Can we have morality without God? | John Lennox & Larry Shapiro at UW Madison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- John Lennox (Oxford Emeritus) and Larry Shapiro (UW Madison) discuss morality and God. | University of Wisconsin-Madison, 10/9/2017| View full forum at • Is There Truth Beyond ... | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.or...
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
PODCAST: podcasts.apple...
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
Professor John Lennox is a genius!
A genius to 'not in the world (reality)' bourgeois Christians.
Thank you for posting this clip! Dr. Lennox has a style that disarms as well as which is compelling to listen to!
If we are talking about "morality", then let us first see if we would agree or disagree about what would be morally acceptable or not...To make it easy let me ask a simple yes/no question, so there is no misunderstandings... Is it ever morally acceptable to be allowed to purchase another person and consider them property that can be passed on to your children as an inheritance? ....Just to let you know my opinion...no, I can not think of a reason it would ever be morally acceptable...Do you disagree?
It would depend on if that was your business or not?
Did the person being sold sell himself by his free will? Not your business. Or was the person being sold kidnapped, against his will? Everyone's business and illegal in a free country based upon God's standard of right and wrong, not yours. One would be slavery as we see it today, evil. The other would be indentured servitude, a job, to get him OUT of his great debt and regain property rights.
Many questions are not simply "yes or no". To assume YOU have a right to impose your standards and opinions on others without a higher authority is just ignorant. Eventually you will be outvoted, one way or another. With God, that person has rights regardless of what you think or vote.
@@redfaux74ok, how about this question?
do YOU find it morally acceptable to sacrifice YOUR own child to YOUR god, because YOU won a battle?
or, maybe this question.
do YOU find it morally acceptable to bash babies against rocks?
@cliftongaither6642 - You obviously have never read the Bible. God didn't do those things. God condemned those things. The countries that did those acts were destroyed completely. God destroyed Israel in AD 70 because Israel started sacrificing their babies. They should've known better.
God used the children of Israel to destroy the Amorities, Hittites, and 4 other countries starting in Exodus after they were rescued out of Egypt. God told the children of Israel what would happen to THEM if they rejected His goodness. God didn't do those things. He warned them it would happen.
Instead of talking about things you haven't even researched, you ought to at least read the account in the Bible before you make yourself look completely ignorant.
@@cliftongaither6642 - I read the Bible cover to cover every year, often twice. I do it because I enjoy it. It makes a ton of sense to me.
No where does the Bible condone killing innocent children. There is a thread that goes thru the Bible talking about children being dashed against the rocks. It was always spoken of as a warning to evil people who reject the mercies of God. It's like God giving you an umbrella to use against acid rain. If you reject the umbrella and go out in that rain, you're dumb. You did that to yourself. The prophecy about children being dashed upon the rocks was fulfilled in AD 70 on the southern wall of Jerusalem. Jesus warns them about it in Matt 24, Mk 13, and Lk 21. They killed Him. They received the penalty.
@karldubhe8619 - It is not possible that an idea can be intrinsically evil. That's like saying forks can be evil.
If a person was in debt up to their eyeballs and knew they couldn't get out of that debt, they could sell themselves into slavery, an agreed upon price they would receive every year for "x" amount of work. We do the same thing today. It's called work.
Just because slavery has gotten a negative stigma attached to it doesn't mean the idea of it was always evil. There are many who made a good living at it and became permanent servants. You're probably one of those people who just use it as an attack point. It doesn't work. It is not a one word question or answer.
I want to read all the books (the philosophy ones) that Lennox has read...
God is man made. Therefore all religious morality is man made also. Simple really.
If God doesn't exist then everything is permissible is a double fallacy because the reverse is also true - because with God on your side everything is permissible.
Nope.
@@No_BS_policy Care to elaborate dear or is this the limit of your profound intellectual input ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Is it?
Nonsense! Try reading the 10 commandments and then argue that with God everything is permissible.
@@SaintNektarios Nonsense! When the 10 commandments aren't practised by those that preach them.
You cannot have real morality without God. Human standards are cookie cutting
Moralittbfrom what god ?
Evolution is defeated
Yes, next question
Please explain.
Could you start with these:
Why should I be good?
Why should I not be bad?
@@donaldkeith139 are you telling me. You'd instantly become a raging murderer without the Bible?
Your reply disappeared, but what I got was "are you telling me you'd become a raging murderer if you didn't have the Bible?"
But that's not my question. I am asking how *you* would derive a set of moral principles without God (not the Bible)
@@donaldkeith139 when you talk about "GOD" which specific subjective invisible guardian are you referring to ?
Can we have morality WITH God? That is the real question. Holy Wars, Inquisition, Crusades, priests and choir boys, etc, etc, etc.
Any wars that happened within the context of Christianity (that is to say that happened within the past 2000 years) definitely is motivated by something else or started by someone who is motivated by something other than the teaching of Christ. And then they tried to convince people to their own agenda. God didn't made then commit those wars.
If anyone studied what Jesus taught, wars that are committed in His name is farthest from what Jesus would have wanted because in Jewish culture, Jesus is expected to be a military leader who would wage WAR against the Roman Empire but clearly He didn't do that.
With all of the many atrocities that have been committed in the name of God, The Inquisition, The Crusades, the many Holy Wars, the real question is: Can we have morality WITH "God"?
Of course we can as it is humankind that defines and determines morality. We even implement it into our laws.
As a human, I determine morality as the consumption of infant flesh. Morality determined?
@@kagakai7729 not how we humans define morality. We define it as right vs wrong regarding how we treat each other according to well being
@@kagakai7729 in the Bible, God tells the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanite people, including the children. Morality determined?
@@reality1958 I'm a human, and I have chosen not to accept your subjective definition of morality. By what standard can you say I'm wrong?
@@stevem7945 Well, do you have an objective higher moral standard by which you're calling it wrong?
There is no political or moral solution to the human condition
No religious or spiritual solution either.
@@williamoarlock8634 respectfully what is the source for your opinion?
@@oceanblue22 Looking at religious and spiritual people in general...
I would like to hear equally from both sides and let me make up my mind instead of Veritas trying to have influence on my decisions
The entire debate is available online
Aint two sides, got reality, and magical nonsense. What you got is false equivalence.
A ridiculous question
Slightly mischaracterising of Dawkins, he's not an atheist. An atheist recognises no god. Dawkins recognises the God of the Old Testament, and hates His guts. Then defines the god he does accept, or at least acknowledge, by pick and mix to get a god he does like - which is the Biblical definition of an Idolater.
Dawkins doesn’t believe a god exists
I think you will find Dawkins "hates" the consequences of the actions of believers in the old testement "God"
Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversions of indigenous peoples ect ect all done specifically for religious reasons. By people striving to attain their subjective Gods "moral perfection" and citing the moral imperfection of the victims as justification 🤮🤮🤮
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
Even without bringing religion into morality, it is reasonable to argue that there has to be a source for objective reality. You can have any kind of moral system you want, but if it is not grounded in something objective, then your moral system is merely subjective like every other moral system.
@@SaintNektarios
If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised.
Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate.
If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
@@SaintNektarios
// "grounded in something objective" //
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@trumpbellend6717 Why don't we want people to feel pain? Why is it wrong for people to feel pain?
@@SaintNektarios
Please note your reluctance or inability to answer my very specific questions elucidates very clearly the fragility of your position for all to see dear