Can We Be Good Without God? Dr. William Lane Craig

Can We Be Good Without God?

Answered by
Dr. William Lane Craig
Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology
http://www.reasonablefaith.org

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• qa
• huntleyweb
• 100
• 100huntley
• Street
• Relationship
• Argument
• Belief
• in
• God
• Believe
• objective
• subjective
• explanation
• Theist
• meaning
• life
• god
• between
• Faith
• Reason
• Dr.
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Contingency
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Design
• Moral
• Ontological
• necessary
• being
• atheism
• intelligent
• argument
• lain
• philosophy
• existence
• trust
• existance
• delusion
• dawkins
• design
• designer
• created
• good
• without
• works

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Yes, we can be good without god(s), since that's what we have been doing all along.

[AletheianAeon]

It's wonderfully ironic that he essentially defeated his own argument from the outset; it follows that, in a universe without objective morality, a self cognizant species would adapt a religious system that would propose the existence of an anchor for the sake of self preservation. Because moral objectivity is appealing doesn't make it more true. And, even if there was a god or gods, it wouldn't establish objectivity, but instead another completely subjective view.

[MsPROOFthatGODexists]

@MomoTheBellyDancer

You are totally misunderstanding the premise. Dr Craig didn't say that you COULDN'T be good without GOD, he is saying that what constitutes the definition of 'GOOD' would have no authority or validity or OBJECTIVITY without God.Who's to say that what YOU say is 'good' is MY defintion of what is good, therefore, we would have no foundation for declaring what is good or bad, or right or wrong...all these are merely SUBJECTIVE ideas without an OBJECTIVE entity to corroborate.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

He never really defeats the morality stemming from evolution argument. For one, should the morality of god be applied to other animals as well? Second, humans evolving differently to have different morality seem paradoxical as morality is what makes us human. Plus considering the universe is deterministic for almost all the time, humans will always evolve the same way. Also, 'specism(?)'. Lol

[thelordmemnoch]

@conraddoavil Ok, rewind. You said, and I quote, "...I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt)". How in the world can you say that isn't infanticide? Don't forget killing all the babies during the flood. I simply don't see how anybody can read those stories in the bible and not conclude that this Yahweh character is a monster. Care to explain why, in the light of these two examples, for instance, you don't consider him to be in favor of it?

[conraddoavil]

Does this mean that God does/allows evil things? As a Christian this is a serious question, and I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt) but there are times when he commands the Israelites to ahnialate everything that breathes, mainly when taking the promised land, and fighting tribes like the philistines and amalekites. If God commands people to do things that wouldn't be normally good, does that make him evil? and does is make a difference?

[Satarack]

@AletheianAeon Genetic fallacy much? You really don't understand his message though, "In the absence of God," moral values would be purely subjective, and any appearance of objective values would be an illusion created by evolution. Therefore, he concludes, the only possible way by which objective moral values could exist is if God exists. So anyone who believes in objective moral values must either accept God logically, or reject objective moral values along with God.

[sethdbeebe]

@AletheianAeon so, then you agree that there is no objective good or objective evil. It is all relative? How about survival? Is that an objective moral value that is good - evolutionists think so - this one seems to cross all cultures, species, times. How did all species through all time in all places share this one moral value if it is really subjective?

[red666111]

You are absolutely correct sir. There is no objective right or wrong. However, we live in a world where the things you listed as right and wrong are subjectively put into those categories. Are you saying that your belief in god is the only thing keeping you from going out and raping little children, and if you were proved wrong you would do just that?

[babertron]

@ChipArgyle CON....

Lastly God being the objective good does not change. A change between commands given to one group of people in the past related to all people in the NT is not a sign that Objective morals have changed... no not at all, It simply shows that the purpose God has deemed the commands given in the OT fit for that purpose given the context of the situation time and place.

[babertron]

@ChipArgyle

Wow, you can't even understand how the definition words change based on their context. This is going to more difficult than I thought.

Let me spell it out for you =)

You avoided answering to the impact that the absence of objective morals has on rational society... that, without it, Justice does not exist objectively...

You misrepresented what theists believe. I believe that God is the good. that the Good acts are performed by those who obey the commands given to them.

[ChipArgyle]

@babertron Hmm. What do you mean? I don't understand a single one of your rebuttals or how they're relevant to my comment. Perhaps you'd care to expand a little?

(Don't bother with the "cleaver trick" part. You don't need to explain that one, although I'm not quite sure what a rectangular-bladed kitchen knife most commonly used to hack through bones has to do with my original comment.)