifice, generosity, equality) and objectively wrong (selfishness, hatred, abuse, oppression,discrimination).

I think this makes it obvious that if God exists we have a strong foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Now if God does not exist then we do not have a strong foundation for objective moral values and duties. What basis would remain for these objective moral values? Why would we think we would have objective moral worth? If we are just accidental byproducts of nature that recently evolved and are doomed to perish individually and in the aggregate in a short period of time it's very difficult to see how human well-being is anymore objectively good then insect well-being. This is the value problem. Trying to ground objective moral values in nature is impossible since nature in itself is morally neutral.

according to the naturalistic view moral values become just behavioral byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning. To conclude that we have evolved to a type of herd morality because it is advantageous for survival and due to socio-biological pressures still lacks anything that makes this morality objectively binding and true. Morality just becomes an aid to survival and reproduction, anything beyond this is an illusion. We could very well have had a much different set of moral values like that of Darwins example of hive bees. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex , p. 100 This is on the same level as thinking the holocaust is good as what do we really have in atheism other then some grand delusion of actual morality?

If there is no "good or evil" according to atheis then you need to redefine what good and evil is to solve the value problem. Good then becomes what supports the well-being of conscience creatures and any questions about values just become questions about the well-being of conscience creatures. Now it makes redundant asking why maximizing well being is good. These questions then just become circular reasoning. This isn't moral values but rather what makes possible the ability to have subjective experiences. This is far from a moral foundation and science can claim the same of sunflower plants or potatoes. What makes them flourish as a species does not equate to objective moral values.

Duty had to do with moral obligation of what I ought or ought not to do. Here there are two problems with the naturalistic view of moral obligation. Natrual science only tells us what is not what ought to be. It cannot tell us we have a moral obligation to take actions conducive to human flourashing. With no God what grounds is there for objective moral duties? On the naturalistic view humans are just animals and have no moral obligation to one another. They would just become subjective impressions. Cetain acts may not be accepted or taboo but there is nothing to suggest that such acts are morally wrong. Without a moral lawgiver there is no objective moral law and thus no objective moral duties.

The next problem is "ought" implies "can." If we say all acts are causally determined and there is no free will then no one is morally responsible for anything. It becomes a "social construct" and not an objective reality. This would conclude any hope of objective moral duties since we would have no control over what we do. Then right and wrong would not really exist and we have no solid foundation for objective morality. As I earlier said I agree with cofty in that we have objective morality but the sound foundation can only be built upon theism.

Have a good weekend everyone.

cofty

Ticker - marking your befuddled William Lane Craig speech for later.

You are confusing objective morality with absolute morality. WLC does the same - he also pronounces duties as doodies.

I will respond some time this weekend when I get time.

unstopableravens

cant leave:as you know i like comfort and kirk, but yeah i agree you cant call attach names to the shooting, i guess sense he was asked he gave what answer he thought was best,maybe he sees he could have gone a different route,im glad he did not go to an extreme as some do. i really like there way of the master ,good program

cofty

Ticker - If you are going to copy-paste somebody else's work - even if you edit it - you should give credit to the source..

See the first part of WLC' opening speech in his debate Vs Sam Harris..

Plagiarism is not cool.

Finkelstein

But how does this explain all the devout steadfast Christians murdering people ?

I think most intelligent people can see through this stupid assertion.

EntirelyPossible

Plagiarism is not cool.

Ticker

It is Dr. Craig's work. He is much better versed on the topic then myself I have no problem in saying that. I ask for a response to it because to me that argument is absolutely compelling. Using a red herring of plagerism to draw away from the argument is not accomplishing the task at hand.

Idiot Ray Comfort (Banana Man) Blames Children's Murder on Dawkins and Hitchens

Share this