The Moral Argument

[wiploc]

William Lane Craig's version goes like this:


Originally Posted by W.L. Craig
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There's nothing to that; it's indefensible. My position is this: atheist morality is just as objective as theist morality, and it makes at least as much sense as theist morality.

Does anyone wish to defend Craig's formulation, or otherwise take a position opposed to mine?

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

A hardy welcome to ye, wiploc. :) It's great to have a veteran of formal debates here. Feel free to introduce yourself in the Introductions (http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3) forum.

Hopefully you'll attract more interest to the Rat Ring and we'll get a formal debate running again. :)

[stumpjumper]

I could defend, or prosecute, a Hans Kung* type take on the moral argument. :)

What you have there is a bit vague, though.

* "Does God Exist" or "Why Christianity"..

[wiploc]

I could defend, or prosecute, a Hans Kung* type take on the moral argument. :)

What you have there is a bit vague, though.

* "Does God Exist" or "Why Christianity"..

I've heard of King Kong and Gengis Khan, but not Hans Kung. I'm likely willing to defend against any proof of god that you believe in, if you believe.

crc

[BWE]

William Lane Craig's version goes like this:


Originally Posted by W.L. Craig
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.There's nothing to that; it's indefensible. My position is this: atheist morality is just as objective as theist morality, and it makes at least as much sense as theist morality.

Does anyone wish to defend Craig's formulation, or otherwise take a position opposed to mine?

crc
Have you read through the morality discussion already in the debate section? I argued your point although phrased differently.

Dean (umop) took the other tack and might be willing. You should PM him. I would like to see it.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

wiploc, stumpjumper is a Christian. :)

To begin with, it might be a good idea to explain what we mean by "objective morals" and "God". With that considered, it seems this debate can be framed in two different ways:

"Resolved: objective morals provide evidence for the existence of God" with stumpjumper affirming. It appears that both participants accept the premise that there are objective morals. If not, then the debate may have to be framed a little differently. As BWE alluded to, Dean would take a different approach if he was involved.

Alternatively, the debate can be framed this way:

"Resolved: atheist morality is just as objective as theist morality" with wiploc affirming. This might need hashing out.

KWSN, RR Moderator

[wiploc]

wiploc, stumpjumper is a Christian. :)


When he said he could either defend or prosecute, I thought he was saying he could take either side of the debate.



To begin with, it might be a good idea to explain what we mean by "objective morals" and "God". I don't mean anything by "objective," but I'm willing to mean whatever he says he means. That means he has to take the affirmative, in order to establish what he means.


With that considered, it seems this debate can be framed in two different ways:

"Resolved: objective morals provide evidence for the existence of God" with stumpjumper affirming.That would work for me, assuming he believes that.


It appears that both participants accept the premise that there are objective morals.It depends how you define the terms. In my experience, the theist states one definition and then uses another. The whole theist case depends on not getting caught slipping back and forth between definitions. My job is to catch the theist in the act, to point out that morality is objective according to one of his definitions, and not objective according to his other definition.

So, no, I don't accept that morality is objective now, but I'm willing to accept it as soon as a debate opponent defines things that way.


If not, then the debate may have to be framed a little differently. As BWE alluded to, Dean would take a different approach if he was involved.

Alternatively, the debate can be framed this way:

"Resolved: atheist morality is just as objective as theist morality" with wiploc affirming. This might need hashing out.
I can't take the affirmative, I think. The theist has to set out something for me to match. I can't say that I'm just as tall as you without knowing first how tall you are; and I can't show that my morality is as objective as a theist's until I know how objective his is.

I like this topic, and would be happy to debate it, but I read Stumpjumper as saying he'd rather debate some other proof of god. Did I get that wrong, Stumpjumper? If not, would you share more about the topic you'd like to debate?

[umop apisdn w,I]

I hope you find someone willing to take the other side.

The way this debate is worded reminds me of my IIDB debate with "TAGyerit!" or whatever his name was - and I could easily see it going in the same direction.

Fun times all round...

[stumpjumper]

Sorry if I wasn't more clear but what I meant is that I could prosecute (take the affirmative) that ethical systems are best grounded by a theistic worldview. In other words, something very similar to the is/ought problem.

Alternatively, I could defend an argument that you may wish to propose.

A couple of things, though. I'd like to know how we would be defining objective moral values because I would say that morality is inherently contextual and, additionally, I would arguing for a virtue based approach to ethics rather than a deontological ethical system.

I will be around more this weekend so I'll check back. I have been quite busy lately...

[wiploc]

Sorry if I wasn't more clear but what I meant is that I could prosecute (take the affirmative) that ethical systems are best grounded by a theistic worldview. In other words, something very similar to the is/ought problem.


Okay, cool.





Alternatively, I could defend an argument that you may wish to propose.


I can prosecute the problem of evil, but I'd rather do the moral argument first.





A couple of things, though. I'd like to know how we would be defining objective moral values because I would say that morality is inherently contextual and, additionally, I would arguing for a virtue based approach to ethics rather than a deontological ethical system.


You'd be the affirmative, so you'd get to define them, if you want to use them. If you want to make your argument without them, that's fine too.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Let's say the formal debate takes on the following resolution, with stumpjumper affirming:

"Resolved: Objective morals are best grounded by a theistic worldview."

I suppose wiploc can oppose by challenging stumpjumper's definition of objective morality, questioning the premise that there is an objective morality, arguing that nonreligious worldviews can account for objective morals equally or better, or arguing that a theistic grounding doesn't follow.

If you'd both rather not get into a semantic argument, perhaps it might be best to nail down an agreement as to what we mean by objective morals for the scope of the debate. Of course, if you want to have a semantic argument, then perhaps the formal debate should be rephrased as "what are objective morals"?

Here are the parameters to think about as well:

(1) Topic/resolution
(2) Participants, positions and sequence
(3) Scope
(4) Length in rounds
(5) Maximum statement length
(6) Time limit between statements
(7) Start date
(8) Additional criteria

KWSN, RR Moderator

[wiploc]

"Resolved: Objective morals are best grounded by a theistic worldview."

Or perhaps, judging by Stumpjumper's latest post,

Resolved: Only if there is a god is it reasonable to believe that we ought to behave in certain ways.

Or, perhaps,

Resolved: Only if one believes in god can one reasonably believe in moral obligations.

Or,

Resolved: If god does not exist, no behavior is better than any other.

[stumpjumper]

Or perhaps, judging by Stumpjumper's latest post,

Resolved: Only if there is a god is it reasonable to believe that we ought to behave in certain ways.



I like that.

That's about what I would want to argue for as well...

[wiploc]

(1) Topic/resolution

Resolved: Only if there is a god is it reasonable to believe that we ought to behave in certain ways.


(2) Participants, positions and sequence

Stumpjumper affirms. Wiploc opposes. Stumpjumper first, and we alternate.

Actually, PfC's sequence is a pretty cool alternative. It's rule #10 here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5462252#post5462252).


(3) Scope

Stumpjumper tries to demonstrate that morality makes sense if god exists, and does not make sense if god does not exist.


(4) Length in rounds

Four rounds. Or as here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5462252#post5462252), which is the same link as above.


(5) Maximum statement length

800 words? Or as per the link above?


(6) Time limit between statements

One week.


(7) Start date

When Stumpjumper starts.


(8) Additional criteria

None.

[stumpjumper]

I'm open to either format.

I could see needing about 2500 words or so for my opening argument, though.

[wiploc]

(1) Topic/resolution

Resolved: Only if there is a god is it reasonable to believe that we ought to behave in certain ways.


(2) Participants, positions and sequence

Special format:

Part I: Introductory arguments

Round 1: Stumpjumper opens; wiploc rebuts (2500 word limit)
Round 2: Punkforchrist defends; wiploc rebuts (1500 word limit)

Part II: Cross-examination (3 statements per round)

(Questions will specifically deal with issues brought up in the opening statements and rebuttals (i.e. you are not allowed to introduce new arguments)

Round 3:
- Stumpjumper submits 3 questions (40 word limit per question)
- Wiploc submits 3 answers (250 word limit per answer)
- Stumpjumper submits 3 replies (150 word limit per reply)

Round 4:
- Wiploc submits 3 questions (40 word limit per question)
- Stumpjumper submits 3 answers (250 word limit per answer)
- Wiploc submits 3 replies (150 word limit per reply)

Round 5: Stumpjumper evaluates cross-examination; wiploc evaluates cross-examination (1000 word limit)

Part III: Conclusion

Round 6: 1000 word limit each

(3) Scope

Stumpjumper tries to demonstrate that morality makes sense if god exists, and does not make sense if god does not exist.


(4) Length in rounds

(see #2, above)


(5) Maximum statement length

(see #2, above)


(6) Time limit between statements

One week.


(7) Start date

When Stumpjumper starts.


(8) Additional criteria

None.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'd throw the special format bit in criterion #8. Anyways, it looks like we're ready to roll. We just need both of you confirm everything below and then we'll be ready to start a thread in the Rat Ring:



(1) Topic/resolution

Resolved: Only if there is a god is it reasonable to believe that we ought to behave in certain ways.

(2) Participants, positions and sequence

stumpjumper will affirm (going first) and wiploc will oppose. See #8 for changes in sequence for Rounds 3-5.

(3) Scope

The formal debate will deal with philosophical arguments related to morality and theism. Stumpjumper will try to demonstrate that morality makes sense only if God exists, and does not make sense if God does not exist.

(4) Length in rounds

6 rounds.

(5) Maximum statement length

Variable. See #8.

(6) Time limit between statements

One week.

(7) Start date

Immediately (opening statement is due within one week of the debate thread being launched).

(8) Additional criteria

Special format:

Part I: Introductory arguments (Rounds 1-2)

Round 1: stumpjumper opens; wiploc rebuts (2500 word limit)
Round 2: stumpjumper defends; wiploc rebuts (1500 word limit)

Part II: Cross-examination (Rounds 3-5)

Questions will specifically deal with issues brought up in the opening statements and rebuttals (i.e. participants are not allowed to introduce new arguments). Rounds 3 and 4 are special in that they will contain 3 statements each.

Round 3:
- stumpjumper submits 3 questions (40 word limit per question)
- wiploc submits 1 response to each question (250 word limit per response)
- stumpjumper submits 1 reply to each response (150 word limit per reply)

Round 4:
- wiploc submits 3 questions (40 word limit per question)
- stumpjumper submits 1 response to each question (250 word limit per response)
- wiploc submits 1 reply to each response (150 word limit per reply)

Round 5:
- stumpjumper evaluates cross-examination; wiploc evaluates cross-examination (1000 word limit)

Part III: Conclusion (Round 6)

- stumpjumper posts a concluding statement; wiploc posts a concluding statement (1000 word limit).


KWSN, RR Moderator

[wiploc]

Works for me.

[stumpjumper]

Works for me too.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I'll set up the debate thread now. Have fun!

KWSN, RR Moderator