A moral atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or crooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause.” —Greg Koukl, Relativism
Get the book:
7 comments:
Andy
said...
1. I've yet to see a refutation of Euthrypho's Dilemma. If something's only good because God declares it to be so, then it is an arbitrary good. If God declares it to be good because it is good already, then it is a moral truth accessible to atheists too.
2. There are plenty of philosophers who have discussed grounding a moral system without reference to God. Has Greg Koukl not read Kant?
3. For an atheist to be good, it is only necessary for him to value life and to wish to prevent suffering. I would view these as axiomatic virtues - why should they require further explanation?
If you've yet to see a refutation of Euthyphro's Dilemma, you must not have been looking very hard, Andy. Here's Dr. William Lane Craig on Youtube: http://youtu.be/me21or9T7vI
If you're really interested, we can go over it in detail.
2. I don't know Greg Koukl so I can't answer that question. And just because "plenty" of philosophers have discussed a morality free of God doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.
3. I don't have a problem with Atheists' capability for good. However, the question is and always will be what do they mean by "good"? What is meant by "virtue"? Where do these come from? Is there an objective "good," a standard "good" that always applies regardless of person, place or history or opinion? That's the contention for the argument for God's existence based on morality.
Yes, I've already seen Craig's refutation. I don't agree with it (yeah, I'm sure he's sobbing in his boots about that!). I've argued at length with Frank Turek about it too. By at length I mean over a period of many months. I doubt there are many aspects of the argument that I haven't already heard.
WLC claims he is offering a third option, but it's sounds to me pretty much just the second option written in a hifalutin way.
"The question is and always will be what do they mean by "good"?"
As I said, I would view valuing life wishing to prevent suffering as axiomatic virtues - why should they require further explanation? You can say "why are those things 'good'?" But you can pretty much keep asking 'why' to any answered question, whether you believe in a God or not.
At any rate, what do Christians mean by good? Many (eg WLC, Turek) define it in relation to God's nature. So what do they mean by calling God's nature 'good'? It's a circular definition. What extra information is added by applying the word 'good' to the nature of God?
Fred, I just watched the link so that I could comment directly on Craig’s actual words. Thanks for that.
At the end of the clip he directly attempts to come up with his third option. He says: “It’s moral, because that’s the way God is”.
That’s just the second option again. “It’s good, because of His nature”.
Yes, but where does that nature come from, and what makes that nature ‘good’? He says that the nature is essentially “kind, loving, generous etc”. But are those qualities good because they are his nature? Would they still be good even if his nature was OPPOSITE to that?
Either you believe those qualities are objectively good or you don’t. If they are objectively good then don’t you believe they would be so even if God didn’t exist? Otherwise they are subjectively good qualities – they are only good subject to God’s existence.
As a side point, WLC says: “By definition, God is the greatest thing, and morality is a great making property, therefore God is a moral authority”.
He’s starting here with what looks a bit like Anselm's Ontological Argument, attempting to define a God or quality of God into existence. But that aside, where does he get that ‘morality is a great-making property’? That seems to be an attempt to insert a subjective assumption, when he is trying to prove an objective truth.
Is it a FACT that morality is a great-making property? If so, does that fact exist independently or God, or is that fact an emerging property of God?
If the former, then we still don’t need God to build our moral system, if the latter then you’re back to a circular argument.
Andy: all these properties of God are by definition. IF there's a God, that's His essential nature.
In any case, here's the inescapable thing: if Turek and Craig who between them have three PhDs cannot intellectually convince you, I doubt there's anything, much less a mental retard like me, that will.
Thanks for playing, but here I hope you find what you're looking for. People don't usually ask these questions of Unicorns. :-)
As I said, WLC is making subjective assumptions such as 'Morality is a great-making property' in order to prove an objective truth. If he is allowed to do that, so can atheists.
"If Turek and Craig who between them have three PhDs cannot intellectually convince you"
Point taken. In fairness, it's Plato (and other guys WITH PhDs) who convinced me.
7 comments:
1. I've yet to see a refutation of Euthrypho's Dilemma. If something's only good because God declares it to be so, then it is an arbitrary good. If God declares it to be good because it is good already, then it is a moral truth accessible to atheists too.
2. There are plenty of philosophers who have discussed grounding a moral system without reference to God. Has Greg Koukl not read Kant?
3. For an atheist to be good, it is only necessary for him to value life and to wish to prevent suffering. I would view these as axiomatic virtues - why should they require further explanation?
If you've yet to see a refutation of Euthyphro's Dilemma, you must not have been looking very hard, Andy. Here's Dr. William Lane Craig on Youtube: http://youtu.be/me21or9T7vI
If you're really interested, we can go over it in detail.
2. I don't know Greg Koukl so I can't answer that question. And just because "plenty" of philosophers have discussed a morality free of God doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.
3. I don't have a problem with Atheists' capability for good. However, the question is and always will be what do they mean by "good"? What is meant by "virtue"? Where do these come from? Is there an objective "good," a standard "good" that always applies regardless of person, place or history or opinion? That's the contention for the argument for God's existence based on morality.
Yes, I've already seen Craig's refutation. I don't agree with it (yeah, I'm sure he's sobbing in his boots about that!). I've argued at length with Frank Turek about it too. By at length I mean over a period of many months. I doubt there are many aspects of the argument that I haven't already heard.
WLC claims he is offering a third option, but it's sounds to me pretty much just the second option written in a hifalutin way.
"The question is and always will be what do they mean by "good"?"
As I said, I would view valuing life wishing to prevent suffering as axiomatic virtues - why should they require further explanation? You can say "why are those things 'good'?" But you can pretty much keep asking 'why' to any answered question, whether you believe in a God or not.
At any rate, what do Christians mean by good? Many (eg WLC, Turek) define it in relation to God's nature. So what do they mean by calling God's nature 'good'? It's a circular definition. What extra information is added by applying the word 'good' to the nature of God?
Fred, I just watched the link so that I could comment directly on Craig’s actual words. Thanks for that.
At the end of the clip he directly attempts to come up with his third option. He says:
“It’s moral, because that’s the way God is”.
That’s just the second option again. “It’s good, because of His nature”.
Yes, but where does that nature come from, and what makes that nature ‘good’? He says that the nature is essentially “kind, loving, generous etc”. But are those qualities good because they are his nature? Would they still be good even if his nature was OPPOSITE to that?
Either you believe those qualities are objectively good or you don’t. If they are objectively good then don’t you believe they would be so even if God didn’t exist? Otherwise they are subjectively good qualities – they are only good subject to God’s existence.
As a side point, WLC says: “By definition, God is the greatest thing, and morality is a great making property, therefore God is a moral authority”.
He’s starting here with what looks a bit like Anselm's Ontological Argument, attempting to define a God or quality of God into existence. But that aside, where does he get that ‘morality is a great-making property’? That seems to be an attempt to insert a subjective assumption, when he is trying to prove an objective truth.
Is it a FACT that morality is a great-making property? If so, does that fact exist independently or God, or is that fact an emerging property of God?
If the former, then we still don’t need God to build our moral system, if the latter then you’re back to a circular argument.
Andy: all these properties of God are by definition. IF there's a God, that's His essential nature.
In any case, here's the inescapable thing: if Turek and Craig who between them have three PhDs cannot intellectually convince you, I doubt there's anything, much less a mental retard like me, that will.
Thanks for playing, but here I hope you find what you're looking for. People don't usually ask these questions of Unicorns. :-)
As I said, WLC is making subjective assumptions such as 'Morality is a great-making property' in order to prove an objective truth. If he is allowed to do that, so can atheists.
"If Turek and Craig who between them have three PhDs cannot intellectually convince you"
Point taken. In fairness, it's Plato (and other guys WITH PhDs) who convinced me.
"People don't usually ask these questions of Unicorns."
I'm guessing no-one's ever told you that your morality makes no sense unless you believe in unicorns!
Post a Comment