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).
I agree with you that it seemed liked Kurtz and Craig were indirectly debating the existence of God. This is especially evident when you look at the way Craig’s arguments are structured. Craig argues, “If theism is true, we have a sound foundation for morality,” “if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral duties,” and “If theism is true, we have a sound basis for moral accountability.” Kurtz cannot address Craig’s arguments without also touching upon the existence of God.
I agree with Kurtz’s when he says, “ that it is human beings who created god.” The way I imagine god differs largely from the way my roommate sees god or the way my mother imagines god even though I grew up with the same values that were instilled in her by her mother. Everything from what god wears, to what god says, to whether he is a man or woman differs. While preparing for Monday’s debate I came upon an article citing a speech by Douglas Adams, a famous atheist. He said that when man first found the world suiting his tastes and fulfilling his requirements he believed that the world had been made just for him and that if that was true the individual who made the world loved him enough to make it for him. The first question that popped up into my head after reading this statement was why did man have the need at all or feel compelled at all to find meaning about the world around him? Meaning which wasn’t needed at all. Animals don’t do this or at least we don’t think they do. So why do humans? Humans I believe have a tendency to imagine and to over-think. Just as we find meaning in objects people important to us gave us. We give a higher meaning to the world in order to fulfill some sort of unknown. There does exist some sort of void that you mention Nathan. The question that remains is why this void exists in the first place?