Debate: Is God Necessary for Ethics? - Hausam/Keller - April 13, 2007

[cakethief]

this video has caused hundreds to suffer in Debbie White's intro to ethics class in UML

[mebe84]

theist says at 36 min in that the only way to justify acting as if humans have intrinsic worth is to grant god's existence,so these moral atheists are nearly closet theists. however, this is totally false. worth is not a tangible substance imparted to humans by a god. it is a judgement made by a being capable of valuing. so even if u believe in a god who values humans, u must still judge for yourself whether u believe humans have worth. in the end, only u can validate your own view of ethics.

[DNUmbra]

This moderator is a fucking joke.

[RyneoV]

Deen is wearing a tie!

[greatscottiv]

neither of these clowns even begins to understand the other side, and so neither will convince anyone. don't waste your time with this debate like I did.

[sprflyenya]

@greatscottiv 36 minutes in, I started getting annoyed, found this comment, then facepalmed

[eyst]

Theist (in the beginning): " I want to define what a mean by god. An infinite personal beeing, who is at the back of all things, who is the creator of all things, the ground of all things, the source of all reality, the context of all reality."

Later, the theist argues 1:51:35:"I think you can't explain anything without god, including ethics..."

Does no one see how ridiculous that is?

1. God explains everything

2. Without god nothing can't be argued for

3. Therefor god is nevessary for ethics.

[DannyPhantomBeast]

I do agree with the Atheist: "If God exists, God gave us reason for a REASON."

[MrTabamon]

mark never seams to answer a question, just gives some vague answer

[greenreese]

How could anybody have a 2 hour debate on this boring drivel?

[mebe84]

@greenreese not boring to me. in fact they get far deeper into the subject than more popular debates like sharpton vs hitchens,which was shallow and unproductive.

[wild112233]

2:00:30 Did the christian moron just justify slavery and the massacre of the Canaanites?

People, according to religion, are good only if they want rewards and do not want to burn forever.

[wild112233]

1:50:50: "There is good evidence for Christianity and the Christian god". The strongest evidence?

a. 'God exists'

b. Human psychology,existence of human wickedness

If I asserted that dinosaurs existed in New York, my evidence would be:

a. 'dinosaurs exist'

b. Existence of human curiosity

Right. Does anyone have doubts that now, LOL!

1.53:30: "Everyone disagrees."

The problem is that the religious have ALL the information. God tells them everything. Why should they disagree then?

[wild112233]

0:40:30: "I am not an evolutionist"

Ok, so he believes that the earth is 6,000 years old. Right!

______________________________­_

0:42:30: "Why should I do that?"

Because a fairy tale space being tells me to.

And we do hurt people for the greater good, with or without god. Why else does the US (most Christian country in the world) use drones to kill civilians in Af-Pak? Because by killing 10 civilians, they also get at the 11th, a terrorist.

[MrMontagne]

Two words: euthyphro dilemma

[Wilsontheterrible]

The theist seemed more comfortable and fluid, the atheist preformed admirably but missed out on several key points and strayed from the main topic quite a bit.

It's good to see rational people debating rational people.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

SUMMATION OF THE MATTER:

That prophets, Jesus, & disciples have 1 message "REPENT" Psalms 51:17 indeed is the message of God to man.

Knowledge of Jesus is obviously further along in salvation knowledge, but not required.

Jesus' blood is sacrifice that covers a multitude of sins, but sacrifical system that is correct religion is "repent" per Psalms 51:17 which requires merely self-knowledge.

Sin requires knowledge per James 4:17 or Matt. 12:34 summed in Romans 7:15.

Those with MR can't sin.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

I found both of these men nothing like unto Christopher Hitchens or Dinesh D'Souza in skill of debate or reasoning skills.

If you accept the premise that people are by nature hedonistic that is, that we seek pleasure and avoid pain then you will recognize that its not easy to deal with the truth, and its not easy to change it. By Dr. Phil (1999) p. 121 in the book Life Strategies: Doing what works; Doing what matters.

PART TWO NEXT

[ABAisSCIENCE]

PART TWO:

Man has no morals & upon salvation or change in thought you're still stuck with your past conditioning ("old man" in Bible) or you are what you are in the sense that there's no free will for you to rise above environments other than a sharpened discriminative control.

This is why both atheist, theists, or even specifically Christians can be deplorable.

Bible says the heart of man is wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) or man is a sinner to the very last 1. Seems right to me.

PART 3 NEXT

[ABAisSCIENCE]

PART 3:

As atheists say that evil or harm should be lessened they will be happy to hear that I believe that Romans 6:23 is the correct opposites of choice or Luke 12:5 is explained by Matthew 10:28.

But self-knowledge wished to be the method of getting something that man doesn't have unless conditioned to meet norms of what we call ethics or morals (they don't exist in man though) rather should lead us to conclude that Psalms 51:17 is true & any works based religion ignores initial data.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.

Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.

Now is it interesting?

[rockle18]

Im an atheist but the theist killed him in that debate

[ABAisSCIENCE]

I am a radical behaviorist Christian who believes in the whole Bible being true (KJV best in English) if you look to the Hebrew and Greek originals.

I will declare prior to watching this video that I believe freedom, free will, morals, and ethics to be imaginary and now I will watch this debate.

[rockle18]

I am an atheist but the religious guy was better in this debate.

[InfiniteSky49]

Not many atheist would admit that...

[sashascall]

Man this guy just doesn't understand the moral argument, but what do you expect from a philosophy professor at a Utah state College?

This one easily goes to the theist.

[sashascall]

On second thought I probably shouldn't have insulted the guy's credentials (especially while watching a morality debate!)

Still, the guy really should know his stuff, he's committing some really basic errors.

[christreigns12]

What would motivate a man to give his life for another? I would like to know. What motivated Jesus to give his life for sinners? When he hung on the cross, it was not for himself

[christreigns12]

anyone can be ethical and can convince themselves that they are. But it is of a different matter to be righteous. Because with righteousness, the issues of the heart matter. Motives of the heart and not just actions matter. And who can weigh our deep thoughts and motives other than God. For God says "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

[christreigns12]

To live a righteous life, God is necessary. And to live a just life, faith is necessary. Because God says "the just shall live by faith". To live a life like Jesus Christ, it is necessary to have faith in the risen Son of God.

[leechazki]

@christreigns12 ah I see. Well you`ve convinced me mate.

[0o0o0oh]

muh-muh-M0o0o0oRMONS!!!

[bassist412]

I dont think mr. Mark understands empathy.

[Memmius]

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

-Albert Einstein

[jmasterdude89]

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists

- Einstein

He didn't believe in a personal God, but he believe in one nonetheless.

[sc316ru]

When we see for example a person talking about their murdered parents, we feel bad for the kid. If morals came from God we wouldn't care about the child since the purportrator would be punished. It's often shown how the mass murdores have a lack of syphothy -- however mass killers come from all religions, all contexts, and all times. We have symphothy because we identify. We identify because we are also alive and our death is something that everything that we do tries to avoid.

[adamperedo]

That prick Keller (second guy) gave me a B in philosphy.

[aaronhemeon]

if darth vader acts poorly, then the writer has invented him to do so. We can not really blame vader. what a bad analogy.

[sugargrandpa]

one question: so if there is no god, humans(naked apes) don't carry ethical obligations to treat each other nicely is that what u mean ?? Dude, we are civilized people.

[SJP3793]

To be ethical you DON'T have to be religious. Atheists can be ethical. Not all Atheists are ethical, but that is not because of there disbelief of God.

[youmeandsomeknives]

Aside from choice - a fiction from a certain perspective - there are consequences to negative actions. For Example:

1. A man borrows money. He neglects to pay back the money. He will be unlikely to be trusted by the person/institution which lent him money in the future.

2. A man kills another for his money. That man becomes known as a calous killer and is shunned out of fear and disgust.

These two examples do not require instruction from a deity.

[jmasterdude89]

Being shunned hardly seems like a just consequence for murder.

[johntheother]

The second debater made a very strong case against religion-based ethics. unfortunately, the debate question was not which ethical theory was wrong, rather the debate was "is non-theistic ethics possible" I'm an atheist, but i think he should /not/ have attacked religion-based ethics.

[talsnesss]

Finaly an atheist i can agree with! your right "jointheother" I'm not necessarily a modern atheist, but i respect the atheist position, yet not when they when they attach religion-based ethics. this is a philosophy debate, not a religious debate. how irrelevant the second speaker was to bring up religious in such a matter. it reminds me of richard dawkings and hitchens methods as well.

[youmeandsomeknives]

I believe it is necessary to point out fault where it is. If someone relies on an outmoded source for thier moral and ethical source they are acting without due responsability.

[harrycarayhere]

As a philosophy student I'm of the mind that Mark has the valid argument, HOWEVER, his argumentATIVE capacity is at about 60%. To say nothing of that fact that neither of them are great speakers.

[joshuajudd112]

Both arguments seemed a bit weak to me.

[bassist412]

Same. It just seems like they weren't really listening to the points the others were making and were just going around in circles.

[Magnulus76]

Both arguements seem equally convincing. Just consider these generalizations: Theistic worldview produces people that are self-righteous and tyrranical. Non-theistic worldview produces people who are full of doubt, uncertainty, and often impotent when faced with choices. Objectivists produce a world where beings suffer if nobody cares about them- nothing has intrinsic value.

[FoxmanPhD]

I do consider the Christian God a just God. Anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to Hell. This means a good and just Rabbi who's been a pillar of strength for his community is going to hell. But a murder who accepts Jesus on death row can be saved and go to heaven. In what way, shape, or form is this justice?

[WORLDREIGN]

You simply cannot have said that any better. It's funny, I have often said exactly that to religious extremists. They simply nod there head, and continue with more hypocritical nonsense. I am a Self proclaimed Theological Deeist.

[FoxmanPhD]

It says in the Bible that people who work on the Sabbath day are to be put to death. If the bible is the basis of our ethics why is it that no one is ever put to death for doing so? Could it be that our ethics are based on logic?

[FoxmanPhD]

An Atheist who acts justly is morally superior to a theist who acts justly. The Atheist is the truly altruistic one because he does things that are right simply because they are right. A Theist who acts justly does so only because he fears retribution from God.

[WORLDREIGN]

Indeed; however, My concept of "GOD" is one of intelligence, logic, and understanding. I can never fear my God, simply because there is no reason to do so. Christians can never understand...

[sexdrugsRnR]

106 was the best question

[sexdrugsRnR]

thanks alot for the video, keller wins

[HanifXHier]

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to see at least one professor at my school's on the same page as I am.

[aaronjohnwerner]

More importantly, why is rape wrong? Would rape be wrong even if every person in the world believed it was right? I believe rape will always be wrong even if the entire world thought it was morally right.

aaronjohnwerner@yahoo

[FoxmanPhD]

I'm an Agnostic and I think rape should be illegal. Here's how I came up with that conclusion without God: I would not want to live in a world were someone could rape my sister could be raped. Therefore, rape should be a punishable defense in order to deter it's practice. See, ethics and law through logic. If ethics and law need to come from God it raises the further question, which God? How would you like to live under the Hindu Caste system?

[aaronjohnwerner]

Furthermore, an atheist cannot say why a person who wants to act immorally cannot. For instance, why shouldn't a person who finds pleasure in rape be allowed to do so?  Animals can, and they are not considered immoral. Why are human rapists considered immoral? Some who are consistent with Keller's position say that rape is sometimes morally right...but most people are uncomfortable with such a claim.

[ufbad]

It's because rape deals with infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. A rapist, just like a thief or a murderer, takes control from others. Indeed, they take control over them. A thief steals their possessions, a murderer steals their lives and a rapist steals something else. We're all equal, so we all deserve equal rights and freedoms.

[aaronjohnwerner]

Keller stated that moral atheists are really closet theists. The audience laughed, but he is actually right. An atheists that chooses to act morally betrays his atheism—unless, of course—he is acting that way because it brings him the most pleasure. An atheist cannot say why it's wrong to act immorally. They may try to suggest that we should do the most loving thing, or that we should act in a way that leaves the universe a better place, but they cannot say why. more to come...

[sexdrugsRnR]

were you listening at all to the video?

[aaronjohnwerner]

The point is this: does morality depend on a divine law giver, or can morality (moral obligation) exist without one? Keller answered "no" because there are immoral theists and moral atheist. But let me show you the error of his thinking. Let's suppose every math teacher in the world cannot balance their check books. Does that mean that mathematics is untrue?

[aaronjohnwerner]

Keller argued:

1) There are unethical theists

2) There are moral atheists

therefore

3) Belief in God is not necessary for morality to exist.

Keller is right, atheists can be moral, and theists can be immoral, but he has missed the point. more to come...

[harrycarayhere]

I do respect the fact he's a respectFUL humanist. He's not just throwing insults or implying over and over that theists aren't rational people.

[harrycarayhere]

Umm...why again, from a naturalistic standpoint, does the autonomy of living beings really matter...I mean devoid of religious motives?

[harrycarayhere]

This Hausam fella is a bit jittery for my taste, but Keller is just a poor...well let me put it this way: He TEACHES philosophy? Poking at the shortcomings of the Christian (by no means the only theist religion) faith's ethical history, misdirecting attention to apparent biblical contradictions (this is not an apologetics debate), and suggesting we simply have (he "assumes")intrinsic value because of [un-biased and random, btw] evolutionary processes...c'mon man.

[maksiiiskam2]

I found out-of-track Hausam's tendency to explain theological ethic. Sometimes it sounds as if the question was whether atheist ethics was better than theistic ethics. The question could have looked like "let us postulate the inexistence of any belief in gods (not the inexistence of a gods), can there be any ethics left?" They went off-tracks when they were talking about the superiority of a particular faith or about unethical theists...

[maksiiiskam2]

To Keller, Oughts seem to be based on self-interest, communal optimality, and conservation of the established order and tendency. first as it was already pointed out in the comments, the limit between the two firsts is not very clear. when does conflicts between my self-interest and the optimatity should favorise one or the other? second, there is no reason to support the third. Saying that it would not exist if it was bad is as sad as the appeal to authority of Hausam; more powerful=right

[maksiiiskam2]

Keller also had his weaknesses. Its definition of oughts were many times very convention-dependant, and he could explain them. the green grass being better than brown was out of nowhere, why are living and healthy beings _better_ than dead ones? He too was tautological when he claimed that events were good on the basis that they did occur. If a bullet is going to an innocent, until it gets him should I say that it is good for this bullet to pursue its motion?

[maksiiiskam2]

the second is that among monotheisms, christianity is the more acurate to reality or to define accurately the wickedness of people, but he does not argue this point. What does make christianity more accurate that islam and judaism? particularily considering their common base. It is totally possible that catolics or one the the many protestants be right while ALL the rest of earth is wrong about god but I don't see evidences of it.

[maksiiiskam2]

On the other hand, a polytheist world could pretty well define good and evil either on consensum or dominance of one among the others.

[maksiiiskam2]

I disaprove the proof-less afirmation of christianity's superiority over other religions. Hausam claims two things. the first is that only a monotheistic religion can define what is good or evil. However,as I said,I don't see why the only purpose of a divinity should be to define good and evil. An overwhelmingly superior being can exist whose desire is not to "pet" humans. It could be totally indifferent or it could play with it.

[maksiiiskam2]

I would rather say that it follows from his superiority of science, which is the principal defining caracteristic of god, and that this enables him to give his view of morality.following the ethic dicted by an omnicient being is indeed a way to get the best life, as the advise is the wisest possible.

[maksiiiskam2]

I also found tautological the fact that Hausam claimed that we must follow gods desire and equate it with good & right on the only argument of his presence. It is just as if god existed to define right and wrong.

[PhilippeDeChampaigne]

I commend both debaters. I must say that Mr. Keller is the only atheist side debater I've seen who does not offend (he smokes Dawkins on that). One thing though. He says we shouldn't impede others' dreams, hopes and desires. He evades the fact that those hopes and desires could be UNETHICAL. It bugs me that no one brought this up. I think it kills Mr. Keller's whole premise.

[DrRandale]

The science of good and evil.

We are social animals.

[BigD822]

You gotta' be kidding me, debating theistic morality? That's funny stuff, in our entire recorded history religion has NEVER equated to ethical / moral behavior, in fact it proves just how immoral religious fundies can be.

BTW, WTF does skydiving or croc wrestling have to do with ethics? A ten year old versed in critical thinking could debate the atheist side of this.

[calatuba]

that look and sound like quentin tarantino.

[XGralgrathor]

"... false religions..." Did I just hear that guy claim that his religion is the only true one, and that everybody else is mistaken? Beautiful.

[INTJ22]

Ok, so I finished watching the entire video. I think Mark did very well in the debate apart from not pointing our David's big blunder. Also, David ultimately failed to explain the source of morality/ought to's/intrinsic value.

I am now done talking to myself. Goodbye.

[INTJ22]

The woman that felt insulted had a weak argument since it can be used against her. A Christian can claim that the woman's view that there is no God is offensive; that in essence, she is calling the Christian delusional. So it's not a matter of offensiveness but of differing beliefs.

[INTJ22]

David says "something is unethical if an action of another agent inhibits those dreams, ambitions, etc."

But that creates an unsolvable dilemma. What if my goal is to kill you because I find your goal to live offensive? What if my dream of killing myself will cause you emotional pain and inhibit your goal of being happy?

What a HUGE blunder he made. I only wish that Mark had jumped on this fallacy of trying to prove the objectivity of a philosophy using subjective realities.

[INTJ22]

David's argument that something is immoral only in so far as it intrudes on the existence of others collapses because of subjective offensiveness. Beings can find just about anything offensive and can therefore claim everything to be immoral. If I live a life of danger, even if I were to do nothing explicitly intrusive, I can still emotionally hurt my mother's feelings.

[INTJ22]

That fact that David claims his Proverbs example came from a real world situation does not prove anything other than the girl in the example is still a student of the Bible. I am sure that there are many atheists who have issues with certain evolutionary situations.

[INTJ22]

Again, David says that from an "organismic perspective" we "ought to act as to promote and further the flourish of other beings of intrinsic value". But he fails to explain WHY. THAT is the question. WHY should I want to promote and flourish the intrinsic value of other beings? He can't explain where the "ought to" comes from.

[INTJ22]

David tries to ground moral obligation in the fact that humans have intrinsic value, but he does not explain what is the source of this intrinsic value. So his problem still stands. Infinite regression is a problem for the atheist when it comes to attribution of moral obligation.

[changedforprotection]

The source is the duty of ethics. We ought to be moral, by the definition of moral. Morality entails an intrinsic value for humans.

If you say we get the intrinsic value from God, then where does God come from?

[INTJ22]

That is circular reasoning.

God did not come from anywhere, He is outside of time and is eternal.

[DrRandale]

and to complicated for a beginning.

[particle409]

How convenient. And without merit or evidence.

[INTJ22]

I'll watch the non-opening rounds later. This is a great video, thanks for posting it up.

[INTJ22]

David's suggestion that God gave us reason to create our own moral code is absurd, as evidenced by the sheer chaos that exists in our world today. Left to our own supervision, the only possible outcome is reasoning ourselves into self-destruction due to our wicked hearts by nature.

[INTJ22]

David claims "moral awareness... mandates moral obligation" because it affects others, but Mark in his opening statement clearly showed how that is not the case. Motivation does not dictate obligation.

[INTJ22]

If religion was only anthropological and not epistemological then there wouldn't be defections. The absoluteness of his conclusion is therefore shattered by counter-example.

[INTJ22]

The issue with relativism is that the atheist can't even point to absolute moral absolutes and religion can. The fact that there are opposing views does not make religion relativistic in its totality; it only suggests that there can at most be only one that is absolute. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is a serious logical blunder. That's like everyone creating their own mathematics and then concluding all of mathematics is relativistic and should be tossed out.

[INTJ22]

I have an extra "absolute" in there by mistake. Meant to say "...point to moral absolutes..."

[INTJ22]

The Bible does not endorse slavery in the sense that we have come to know it today; that is, the forceful enslavement of people. The mention of slavery in the Bible is usually of the indentured servitude type, and was usually on a limited term basis. David is being dishonest in his argument by not looking at scripture using the historical-grammatical method, but instead by attributing our own twisted 18th century interpretation to it.

[INTJ22]

There is no contradiction regarding wisdom:

The Proverbs quoted teaches us to "get wisdom".

The Ecclesiastes quoted simply states that in "MUCH wisdom" there is much vexation. Key word there is MUCH wisdom. It is simply stating that if you try to be TOO wise you will be disturbed. The fool thinks he knows everything; the wise knows he knows very little. Socrates put it best "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

[INTJ22]

David came to erroneous conclusions in his opening statement.

An unethical theist does not prove the ethical connection doesn't exist, only that God doesn't enforce it.

Likewise, an ethical atheist does not prove the connection doesn't exist either, because that presupposes that God doesn't exist. The ethical atheist can very well be heeding God's connection without him knowing it.

[mon2nika]

God is a liability something the world surely don't need

[p3rks]

A circle is an ideal. It has no physical reality. All 'real' circles are imperfect versions of the ideal. We created the concept of 'circleness', and we created the concept of a 'Godness'. there is simply no difference.

[wickenden]

<comment quirk>

[bombina]

David Keller is spot on!

[CadicusTheDamned]

How did aaronshaf2006 exceed to 10 minute and 100 Mb limitations?

The theist had a really weak argument, but it would take more than 500 characters for me to explain it.

[jlhenrie]

A connection between God & ethics does not exist without humans manufacturing a connection. Hausam kept repeating himself, & his arguments were minimal, transparent, predictable, & easily refutable. He never even used his full allotment of time, & he kept referring to "Star Wars" as an analogy of the creator & the actors (God & his creations...the people). It was terribly painful to listen to, as it sounded as if a grade schooler was talking. I can't believe he is a teacher!

[gairero]

"god is a fag" (57:40)

[Chinoanoah]

A theist acting unethical does not break a connection between God and ethics.

[SaveTheTapirs]

Yeah, that's a pretty weak argument.

[SuperGZK]

Agreed. You can not break a connection that simply does not exist.