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.
I think this is a good example of an instance where ethical intelligence is involved. It can be agreed upon that sexual assualt is wrong by the majority of human society, despite the belief or disbelief in God. Whether people use their religion or their intelligence to justify that this is wrong, they will still come to the same conclusion, which supports Kurtz’s side of the argument.
the debate was awesome, I think Craig was trying to say that if humans as ” finite points have no reference point to a infinite point they they no ultimate meaning.” (i am quoting sartre) morality based in evolutionary theory is a morality based in meaninglessness because evolution has no purpose theres no teleology in it, we just exist to survive, but if ultimately the universe will end in a cold death, then survival is meaningless, morality is ephemeral, and has no absolute moral stake in humanity, as Aristotle said were merely rational animals, the only thing that can be said is that finding pleasure for ones own sake is the good life, and if killing creates pleasure then do it, even the language that atheists use is ineluctably tied to banal ethical talk, to say something is good is or bad or wrong is staked in a socio cultural moment in time ,and is subject to change, or to a subjective individual, the whole worldview is self destructive.
no god , no ultimate meaning, no morality, no good , no evil, Fyodor Dostoevsky — ‘Without God all things are permitted.’, Francis Crick, says were merely chemical reactions truly nothing more, BF Skinner, were merely mechanistic deterministic beings,
Existentialists all sought to find morality and truth and failed utterly, science only tells us how we exist, not how we ought to live, in atheism there is no moral foundation