I think the difference between humanism and self-interest based on Craig and Kurtz’s debate is that Craig believes that human is more than self-interest whereas Kurtz thinks that altruism is based on evolutionary conditions and environment and that looking out for yourself as a person is rational as an athiest. Kurtz does not think there is a basis for the altruistic view when regarding athiesm. Also, another aspect of this debate involved the discussion of rape. Why is rape wrong? Kurtz believes that rape is wrong because it violates the human conscious and that rape inevitably involves negative consequences humans try to avoid so they can be moral beings. Kurtz thinks rape would be wrong even if God did not say it was wrong, but Craig does not see any basis for why Kurtz believe this. Craig thinks that humanism involves the right ethics but that Kurtz hasn’t been able to show that there is goodness without God. In this case, even though Craig doesn’t think Kurtz adequately shows goodness without God, I believe that rape is wrong even if God didn’t believe so. Athiests and thiests both believe rape is wrong, because many people see the bad consequences associated with rape and the negative impact it has on morality and the culture of a society.

While trying to understand whether morality can or can’t exist without god, one thing I think we forget about is the role of society in this argument. In Kurtz vs. Craig debate in class this week we talked about atheists who helped found our country, statistics, human evolution, and many theoretical examples such as rape and murder. Society however fails to be mentioned when in fact society causes this divide. The Constitution specifically states the separation between the Church and State. Yet, politicians on numerous occasions cite the Bible as a reason to halt the passing of laws that they seem to find associated. One example of this is gay marriage. The Bible says that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman. Politicians use this to justify that two individuals of the same sex should not be together and that is immoral and defies religion and therefore should not be allowed. However numerous examples can be cited where individuals heavily advocated this same point but when they found out someone they knew or had a relation with was part of this community they changed their opinion. An example of this is Ohio Senator Rob Portman who advocated against Gay Marriage and then suddenly changed his stance when he found out his son was gay. When our country’s leaders come out in public and state their views about sensitive issues such as gay marriage they create a divide in society. It is people and their actions that help explain what is moral and not moral. If someone who is super religious can change their views for a family member what does that say about the strength of religion in people’s life? How does something that was once a sin suddenly become okay?

If we look back to the debate Craig and Kurtz had on whether morality and goodness can exist without God, I think that Kurtz overall had a more convincing and understandable argument. He argues how regardless if one person believes in God or not, they are still capable of doing amazing things that are good for morality and society. There are many scientists that we all know who didn’t believe in God that, with their skill set and knowledge, helped make the world a better place and who have a solid set of moral values that were based on being good to others. If someone uses the judgement of being moral because of God and that it’s what he wants, then is that person truly moral? Craig argues that we as humans are really considered animals and a type of species so just like other animals, there’s no way we can have morality without God. Kurtz argues with a valid response that us as humans are much more evolved and because of this, we are able to distinguish between good and bad without the basis of God being of things. I completely agree with Kurtz. As human beings, we are more evolved and adept to the world around us. We can tell what is good and bad before God even becomes an idea. When someone does something wrong, the first thing that comes in their head usually isn’t “well I guess God is gonna be mad”. It’s typically remorse or just feeling guilty because in your gut, you know that what you did is wrong–completely separated from religion. I think that people can be moral and have a goodness in their heart with or without the belief in God.

There was one aspect of the Craig/Kurtz debate that I found particularly interesting. Kurtz replies to one of Craig’s points by saying, “Dr. Craig insists that human morality is created in the image of man and that this is insufficient. On the contrary, I submit that it is theism that is created in the image of man and is anthropomorphic, and that it is human beings who have created gods.” It could just as easily be true that humans created Gods, perhaps out of some cognitive need; we have difficulty explaining our purpose, so we created something that could fulfill this need. Kurtz would probably argue this, that somewhere in our evolutionary development we became intelligent enough to question our place in the universe, and thus created God. Ideas do exist, however, so this could mean that for a person that believes in God, He does actually exist. Thus it would be the objective presence of God that theists and atheists actually argue about. Because if nothing else, someone’s belief in God – if gods are in fact human made – can provide a placebo-type effect, in which a person’s belief in God can help them fill a cognitive void that cries out for some type of purpose for life. Craig and Kurtz, then, are debating on a much broader scale. They are discussing the objective existence of a God (even though their debate is titled “Is Goodness without God Good Enough?” I think most of us can agree they are indirectly debating the existence of God).

post

The Euthyphro dilemma raises the question, “Are acts that are considered morally good willed by God because they are morally good?”, or, “Are these acts morally good because because they are willed by God?” The Divine Command Theory is seen to be refuted by this dilemma mainly because of the premise that one of these cases has to be correct. The problem is if that if acts considered morally good are that way because they are good by nature, then these acts are independent of God. This means that these morally good acts would not need a God to determine them as good, and if God commanded certain things to be good, then whatever is good would be considered arbitrary, meaning that murder could have been considered good when God was deciding what is good and what is not. Since good being arbitrary does not seem like a plausible case, I consider the Divine Command Theory to be false unless there was another expanation besides the two mentioned at the beginning of this post.

The debate about the Euthyphro Dilemma has many varying points but I think that the idea that God loves things because they are good is the most plausible reason. Good and morality exists without God, just like Louise Anthony says in her article, but people are too consumed with the perception that all atheists are not moral or good. People connect that atheist connotation with there being no good or morality if one does not believe in God. She makes it a point to argue that the DIT (Divine Independent Theory) is more relevant and logical than the DCT (Divine Command Theory). Agreeing with the DCT, saying that something is good because God loves it has many falsities in it. For example, such as the example that Anthony herself uses, what if God says that it is good for one to kill its child, does it really mean that it is good and moral. If one depends on things only being moral and good if God loves it, then they truly aren’t a moral person in regards to the true meaning and characteristics of being moral (Goodness without God). God has the ability to change his mind, so what if he decides to change what’s moral and what’s not? Then, according to the DCT, one’s idea of morality is changing as well. According to DIT, morality and goodness is separated from God’s existence.  This theory relates to the reader that morality is prevalent in the world even in people who aren’t God believing. Anthony argues that atheists are the most careful people in regards to their actions and trying to be the most moral and good people that they can. She claims that religion offers people a safety net in a way to make mistakes and believe that they’ll be forgiven. Atheists on the other hand are more careful of their actions and decisions because they have the live with them without the guarantee of forgiveness. This, to me, helps prove that morality and true goodness is fully capable of occurring with or without God. This also helps prove and support that God loves things because they are good. His love for something exists because of its internal and true goodness in regards to morality. Certain things are considered fundamentally moral regardless of one’s religion or one’s varying ideas of God. This, also, furthermore proves God loves things because they are morally good.

On Wednesday in class we discussed the Euthyphro Dilemma, which questions whether God loves things because they are good or if things are good because God loves them. If the latter part were to be true, that God chooses what is good (what Antony referred to as the Divine Command Theory), then many problems can be raised. One student in class – I can’t recall who – stated that if this were the case, then if God decided murder were moral and good, then it would be moral and good. This is true. But, assuming that the Divine Command Theory is correct, how do we know that God at some point in time didn’t decide something as egregious as this is “good?” For all we know, we could be accepting something as morally right that at one point was considered wrong. The question is: does this matter? Does it give us a moral – not God’s morality, in this case – reason to object against God’s good and bad and create for ourselves what these words mean? I suppose the main problem I’m trying to get at is that the Divine Command Theory provides almost a paradoxical view of good and bad; that if we were to accept God’s good as our good, it is impossible to object without being bad, even if what is being objected really is bad. This is why Antony’s Divine Independence Theory must be correct; morality must be independent from God. Good has to be something that comes from within ourselves. It has to be something that individually we can know and understand, because if not it muddles us what good and bad really are.

In reading Louise M. Antony’s article “Good Minus God,” I found myself agreeing with a lot of what she had to say. I think her distinction between “Divine Command Theory” and “Divine Independence Theory” is clear and easy to understand. Antony draws similarities between the Divine Command Theory and tyranny, believing that if moral actions are only moral because God/some higher power deems them to be moral, it is no different than a tyrant doing the same because there is no basis for that action being moral. I think that Hick would have to disagree with this statement because, according to his reading, he believes that God has his reasons for allowing evil to exist, and he also has reasons for deeming some actions to be moral and other actions to not be moral. Hick would not accept that God frivolously decides what is moral and what is not moral because he believes that there is always a bigger reason behind God’s actions. Despite this, I still have to agree with what Antony is suggesting about morality because I think her argument is thorough and well thought out and supported.

Hick’s argument seemed valid to me and more easy to understand compared to Rowe’s. I think Hick’s argument was stronger because he provided contradictions to the points he was making. For example he makes the point, “If by a free action we mean an action which is not externally compelled but which flows from the nature of the agent as he reacts to the circumstances in which he finds himself, there is, indeed, no contradiction between our being free and our actions being “caused” and therefore being in principle predictable.” He then goes on to provide contradictions (“there is a contradiction, however, in saying that God is the cause of our acting….”) so it is easier to see all the the facets of the statement in this manner. I also particularly liked some of the ideas Hick’s presented. His idea on negative theodicy (justify god’s goodness with the fact of evil in the world) really made sense to me. Evil exists, therefore god must exist and serve to shield us from evil, observe the evil, or mediate it for us. I also particularly liked his idea about soul-making. We need every experience the world has in order to grow. Lastly his response to the problem of evil seemed very strong to me: that the idea of moral evil in fact lies in the problem of free will.