The Instigator
dfordoubt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Foundation for Morality: Supernatural?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 56547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dfordoubt

Con

I will be arguing against the notion that morality derives from god.

I will allow the contender to make his/her argument first.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

what objective basis do you have to claim a moral stance on something, if it is not based on something objective, such as God?

you could argue things that you personally view as moral, but how does it objectively bind anyone? and, you might argue for something that would be 'do unto others as you'd do unto them' or 'dont steal' or wahtever without God, on the basis that you'd not want others mistreadting you, stealing from you, etc. but, that only has practical sensibilities to it, and doesn't objectively bind anyone. and, it doesn't stop someone from being an outlier. a defaulter. someone who generally uses those rules so as to ensure he's not wronged, but will sometimes default from the rules for his own gain.

basically, without God, what basis, especially is it objective?, do you have to bind yourself and especially to ask others to follow your thoughts?
Debate Round No. 1
dfordoubt

Con

Thanks for accepting my challenge, dairygirl4u2c. You pose the question of where I obtain my moral values from if I do not obtain them from a supernatural being such as god. Before answering your questions, let me first take a moment to say that the subject of a foundation for morality is a profoundly important one, so I look forward to this discussion. Usually, I spend my time criticizing religion. I write blog posts, I post anti-theistic material on Facebook and Instagram, etc., and I regularly debate with friends and family on topics pertaining to the truth of religion. Many people think this is a reprehensible thing to do. Is it because there is so much evidence for the existence of god? No, it seems that the people who rise to defend god are under the impression that god is the only intellectual foundation for an objective morality. You appear to be among their number, dairygirl4u2c. Now, many people fear that without a sense of moral conviction, humanity will just lose its way. During the course of this discussion, I hope to show that I truly do share that fear. So, where does objective morality come from if it does not come from god? Well, there is a belief that I hope to undermine, and that is the belief that a basis of fact cannot also act as a basis of value. This is how many people feel when it comes to science. They say science can give us what we value, but it can't tell us what we should value. When we look at the universe, all we see are sequential patterns. We make the assumption that some patterns and events are better than others. When we do this, we are simply placing our sense of value on a reality that contains no value. Our sense of right and wrong has been, in a sense, given to us by the process of evolution. It seems that from a scientific standpoint, questions of right and wrong mean absolutely nothing. This is where believers, such as yourself, begin to worry. They see no other choice but to provide as an answer to the question of a foundation of morality the god of Abraham, a Bronze Age god of war and human sacrifice. Okay, clearly, I disagree with this insertion. Questions of right and wrong depend upon our minds. They depend upon experience. I think that we can understand morality and ethics through science by using these facts because when talking science, we are talking about facts that influence conscious well-being. Questions of morality and values really depend on the mental health of individuals and the health of society. Science has always been able to discuss values. What can we say to someone who does not value rationality? What can we say to someone who does not value evidence or logic or the pursuit of knowledge? This division of a conversation between facts and values is really one that we shouldn't be having. What are we saying when we say that science can't tell us about the things that we ought to value? We're saying that when we rely on reasoning and knowledge and intellectual honesty, we cannot be prepared to apply those efforts of understanding to the most essential questions of human experience. This isn't the view we should take when discussing potential answers to the questions of right and wrong.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dfordoubt

Con

Pro has forfeited round 2 of the debate. My points still stand, it seems.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you state in the opening statement that you claim morality doesn't derive from God. if all you are asking for is subjective morality, then no it doesn't derive from God. if we are asking if anything objective is derived from God, there is no other way for it to be objective unless it is from God.
you did state that i and others are "under the impression" that there's only one thing that could be an objective basis for morality, God. you implied that you have the truth, that there's other basis for objective morality?

you point out that humans have minds and bodies for a reason, part of nature. as such, there is a basis in morality to value what they say as moral or immoral etc. but, as did the Greeks view sex with boys as moral, and we view as reprehensible, people's morals without anything more objective than their own assertions, are not objective.

i do not claim you cannot know objective morality, unless you believe in the God of Abraham. I only contend you would have to believe in an objective source, like a creator who is called God, or things like this. it is beside the point whether we restrict it to the God of abraham etc.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dfordoubt 2 years ago
dfordoubt
I've tried to give you a basis, dairygirl4u2c.
No votes have been placed for this debate.