YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → William Lane Craig vs Louise Antony | "Is God Necessary for Morality?" (part 2)

William Lane Craig vs Louise Antony | "Is God Necessary for Morality?" (part 2) — Transcript

by ReasonableFaithOrg · 8,545 words · 1,224 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01welcome to the Veritas Forum engaging
0:03University students and faculty in
0:05discussions about life's hardest
0:06questions and the relevance of Jesus
0:08Christ to all of life for more
0:10information about the Veritas Forum
0:12including additional recordings and a
0:14calendar of upcoming events please visit
0:16our website at
0:18www.vitas.com
0:28join us as we explore true
0:39life and I'm going to begin by asking
0:41the first question and I'm going to try
0:43to set the good example here and keep my
0:45question under 30 seconds as well so I
0:49believe that both of you would agree
0:51that somehow objective moralities are
0:54superior to subjective moralities and
0:57the one thing I learned about myself
0:58tonight was that just like Steve Pinker
1:01I must be a non-objective moralist and
1:05so the question I want to ask is what is
1:07the fundamental basis by which we as
1:12human beings can know morality as
1:23objective um you remember that I said
1:28that moral philosophy is distinguished
1:30or subdivided into a number of different
1:32subfields like moral semantics moral
1:35epistemology and moral ontology our
1:38Focus tonight has been on moral ontology
1:40but Dr Goodwin's question concerns moral
1:43epistemology that is how do we know
1:45these moral truths if there are
1:47objective truths how do we come to grasp
1:50them um and we haven't really talked
1:53about that tonight that hasn't been the
1:55burden of my case to argue anything
1:58about how it is that we come to know
2:00these truths but I would be open to
2:02various uh theories for how we might
2:05come to a knowledge of moral truths I
2:07think as a theist that God has
2:10constituted us with a certain moral
2:12faculty that enables us to grasp
2:15objective moral truths the difference
2:17between right and wrong and he has uh so
2:20crafted our cognitive faculties that we
2:22have a moral sense in addition to that I
2:25think that by grasping the intrinsic
2:28value of human beings that human beings
2:30do have intrinsic and inherent worth we
2:33can then use reason to deduce certain
2:37moral duties and obligations for how we
2:39ought to treat other people by
2:41recognizing that we need to treat them
2:42as ends in themselves rather than as
2:44means to an end so given the intrinsic
2:47value of human beings you can then
2:49rationally work out uh whether or not
2:52for example you ought to uh steal your
2:55neighbor's car from his garage uh or or
2:57something of that sort for which we have
2:59no expl explicit Divine command but
3:01which would fall under uh these General
3:04moral truths that would follow from how
3:05we treat people as ends and themselves
3:07and I think divine revelation can also
3:09be a source of moral knowledge I think
3:11that God uh reveals himself to us in
3:14various ways that can uh tell us moral
3:17truths that could not be deduced simply
3:20by reason alone or which are not uh
3:23built into our moral sense so all of
3:26those would be different ways in which
3:27we might come to No Object moral truth
3:36follow okay I think this is uh I I agree
3:40with uh Dr Craig that this is a a
3:42different issue than the one that we
3:43have been concerned with um I think it's
3:46a really fascinating question it's a
3:48question not just for philosophers but
3:50for psychologists and ethologists and
3:52evolutionary biologists as well um how
3:55it is that we come to have the faculty
3:57that we think of as a conscience um it's
4:00quite clear that
4:01cross-culturally uh as I was saying some
4:04of the data that I was citing um
4:06cross-culturally children develop um uh
4:09a moral conscience uh along the same um
4:13developmental uh timetable and uh
4:17interestingly enough a moral conscience
4:19that has uh some of the same features uh
4:22irrespective of the culture in which the
4:24child was brought up one of the most
4:26robust features of this of this innate
4:28sense of morality is a capacity for
4:31distinguishing between uh the dictates
4:34of an authority um and uh what the child
4:38perceives as right or wrong
4:40independently of what they're told uh is
4:42right or wrong they can make that
4:43distinction they do make that
4:45distinction this is true even of
4:46children that are taught to believe that
4:48there is a God and that God issues only
4:50um uh good commands um I certainly think
4:54that the problem of moral
4:56epistemology um is a difficult one but I
4:59think it's only made way more difficult
5:02if you bring God into the picture
5:04particularly if you uh think about uh
5:07all the different um understandings
5:10there are of God all the different texts
5:12and scriptures that people at different
5:14um places around the world and in
5:16different times have regarded as sacred
5:18and as the record of God's will um my
5:21own view is that um God could have been
5:24a little more explicit and maybe uh used
5:27a language that everybody understood and
5:29not just a small uh small group of
5:32people in the Middle East um but in any
5:35case uh it is it is an interesting
5:37question how we we come to know these
5:39things and I think some of the things
5:40that Dr Craig um mentioned are certainly
5:44involved um I think that when we realize
5:47about ourselves that we uh that we set
5:50ends that we conceive projects and and
5:52that we we value those projects and then
5:55we uh determine through observation and
5:58reason that other creatures on the
6:00planet are just like we are um then we
6:03can uh then we have the basis for uh
6:06making the um making the uh uh leap that
6:10that Kant talked about and generalizing
6:12seeing that if we give ourselves uh uh
6:16rules about right Behavior this is a
6:18this is something that we have to uh
6:21think of as binding on all people um
6:24thank you okay Char the next question is
6:27for you we'll go to this microphone
6:31I thought I had a monopoly on Dr Anthony
6:33but it seems that I have a tale
6:35following me so I'll keep my question
6:36shorter than I at first we was going to
6:39have it uh Dr Anthony first of thank you
6:42for stimulating on this sincere debate
6:45tonight please correct me if I'm wrong
6:47it appears to me that in your view you
6:50can have acts that are simply wrong and
6:54that is the stopping point whereas we
6:56couldn't have um a God as Simply Good
7:02simply good not in virtue by the virtue
7:05of having done
7:07acts does it not appear to be a better
7:11explanation with more explanatory scope
7:14and power to have an infinite being in
7:18whom these things are grounded rather
7:20than finite things that you can think
7:23are in themselves simply gr that okay um
7:27I'm not denying that if there were
7:29supremely good being if there were such
7:32a being that that might be a sufficient
7:34basis but what I'm saying is it's the
7:37goodness of that being and not not the
7:40fact that it's God um and so what you
7:43need for there to be objective moral
7:45facts is objective moral facts if it's
7:48the goodness of a Divine being that's an
7:51objective moral fact if it's the
7:53objective uh Badness of causing
7:56suffering to creatures that can that
7:58experience suffering
8:00that's an objective moral fact Dr Craig
8:02and I agree that there are fundamental
8:04moral facts um it doesn't I don't see
8:08that it that it detracts from the
8:10existence of fundamental moral facts um
8:13for uh for God not to exist and by the
8:17way it's not the it's not the contingent
8:19existence of the creatures that feel
8:21pain that is the moral fact the moral
8:24fact is that if there are creatures that
8:26feel pain then you must not cause
8:28unnecessary pain that's a necessary
8:31truth that's true in all possible worlds
8:33it's true before there were any sentient
8:35creatures it will remain true they cease
8:37to be S
8:38creatures thank
8:41you I think the question is a good one
8:44and I noticed that whereas Dr Anthony is
8:46willing to Simply stop with uh certain
8:50moral facts like if there are sentient
8:52creatures it's wrong to cause them pain
8:55but she seems to demand an explanation
8:58for why one should think that God is
9:02good and is the basis of moral values
9:04and that seems to me to be uh rather odd
9:08the very concept of God is that of a
9:11being which is worthy of worship so
9:13thanks and now a question for Dr
9:15Craig uh first thank you Dr Craig and of
9:18course Dr Anthony for a fantastic debate
9:20but I just hope we can go back to the
9:21athro question for moment having some
9:23difficulty understanding your res your
9:25resolution of of theer challenge I'm
9:29just not not sure I'm not I'm not sure
9:31how the distinction you draw between
9:32ontological and and semantic
9:36ethics um I'm not sure how that leaves
9:39any place for God to do ethical work
9:41because let's say we have a complete
9:43explanation of the semantics of the good
9:45for the moment let's say that issue is
9:46settled we have an
9:48account what does it do to say that
9:51there exists an X such that it
9:53instantiates perfectly all of those
9:56things which we have established in our
9:57in our semantic account of the good or
9:59constitutive of what we say the good is
10:02especially since it seems to be a part
10:03of the semantics of the good that they
10:05are that the good is normative what does
10:08it do to say that there is some perfect
10:11instantiation of the good greater than
10:13which nothing can be conceived
10:16okay the the role that God plays in this
10:19would be to provide an
10:21ontological foundation for thinking that
10:24there are objective moral values but it
10:27doesn't play a semantical role in
10:29defining defining the concept of the
10:31good giving a a semantics for the
10:33meaning of the English word good doesn't
10:36do anything to show that there are such
10:39properties as goodness or that that it
10:42really exists uh so that it's it's quite
10:46distinct you can understand the concept
10:49or the definition of the word good
10:52without understanding what its
10:53homological foundation is let me give an
10:55analogy from physics take light for
10:58example
11:00uh we know that light is a certain range
11:03of electromagnetic radiation that's the
11:06nature of light but that is not a
11:10semantical uh thesis about the meaning
11:12of the word light people were able to
11:14use the word light meaningfully long
11:17before they knew anything about its
11:19nature and similarly they knew the
11:21difference between light and darkness
11:23before they knew anything about its
11:25nature so what I'm suggesting is that
11:28it's similar with with God God provides
11:31an analysis of what it is for something
11:34to be good and then also right and wrong
11:37but it's not the definition of the word
11:40anymore than the definition of the word
11:42light is a certain range of
11:44electromagnetic
11:45radiation thanks um I think that's a
11:48very good point I'd like to say
11:50something about the way in which Natures
11:52are supposed to explain things um the
11:54nature of water is
11:56H2O uh we know that water is constitute
11:59sued that is by uh by these um by these
12:02atoms bonded in a certain way or these
12:05molecules bonded in a certain way um and
12:07it's true that people knew perfectly
12:09well what the what the meaning of water
12:10was before they knew that it was H2O
12:13however H2O explains all the properties
12:18that we use to pick out water and that
12:20we used to pick out water before as
12:22water before we knew what it was now Dr
12:25Craig keeps stipulating that God has a
12:28good nature and if you ask further well
12:30what is it to have a good nature well
12:32it's to be God now that to me says that
12:35whatever God was like whatever choices
12:37he were to have made those would have
12:39been the good ones because God is
12:41stipulated to be good it's not this is
12:44not a nature that's going to explain
12:46anything it's not going to explain God's
12:48being good is not going to explain why
12:50it's wrong to uh to torture uh sentient
12:53creatures so it doesn't bear the same
12:56relationship to our judgments our
12:58ordinary pre-theoretic judgments about
13:00what the good is that are that the uh
13:02explanation about uh that the uh fact
13:05that water's H2O Bears to um our
13:09understanding of what water
13:12is hey Dr
13:16Anthony hey I was just curious you began
13:19to talk about your experience in college
13:21um sort of this process of losing faith
13:22and I was wondering if that was more of
13:23a was it a purely a thought process or
13:25were there some experiences contributing
13:28to that to
13:29deciding it was entirely the result of
13:33my first philosophy class where I
13:36thought about the arguments for God for
13:38the existence of God and I fought tooth
13:40and nail to defend them and I just
13:42wasn't I just found that they were not
13:45convincing to me the ontological
13:47argument that um Dr Craig has been kind
13:50of alluding to that God is a being
13:53greater than uh greater than which none
13:55can be conceived um I just didn't see
13:58how uh some fact about what I'm able to
14:01conceive to conjure up was supposed to
14:04demonstrate that something actually
14:05existed for example and then I hit the
14:08argument from Evil and I just I just I
14:11couldn't maintain it anymore it seemed
14:13to me so so obvious that a perfectly
14:18good being could not have set things up
14:20the way they were that uh I just I just
14:24found I didn't
14:25believe Dr Craig I'm not sure it's quite
14:27fair to ask you to comment on Dr
14:29Anthony's experiences in college but
14:31you're welcome to reply if you wish let
14:33me say something about my own experience
14:35my faith Journey was quite in the
14:37opposite direction I was not raised in a
14:39Christian family or churchgoing home but
14:42it was in high school that I began to
14:45think about the big questions in life
14:47and one that tortured me was the meaning
14:50of my existence I understood what
14:52science told me about the eventual fate
14:55of the universe and of the human race
14:57and my own life and in light of that
15:01inevitable Extinction it just seemed to
15:03me that life was meaningless and and
15:05purposeless and I later discovered that
15:09people like n and sart and other
15:12existentialist philosophers had written
15:14and thought exactly the same way and so
15:17when someone first shared with me uh the
15:20love of God that could be known uh in
15:23the person of Jesus Christ this was just
15:25a revolution and a revelation to me I
15:29the idea that God loved me was something
15:30that was just shattering and and new to
15:32me and so I began to read the New
15:35Testament I had never read it before and
15:37as I did I sensed there The Ring Of
15:39Truth and a wisdom that I had never
15:41encountered before and and eventually I
15:43did come to Faith and it changed my life
15:46and as for the arguments for the
15:47existence of God I found these to be
15:50very helpful and and persuasive I think
15:52tonight there's been an argument for
15:55God's existence lurking in the
15:56background a kind of moral argument
15:58namely
15:59if God does not exist objective moral
16:01values do not exist but objective moral
16:04values do exist on that at least we both
16:07agree from which it logically follows
16:09therefore God exists so I think that
16:12what we've been talking about tonight
16:13can actually provide moral grounds for
16:15believing in God's existence thank you
16:18thank you both um I don't go to this
16:20school so I don't really have this
16:22opportunity this was really great uh my
16:24question is kind of a two-part question
16:26you quoted Dawkins earlier and saying
16:29that there is a bottom it's all
16:31meaningless there is no purpose and he
16:33says that you know the physical
16:34description of the universe points to
16:36that directly and
16:40um doesn't that give us more of a
16:42responsibility to take actions into our
16:45own hands and morality to be a part of
16:48our nature and I mean if God did exist
16:53and we're his children don't you think
16:54he would want us to grow up and be
16:56responsible for ourselves anyway well
16:58yes if he did exist I agree with that
17:00but the other part no I I would agree
17:03with Dawkins when when Dawkins says
17:06we're just machines for propagating DNA
17:09so that on an atheistic view there is no
17:11purpose there is no responsibility
17:13responsible to what uh well yeah go
17:17ahead we put the responsibility of
17:20morality as we talked about tonight in
17:22the hands of an omniscent being who we
17:25are unsure of its existence yet we are
17:28complet completely aware of each other's
17:30existence sure and why can't we be the
17:33ones that are responsible for our own
17:36actions well the question is responsible
17:40to whom you see on on atheism as I said
17:43there is no moral accountability there
17:45is no ultimate
17:47responsibility to on atheism and
17:50eventually we'll all die anyway so why
17:55who who was it it was Steve who who read
17:57the thing what is posterity done for me
17:59lately you know this is this is I think
18:01a very poignant question for the atheist
18:04to ask so uh I guess it's just very hard
18:08for me to see why on atheism we would
18:11have these sort of moral
18:13responsibilities and and objective
18:15duties rather than say we're just a
18:18primate that has evolved on this planet
18:20and so why not just live for yourself
18:24rather than for others well can I just
18:26answer that real quick if God didn't
18:28exist
18:29then this is the only life we have so
18:32that's why there would be morals to make
18:33the best of this we possibly can see I I
18:37guess I how how do you think that that
18:39follows if there is no God then this is
18:42all that we have but then nothing
18:44follows about how we should behave no of
18:47course not well three parts three parts
18:49is our we're very happy to have you on
18:51our campus
18:53today can I say yeah yeah please um I
18:56think you're a very wise young man um I
18:58think you know the universe has no
19:01purpose but I do right I have lots of
19:04purposes right I have a book I want to
19:06write I have children that I love and a
19:09husband that I love that I would do
19:11anything for um I have friends that are
19:14very dear to me there are injustices in
19:17the world that I want to see corrected I
19:19have lots of purposes it makes a lot of
19:22difference to a lot of people and to me
19:26what I do that gives my life significant
19:29and I don't understand why uh I'm
19:33worried for Dr Craig it's I I wonder if
19:36he has any friends I
19:38mean I mean don't you feel that your
19:41friends well-being gives you purposes
19:44that it gives you s that gives your life
19:46some significance if I were to sacrifice
19:49my life for my children as I hope I
19:52would have the courage to do the only
19:54thing that would make it insignificant
19:55is if my children's lives are
19:57insignificant and boy you better not say
20:00that but Louise on atheism they are
20:04insignificant we're all we're we're no
20:06not you but that's just subjective sorry
20:09we we're just objective fact okay it's
20:12an objective fact that they are
20:13significant to me and if there's anybody
20:15on the planet to whom anything is
20:17significant that's a fact that has all
20:20signifance that I need to take account
20:21of and I want you to know I'm now a
20:23friend of bill so
20:26[Applause]
20:28[Music]
20:29[Applause]
20:33Dr Anthony um you mentioned earlier that
20:36oftentimes it's hard to do the moral
20:39thing and I'm wondering what is the
20:44atheistic explanation for a struggle
20:48like that to exist why would it be hard
20:50for human beings to do what is
20:52moral well because it makes you
20:55sometimes do things you don't want to do
20:57like um as I was writing this paper and
21:00writing all this stuff about not
21:02torturing animals and sentient beings I
21:05thought um well I make a point of eating
21:09Freer range meat and buying uh humanely
21:11slaughtered animals but I don't know
21:13where the restaurants that I eat at get
21:15their stuff so I have to not eat meat in
21:18restaurants let me tell you I love food
21:22I love food and I love going to
21:24restaurants and I really like the taste
21:26of lamb and I really like Court well
21:29prepared and so forth I think I'm going
21:32to have to stop doing that now that's
21:34that's on the scale of of difficult
21:36moral choices an easy one right that's
21:38not a big deal people lose their lives
21:42Rachel Corey a
21:4323-year-old American woman went to the
21:46Gaza Strip to try to stop home
21:48demolitions from happening illegal
21:50immoral home demolitions she was crushed
21:53by a bulldozer she gave up her life now
21:57sorry I think that is
21:59incredibly significant and I think she
22:02had enormous courage goes beyond
22:04anything I can do I'm sure and she did
22:07it because she was outraged by the
22:13Injustice so that's
22:17hard well I think it's hard to be moral
22:20because so often
22:23moral the moral thing runs contrary to
22:27what
22:29self-interest prescribes and so you have
22:33on the one hand this evolutionary
22:35principle of survival of the fittest on
22:38the other hand you have this moral ethic
22:40of
22:41compassion and on the atheistic view
22:44especially these are contrary to each
22:46other because survival of the fittest
22:48says go for number one climb to the Top
22:53This the fit Will Survive and that is
22:56just at odds with an ethic of
22:59compassion um and so the the the the
23:02Dilemma the naturalist faces is why
23:04should he deny what evolution is
23:07programmed into him to that the fit
23:10should survive and instead adopt this
23:12moral perspective
23:15um why should Dr Anthony on naturalism
23:19not eat lamb when wolves eat lambs and
23:23do nothing immoral to the lamb why is it
23:26wrong for her to be carnivorous but it's
23:28not wrong for the wolf to be carnivorism
23:31I can't see any basis on naturalism for
23:34that but on on theism I do want to say I
23:37think we do have responsibility toward
23:39animals and toward plants and the
23:40ecosystem not because they are moral
23:43agents but because on theism we are and
23:46they have or have a creation mandate
23:48from God to Steward the Earth and to
23:51care for his creation God in the story
23:54of Adam and Eve set man and woman upon
23:56this planet as husp
23:59men to to to Garden or or to care for
24:01the earth and the environment so I think
24:03theism does give us a good basis for uh
24:07an environmental ethic that on
24:09naturalism and survival of the fittest I
24:11just can't see any basis
24:13for hey great debate um I I was just
24:17wondering is it morally permissible to
24:19do something that most people would
24:21consider immoral like to kill someone or
24:23commit genocide like in the Bible um if
24:26you if you think that God told you to do
24:28it like if you had a mental disorder
24:29like schizophrenia if and if you thought
24:31God that
24:32told we haven't talked about that
24:34tonight uh and that's a very complicated
24:38issue on which a whole lot has been
24:39written but I want to refer you to an
24:41article on my website that deals with
24:43this it's uh question number 16 in the
24:47question archive where it uh deals with
24:49the this question of uh whether or not
24:53uh God could command things like
24:55genocide or uh Abraham to sacrifice his
24:58son Isaac and how we're to understand
25:00that and so to try to deal with that
25:02here in one minute would just be
25:04inadequate but I have written a length
25:06on that on my website uh question number
25:0916 uh in the AR take a look at that if
25:12you're
25:13interested um yeah I think it's a big
25:16problem
25:18um what how you're supposed to uh
25:22distinguish the commands of a God who
25:24you know because of the historical
25:26record does command genocide from time
25:29to time does uh does tell people to wipe
25:32out every living thing does tell a
25:35father to um um Slaughter his son as a
25:38sacrifice and then says never mind um
25:42does uh does enter into a vet with the
25:46devil to see if he can test his faithful
25:49servant job so you know that God does do
25:52things like that so it's kind of an
25:54epistemological problem what God is
25:56actually telling to do now the people
25:58that I know who are religious and and
26:00sincerely moral people will say things
26:03like look those were stories written by
26:05primitive people what they're doing is
26:07they're taking their independent sense
26:09of what's right and wrong and they're
26:11using that as a guide to what God
26:13commands we can all think of the good as
26:16what God would command if we mean by God
26:19a perfectly good being but we can think
26:22of good in that way without God actually
26:24having to exist we can use that as a
26:26sort of regulative ideal about what
26:28we're what we're um what we're Imagining
26:31the good is so um as we go on I'll just
26:34point out that we're more than two hours
26:36into the evening and there are still 200
26:38people in the room which tells us
26:40something about the importance of the
26:42question that you all are discussing
26:44tonight um we'll try to go on for a
26:46little while longer um as long as it
26:48feels like people aren't falling over in
26:50the seats um but we would ask you to if
26:52we can just do whatever we can to keep
26:54up the pace so we want to get as many
26:56people an opportunity as possible
26:59possible um all right now I'm going to
27:01feel bad because uh I have kind of a
27:04two-part question uh Dr Anthony most of
27:07your uh arguments stem from the fact
27:09that morality is based on sentience uh
27:12because I can confirm my existence you
27:13can confirm your existence stealing from
27:15you would be wrong and you stealing from
27:17me would also be wrong I'm sorry I
27:19didn't hear what you just said what
27:20would be wrong uh like stealing like if
27:22I were to steal something from you um
27:24the first part of the question is uh
27:27what would you
27:29consider uh like the least of all I
27:34apologize for that um the least evolved
27:37sentient being just sentient
27:41beings least evolved yeah if just really
27:45quickly I don't want to take mean by
27:47least of all like um everything that's
27:49on the planet has undergone EV their
27:53ancestry gone gone through evolutionary
27:55change all right fair enough um but like
27:59say if I were to say that a like a
28:01squirrel or a rabbit were was not
28:03sentient and then something like me was
28:07sentient what in the like absence of God
28:10what creates that s sentience therefore
28:22morality
28:25biologist and that raises the question
28:28how is having a certain complex nervous
28:31system uh the foundation for saying that
28:34therefore this is a morally valuable uh
28:37that this is this is a good uh your
28:39question about the least evolv senent
28:41being I think is a good one because I
28:43think you're asking is where is the
28:44lower threshold where you know moral
28:47value breaks off and and and neutrality
28:50begins and and uh what what sort of uh
28:55basis would that
28:59oh uh so I I I I think that you you're
29:03raising a good question it just seems to
29:05me to be arbitrary to think that
29:07sentience is objectively good on atheism
29:12at
29:14least okay uh I hope I have an easy
29:17question for you it's a yes or no
29:18question excellent so it should be kind
29:21of quick um Dr Craig if I understood you
29:24correctly you asked the question of uh
29:26Dr Anthony you asked her to answer this
29:28question if there is no God what sets
29:31human beings apart from other animals
29:33why should we follow any code of
29:34morality when ants and sharks and other
29:37animals clearly do not what reasons do
29:39we have to consider ourselves above
29:40certain acts that other animals take
29:43part in well I ask you isn't the fact
29:46that we as humans can conceive of a
29:48higher power the fact that we have an
29:50ability to believe in God isn't that
29:53enough
29:56no thank you
30:02I is there a yes or no response on your
30:06part Dr Anthony well in so far as it as
30:09the capacity to do that probably entails
30:12the other capacities that I think
30:15signicant question I think my answer is
30:19yes hi I uh I know that physicists and
30:22chemists they um formulate hypothesis
30:26about universes with different
30:27fundamental con
30:28I was just wondering if you could
30:30imagine a universe with like different
30:32sets of morality or like morality was
30:34more invariant than like
30:36gravity um I I think there's some moral
30:39obligations that we have that are
30:40socially constructed like property
30:42rights I think that property rights are
30:44rights that are constructed by our
30:46agreement uh to form a social contract
30:49with each other um but I think that the
30:52fact that if a being is sentient um you
30:56and you can recognize the have Not to
30:58cause that sentient being a necessary
31:01pain I think that's a necessary truth um
31:03can I let's see um yeah I wanted to just
31:07while we're on that I just want to say
31:09something about this question about why
31:10it isn't immoral for wolves to eat lands
31:12it's because wolves have no capacity for
31:16understanding moral obligation they
31:18don't meet the preconditions for having
31:19moral obligations they have some moral
31:21rights because they're sentient right
31:23they have a right not to be not to be
31:26harmed by being that that know that
31:29they're being that they're uh harming
31:31them but wolves don't have the capacity
31:33to recognize the the moral facts of they
31:36don't have the
31:37oblation wolves well now that just
31:39strikes me as really bizarre you think
31:41that wolves have the right not to be
31:45harmed by a being which knows what it's
31:48doing if it harms the wolf or that the
31:50lamb has a right not to be eaten by a
31:56being that has the knowledge of what
31:58it's doing which the wolf doesn't have
32:00not that well not that I I don't think
32:01lambs have a right not to be eaten I
32:03think they have a right not to be caused
32:05uh gratuitous okay that that that's
32:08incredible to to me how on a
32:10naturalistic atheistic view would lambs
32:13and wolves and things like that have
32:16these sorts of Rights uh it it It just
32:20strikes me that there's there's just
32:21nothing in the naturalistic picture that
32:24would make us think that that it it it
32:27just seems seems to me to be um okay
32:32suppose that's so there's nothing in the
32:34naturalistic picture that makes it the
32:36case that I have a duty not to torture a
32:40lamp Okay now God comes and says don't
32:44torture a
32:45lamp I don't see how anything has
32:48changed except that now the creator of
32:50the universe who can commit me to
32:52Eternal Flames has told me he doesn't
32:54want me to do it now I have some
32:56additional information it's going to
32:57stru Str mind sentence I don't see how
32:59any moral fact is
33:02created uh Dr Craig um this might be
33:06another question 16 but uh you said that
33:09God's nature determines what is good and
33:11his uh commands come down to us in that
33:13way so that's how we can tell what's
33:15good and what's not well that's helpful
33:17if um we have a one idea of God and an
33:22agreed upon set of Commandments that we
33:23need to obey but the reality is that
33:26there's multiple faiths in the world
33:28that have absolute truths that are not
33:30negotiable with each other and they end
33:33up fighting each other over these truths
33:35and you can have a non-religious person
33:38um say that slavery is
33:40wrong um while watching these two
33:43religious groups fight over issues of
33:45slavery um if they're part of their
33:47faith and so in the end we end up
33:49choosing the faith or the non-faith um
33:53based on the comparisons of these from
33:56our own standpoint and so do does that
33:58complicate the issue of God being
34:00necessary for Morality when in fact
34:02there's so many different kinds of
34:03morality that exist no I don't think it
34:05complicates the issue of God being
34:07necessary for Morality as the
34:09ontological foundation for Morality what
34:12you're talking about is now again moral
34:15epistemology how do we know the content
34:19of the good how do we know what is right
34:21and wrong and here I I agree with Dr
34:24Anthony I am as I said I think that uh
34:27some semantically we know the meaning of
34:29moral terms and sentences without
34:31defining them in terms of God and I
34:34think epistemologically we don't need to
34:36believe in God in order to know certain
34:39things are right and things are wrong or
34:42or or good and evil so issues of moral
34:44epistemology and semantics are quite
34:47distinct from the reality of moral
34:50values and duties now this does
34:54underline the importance I think though
34:56what you're saying of being sure that we
34:57believe in the right God because
35:00certainly there are religions with
35:02concepts of God that are I think quite
35:06inadequate and so this this does
35:08underline the very important question of
35:11well which God is the true God and that
35:15I suppose is a debate for another
35:20evening Dr Anthony um the basis for your
35:24morality if I understand is BAS is
35:27primarily whether something causes
35:32suffering no no okay sorry the basis for
35:36my morality is the objective moral facts
35:38one of them is that it's wrong to cause
35:40a sentient creature suffering I think
35:42that you know that's that's pretty
35:46comprehensive how do you determine what
35:48the objective moral facts are well um we
35:52do it by uh testing our reactions to
35:56certain kinds of uh
35:58possibilities um thinking about the
36:01principles that those reactions might
36:03entail testing those principles about
36:05against new cases pretty much the way we
36:07find out about
36:10anything okay um so I have an sort of a
36:15continuation what my original question
36:16was you didn't give me the answer I
36:17expected I'll continue it it's still
36:20relevant why that's a sneaky
36:22philosophy why would you pick one for
36:26instance one moral standard over another
36:28principle why would it
36:30be why would you decide that the
36:34principle that is wrong cause suffering
36:36as one of your principles why would you
36:39pick that over say the principle any I
36:44could choose the principle anything is
36:46wrong which does not cause me the
36:48greatest amount of pleasure why pick
36:52what what is an objective standard by
36:54which you would choose these principles
36:57well I'm not sure what kind of an answer
36:58you're looking for um it seems to me
37:01that uh if I were to say anything that
37:03causes me suffering is wrong um but I
37:08don't care about the suffering of other
37:10people um
37:12I uh that seems a morally arbitrary uh
37:17seems an arbitrary um position to take
37:21if uh if there's something about me that
37:23makes my uh pleasure um uh morally
37:28important uh and I see that there are
37:30other beings that are constituted as I
37:33do that experience pleasure seems like
37:35it's a kind of inconsistency to not
37:38think that their pleasure is important
37:39to them too and that's a fact I had to
37:41take account of do you I mean are you
37:43tempted by this view no um why not am I
37:48tempted by are you tempted to think that
37:50I mean does it strike you as a a view
37:53you need to consider that maybe the
37:54morally right thing to do is to just do
37:56things that benefit I'm just using that
37:58as so why aren't you
37:59tempted I don't
38:01know can I just continue this very
38:04quickly I like to ask you we move on to
38:06the next question thank you
38:09though um you commented on speciesism
38:12and how atheist and dry being specious
38:15specious by saying rape is wrong for
38:17humans but let's say not necessarily for
38:19sharks if God is um necessary for
38:22Morality why isn't it being a specious
38:24saying that God only cares they do are
38:28that um what makes human morality more
38:32important than other creatures if God
38:34made them all and if it's a soul that
38:36makes humans um follow this that makes
38:39humans do this I I didn't catch that
38:41last part Soul oh if it's a soul then
38:45isn't God then isn't God kind of being a
38:47specious by only giving human souls and
38:49not other creatures did you say that
38:52he's being capricious by not specious
38:55specious is is it oh oh oh he's guilty
38:58of
38:59speciesism no no not at all I mean what
39:02speci ism is is thinking that your own
39:05species is somehow invested with
39:08objective moral worth when in fact uh
39:12you're you're no different from all the
39:14others it's kind of like racism you know
39:16thinking that your race is somehow
39:18privileged and and special uh and and
39:22the others aren't but if for example uh
39:26human beings are uh made in the image of
39:29God that is to say they are persons as
39:32God is personal and they have soul and
39:34are moral free agents then they are very
39:37different from sharks and zebras and and
39:40lions and so forth um there are
39:43objective differences between human
39:45beings and and nonpersonal creatures now
39:49if there were a person who had a sharp
39:53body say then that person I think would
39:56have moral oblig ations that would be
39:58given to that person by God so the the
40:02physical body isn't the important thing
40:04it's whether not we're dealing here with
40:07uh persons who have those same qualities
40:10that God exhibits and and therefore are
40:12are intrinsically valuable um I'm not
40:15exactly saying it's the body itself it's
40:17just what makes that only humans the
40:20personal creatures what makes them more
40:22important just because they can
40:24comprehend it but why wouldn't other
40:27creatures just be able to comprehend it
40:28if God isn't necessarily um remarking
40:32that they are more
40:34important I'm not sure I understand the
40:37question did you say how why why aren't
40:38other creatures able to comprehend it
40:41why would God make that
40:43so well I think
40:46ultimately uh now this is again this is
40:50just my uh personal opinion I think that
40:53these serve the purpose of having an
40:56ecosystem that is one in which human
40:59beings can flourish and ultimately come
41:01to know God uh and to be members of his
41:04kingdom and part of his family and that
41:07these are also a reflection of the
41:08Beauty and the cre creativity of God
41:10himself I think God is a sort of supreme
41:12artist and his beauty is reflected in
41:15the creation so he Delights in the
41:17abundance of creatures that exist in the
41:19universe and these serve as a kind of
41:22arena in which this human drama is then
41:24played out so sometimes arbitrary
41:27decisions are both needed and Justified
41:29and I am going to let you respond I'm
41:31just going to say that we are going to
41:33stop at 10:00 and I say that because
41:36we've asked a lot of our panelists
41:37tonight so and I say it out loud because
41:40the people at the end of those lines may
41:41be very upset with me in 10 minutes so I
41:44just hope that we'll all keep that in
41:46mind and try to keep as much of this
41:47exchange going on as possible in the
41:49last 10 minutes okay you ask a very
41:52interesting question and a good question
41:53it's one I haven't thought about and the
41:55question is I think it's I think your
41:57question leads into a kind of new
41:59argument for evil um against the
42:02benevolence of the Creator um God arbit
42:06seem seemingly arbitrarily chose human
42:08beings to invest with souls to create In
42:11His Image um the other animals he didn't
42:14what are the consequences well human
42:16beings he can command to regulate their
42:19activity with respect to each other in a
42:21way that might limit the amount of pain
42:22and suffering they cause each other but
42:25he didn't give those capacities he
42:26didn't didn't give those capacities to
42:29animals to sharks so they're just
42:31they're just ripping each other to
42:32shreds causing each other enormous pain
42:35and apparently God isn't concerned about
42:37that may be beautiful but it's painful
42:40it's painful to to be uh not a
42:45human Okay uh Dr Anthony you said in
42:47your concluding statement that in a
42:49world without Divine redemption or
42:51intervention uh certain acts that we all
42:53think are unforgivable would be even
42:55worse because we'd have to live with it
42:56without God intervening now uh what do
42:59you make of the Christian doctrine that
43:00we are all so flawed that we've all done
43:04unforgivable things seemingly
43:05unforgivable things like for instance I
43:07bought this shirt known full well that
43:08it caused immeasurable pain in the third
43:10world country so like and we all do
43:13stuff like that so do you disagree with
43:15that idea that we are all so horribly
43:17flawed if so why and or do you agree
43:19with it uh and if so then how can you
43:22live with yourself in a world where
43:23there's no atonement to Grace well I
43:26didn't say there's no at atonement or
43:27Grace I think there is I think that um I
43:30think you can atone for things by trying
43:32to make up for the damage and repair the
43:34damage you've done just I think it has
43:36to be done here um I really reject and
43:39find offensive to view that there are no
43:41moral distinctions to be made and I
43:42don't believe you don't if you uh will
43:45pardon my being personal that I don't
43:47believe you believe it either you think
43:49that you are the moral equivalent of
43:51adol Hitler or Paul pot uh I don't I
43:56think that there I think there are worse
43:58and there there there are worse things
44:01and worse things I mean I think there
44:03there are lots of things of course we
44:05all we all do things for which we are
44:07sorry and we regret we try to do better
44:09um but but there are some things that
44:11are really really really awful um and I
44:14just I think there are moral
44:16distinctions to be made and if if your
44:18if your religious view is that they're
44:20not I think that's a really good
44:25reputation and be very quick because my
44:28questions already been answered I was
44:30going to speak about Dr Anthony's
44:32comments about
44:34intrinsic value for evil and for good
44:37and I was going to voice it in the
44:39question about God permitting genocide
44:42and people being children being killed
44:45I'll look at number 16 on your website
44:47just want to make an editorial comment
44:49you do have a friend because I fully
44:50recognize that the heavens do declare
44:52the glory of God Amen
44:58um our moderator in his introduction uh
45:01raised the question like why do we owe
45:03um posterity anything um you frequently
45:07said that uh like sentient being beings
45:11have a duty and a moral like a moral
45:13duty Not to cause others pain um future
45:16Generations don't exist and so they
45:17don't feel pain so like what and why um
45:21do we have a responsibility towards them
45:24well we have a responsibility toward um
45:26the well to start with we have
45:28responsibilities toward the people who
45:30are here and uh some of those people are
45:33people who are going to have children um
45:36and um we want the people that are here
45:41uh to have uh a the kind of world that
45:44will allow them to lead fulfilling lives
45:46so so so it's for the sake of uh the
45:49present generation and not for the sake
45:50of the future Generations that we have a
45:52moral obligation well that's an it's an
45:54interesting question sort of what the
45:56ontology obligation is um I think that
45:59we I think the the duties that we have
46:01to to current Generations are are
46:03certainly
46:09enough
46:11um is it uh as a general question would
46:14you agree that the uh morality that God
46:17gave humanity is unchanging and
46:19everlasting First of and second part not
46:23not necessarily I I do agree with what
46:25Dr Anthony said when she said that some
46:27moral obligations I think could be
46:30contingent for example God I think gave
46:33certain moral commands to Israel in the
46:36Old Testament that were temporary and
46:39not uh permanent um and so it does seem
46:44to me that it's within God's prerogative
46:46to to to do that sort of thing uh but
46:49when we're talking about these really
46:50fundamental moral Goods like the
46:52intrinsic value of human beings then I
46:55think those are certainly metaphysically
46:58necessary truths uh and and would be
47:02unchangeable well I feel like in this
47:04conversation that uh everyone here has
47:07been ignoring the institutions in which
47:09um people praise worship and preach the
47:11word of God I feel like these
47:13institutions have over time changed
47:16their own morality such as uh the
47:19Crusades Christian Crusades and the
47:21vatican's approval of Nazi Germany and
47:23now more fundamental Islamic extremism
47:26uhhuh and I feel like
47:29therefore uh would it be true that
47:31instead of an existing God and his
47:33morals that these institutions were
47:35created as a form of social control and
47:37that these morals were created to
47:39control the population instead of uh a
47:43god preaching these morals to the people
47:46well it doesn't follow that they were
47:47created for that purpose but it
47:49certainly may well be true that they
47:52serve that function of social control
47:55and manipulation of populations and so
47:57forth I think a very good case could be
47:59made out for that um I don't think
48:02anything follows from what you've said
48:03about the subject of tonight's debate
48:05because Dr anony and I would both agree
48:08that we can make moral mistakes and that
48:10therefore for example if the church
48:13thought that the Crusades was something
48:15that was morally right and good that
48:17they were simply wrong in in thinking
48:19that if there were
48:22uh theists who were guards at aitz they
48:25were just morally mistaken so I agree
48:27with what Dr Anthony said when she said
48:30I don't care if my culture says
48:32something is morally permissible and I
48:35know that it's not my culture is simply
48:37wrong in that case so those institutions
48:39may have served the function on occasion
48:42of social manipulation or control but
48:45that doesn't follow that God doesn't
48:48exist or he's not the foundation for
48:50Morality or that there aren't objective
48:51moral
48:52truths and I apologize but this is the
48:55last question
48:57so picking up on that comment it seems
48:58you both agree that there's there's
49:00moral objectives and uh Dr Craig wonders
49:04how Dr Anthony can hold to them without
49:07belief in God and my question for Dr
49:09Anthony is um not withstanding your
49:11questions and you raise some important
49:13questions and deep issues uh with from
49:16the biblical record but is it possible
49:18how would you respond to the possibility
49:20that being made in the image of God uh
49:23though you at present have issues with
49:25God you still have that inherent sense
49:27of morality and what some things are
49:29just wrong and some things are just
49:30right as a reflection of being created
49:33in the image of
49:34God um it's I suppose it's possible it
49:38seems to me extremely unlikely that
49:41that's where I came from um I think I
49:44probably evolve um and if I if I could
49:47just take the opportunity to say
49:49something about why I think Dawkins ands
49:51are wrong why Dr Craig is wrong Dawkins
49:55persistently confuses
49:57um a a matter about what is essentially
50:00an evolutionary filter survival of the
50:03fittest right all survival fitt says is
50:06there's um there are conditions such
50:08that if you don't meet these conditions
50:11you're not going to survive whatever
50:13falls through whatever survives that is
50:15ipsofacto
50:16fittest that he confuses with the
50:19question of what actually motivates
50:21individual intentional creatures um uh
50:26it can involve that you are a creature
50:29who has intentions that are very
50:31different from anything to do with the
50:34conditions that make it Poss that the
50:36conditions that structure uh your
50:39ability to pass on your genes so there's
50:41nothing in me that wants that is aiming
50:44to maximize the number of copies of my
50:47jeans in the world God forbid I should
50:49do that that would be you know I don't
50:51want that many children right so that's
50:53the that's the conflation so the idea
50:56that um all we have to work with is
50:57survival the fittest is just a fallacy
51:00um that said uh you know there are lots
51:04of possible stories it's not the only
51:06right story but it seems to me the most
51:08plausible one let me simply say that it
51:11seems to me that if there are these
51:13objective moral truths and principles on
51:16realism such as Dr Anthony and I think
51:18they are that it is
51:20extraordinarily improbable in in the
51:23extreme that the evolutionary process
51:27would
51:28produce by survival of the fittest just
51:31those beings that happen to have the
51:34correct moral perceptions and intuitions
51:37of those moral truths and and values
51:40which are causally unconnected to The
51:42evolutionary process and that's why I
51:44think given the evolutionary story it's
51:47just highly highly improbable that what
51:50we grasp on to would be objective values
51:53and
51:54truths I think it's highly probable the
51:57probability is one here we
51:59are we have um throughout the course of
52:03the evening referred to Dr Craig and Dr
52:05Anthony but I think now it's time to say
52:07that bill and Louise have certainly
52:10enlightened the public discourse tonight
52:12and that we have been the beneficiaries
52:14and I hope you'll join me in thanking
52:22them for more information about the
52:24Veritas Forum including additional
52:26recordings and a calendar of upcoming
52:28events please visit our website at
52:30www.vitas.com

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of William Lane Craig vs Louise Antony | "Is God Necessary for Morality?" (part 2) by ReasonableFaithOrg, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,545 words across 1,224 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.