Here’s a great video. It’s not short (31 mins) but its well worth watching right through – or downloading and watching later. Even watching several times, the speaker is so eloquent and precise with his language.
In it Scott Clifton gives a thorough critique of the Christian apologetics understanding of morality. He also gives a good outline of secular morality – a rational, objectively-based morality.
Treatise on Morality. – YouTube.
Clifton stress morality is important because it determines how we behave and how we interact with others. In the video he sets out to answer four questions:
- What do we specifically mean by words like “right,” “wrong,” “moral,” “immoral,” etc.?
- Why our definitions are useful and applicable and why they represent how the vast majority of people see these words, whether they realise it or not?
- How can we objectively determine what is “right” and what is “wrong” without appealing to personal taste or subjective opinion?
- Why we ought to do right and ought not to do wrong?
He answers the first question by defining “right” as that which promotes the health, happiness and well-being of humans. Or minimises unnecessary human pain or suffering. And “wrong” of course is the converse.
Immediately I know many readers will reject his definitions. But if you do, you should hear him out. Watch the video. Listen to his arguments.
I suspect you might find that you do in the end agree. I do.
Posted in agnostic, agnosticism, atheism, belief, Bible, Christianity, evolution, faith, god, human rights, religion, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society
Tagged atheism, Christian apologetics, divine commands, ethics, god, morality, Religion and Spirituality, SciBlogs, Scott Clifton, YouTube
A while back I participated in a discussion involving a number of non-theists and theists. You can guess which side I was on. But I bore no ill feelings to the theists – and why should I have? These discussions are largely harmless.
But when the discussion turned to biblical genocide I found I had very strong feelings of hostility to one of the theists, a local minister of religion. Why? Because here I found someone who was blatantly justifying the slaughter of thousands of people. Genocide! And he justified it because he thought those people had been sinful!
Perhaps some people might think my reaction naïve. But I feel exactly the same hostility towards people who justify the Stalin terror, the victimisations and murders of Mao’s so-called “cultural revolution”, Pinochet’s slaughter of Chilean democrats, Hitler’s slaughter of Jews, Slavs, homosexuals and communists, Pol Pot’s murder of intellectuals, and so on. And in my life I have come across people arguing to justify the genocide in all these cases. I really don’t see the justification of biblical genocide any differently. If you can make such justifications perhaps you are also capable of carrying out such atrocities.
So I can understand why Richard Dawkins recently expressed such feelings of disgust about the justification of biblical genocide by William Lane Craig (see Dawkins responds to a stalker – Craig gets his debate).
We have yet to hear Craig’s response. But he has clearly endorsed that genocide
and I can’t see that his response can be at all human – unless he withdraws that
Posted in Christianity, Dawkins, god, New Zealand, philosophy, religion, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society
Tagged divine command theory, divine commands, Joseph Stalin, morality, objecitvely-based morality, objective morality, Outsourcing, Pol Pot, Richard Dawkins, SciBlogs, Stalin, William Lane Craig