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.
I completely agree with you that Kurtz had a better argument. I think that the point that you discuss in this post was one of his strongest. There are people who make very important and good contributions to society that do not believe in God and do not create their moral compass based upon his word. At least for me I know that any sense of morality that I have comes from some type of cognitive – and sometimes even physical as you mentioned – reasoning. I know that something I do is good or bad without having to think, “what does God think about this action?” In my opinion this goes a long way in proving that morality without God is possible, because people like the ones you mentioned are operating under the assumption that there is no God, and can and do still act morally.
I am glad that you mentioned animals and Craig’s argument Julia. I think his point about animals and humans and evolution was one of the stronger points in his argument. Craig like you said, “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.” My problem with his use of this point however is how do we know? As crazy as it might sound, how do we know that animals don’t have some kind of complex thinking. Humans came from primates and developed complex thinking patterns. The Human Genome Project found that our genome is 99% similar to Chimps so how is it possible to believe that animals have no sort of hierarchal/complex thinking pattern by which they live. Many primatologists today would argue that animals are able to distinguish between what is right and wrong. I remember reading an article a long time ago that mentioned something about Jane Godall’s study and certain animal behaviors that might prove that something certainly exists in animals.
Enjoy uninterrupted entertainment with the OTTOCEAN IPTV Pack, designed to eliminate buffering and freezing while providing top-notch 4K resolution on any device, no matter where you are : OTTOCEAN IPTV
Endless Entertainment With The #1 📺IPTV Provider 🌎 CatchOnTV IPTV