Atheistic Debate on Morality

Background

This article came about by accident—or providence. I was sitting in a tire store while some routine maintenance was being completed and (as usual) was reading a book. A woman entered the waiting room and sat down in one of a row of chairs perpendicular to the row I was sitting in. She noticed the title of the book, and asked if it was a good one. The name she observed was How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

I truthfully answered the book was very disappointing. Her interest was based on her current situation. To compete her Bachelor’s degree, she had opted to take a Philosophy of Religion course, which she found interesting, but her last major assignment was going to be tedious. The task involved watching three debates in which atheists faced off against “Christians” on certain issues. Her task was to evaluate them and suggest a winner.

She had the web sites with her and gave me a copy of them. I told her I would try to watch one and get back to her with some thoughts. We exchanged emails. I spent a day watching the debate on morality. It was not at all what anyone would expect, which became obvious from the outset. The moderator began by explaining what the debate did not concern.

Not the Topic

The moderator noted that the debate was not about whether or not atheists could be good, moral people. Both participants agreed that they could. In fact, some atheists live by what seems to be a code of Biblical ethics—even though they deny the Bible as being the Word of God. Few would deny that some atheists choose to adhere to a high level of morality. The theistic position has always been that they have no basis for doing so. Without God, no moral objectivity exists.

However, the debate turned out not to be about that, either. The moderator made it clear that the debate was not about whether or not morality is subjective. Both participants reject moral relativism, which is usually a tenet of Humanism and Atheism. Both men claim to believe in objective morality—that objective moral truths exist.

The Topic

So what was the subject to be discussed? It was: “What is the best account of objective moral values and duties?” Theists, as well as many atheists, believe that God has always been the foundation of objective moral truth, and that without God no objective morality exists. But some atheists believe objective morality does exist without God—and that maybe no foundation is needed to support that ethical system.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the theist, is a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University. He has edited or written over 40 books; his signature one is Reasonable Faith. He earned a Ph.D. from Birmingham, England, and a Th.D. in Munich, Germany.

Erik Wielenberg, the atheist, is a Professor of Philosophy at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. He obtained a Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and has written three books: Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, God and the Reach of Reason, and Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism.

Usually, in a debate, one begins by defining the proposition. That did not occur here. And, in fact, a glossary of a few terms might have been helpful since the average person is not conversant with concepts such as supervenience, instantiation, supererogation, and reductionism.

Also conspicuously absent was a syllogism containing a logical argument. In order to prove a proposition, one side will usually set forth a major proposition, followed by a minor proposition, and then a conclusion. If the major and minor propositions are true, then the conclusion must be true. For example, one might use the following. All even numbers are divisible by 2. X is an even number. Therefore, X is divisible by 2. One would need to prove the major and minor premises to be true. If they are, then the conclusion must be true, also. Neither speaker took this approach.

In his first twenty-minute speech, Craig affirmed that Theism provides a solid foundation for the objectivity of moral values and duties. He may have spent as much as five minutes on that assertion. The remainder of the time he argued that atheism does not provide as sound a foundation as theism. Generally, in a debate, the first speaker defines his proposition and sets forth arguments to prove it; the opponent is in the negative and shows what is wrong with the argument if he can. The two then switch being in the positive and the negative.

Such did not happen in this debate. Everything was compressed into three speeches, and both spoke in favor of it or against it, as the mood struck. So, after trying to prove the theistic approach, Craig attacked the “godless normative realism” of his opponent, though he had not presented his case for it yet. He did make some interesting observations, such as:

1. How do abstract moral values come to be attached to physical objects? If the universe is material only and man only has a physical body, how do we arrive at moral values, which are related more to the spiritual than to the physical?
2. What if love were termed moral badness instead of goodness? Does the square root of 2 have either moral badness or goodness? In other words, how do either concepts or facts have moral value?
3. If there are moral reasons not to steal, then a person ought not to steal. But where in the material universe does the concept of oughtness come from?
4. Is everything we think and do caused by a prior physical state? What about this quote: “You are an electro-chemical machine, and machines have no moral obligations to do anything”? Your body is not obligated to do anything.

Wielenberg basically responded by saying, “My view is better than yours; it’s less messy.” He said that some of the flaws that Craig pointed out in his theory applied equally to Craig’s position; therefore, they both had the same problem. Both contained unexplained necessary connections. He issued three challenges.

1. Why think that only divine commands are sufficient to generate moral obligations?
2. How can God’s commands impose obligations on those who are unaware of divine authority behind such commands?
3. Why would God command people to do things He knows they won’t do anyway, since issuing commands only introduces pointless evil into the world?

The problem with this style of debating on both sides is that it does not accomplish anything. Asking questions—even ones difficult to answer—does not prove anyone’s case. For example, if someone were murdered and a suspect was being interviewed, he might say, “From 8 o’clock to 11:00 I was at home, watching television and reading a book.” A police detective says, “Can anyone corroborate your alibi?” “Well, no,” he answers, “I was alone.” “Aha! So, you could have committed the crime instead of being at home. Can you prove you were at home and didn’t do it?” This is a difficult question to answer. No. He cannot prove it, but it doesn’t mean he is guilty. Asking hard questions does not constitute proof of a position.

An interesting exchange occurred when Craig said that Wielenberg was using the “So’s your ol’ man” approach in the debate, meaning, “Okay, my position is not so hot, but yours is just as bad.” In fact, this is called the tu quoque fallacy in logic. Incredibly, Wielenberg attempted to justify the use of the fallacy.

Psychopaths found themselves as the subject in the back-and-forth battle. Are they morally responsible if they cannot genuinely distinguish right from wrong? Or do they understand right and wrong but just don’t care? Craig argued that if they are incapable of understanding right from wrong, then they are not morally accountable, but Wielenberg denied it. He claimed that the problem with psychopaths is that they do not understand the authority of morality.

Wielenberg asserted that God could punish anyone, and He doesn’t need to use commands to do so. This point was not intelligible to this reviewer. Craig pointed out that evolution advances based on behavior—not truth. One wonders, “How do we arrive at truth based on the physical universe?”

In his last speech, Wielenberg claimed that it was morally wrong to take a nap rather than to lift a finger and stop one million holocausts. Although he did not expand on the notion, this related to the problem of evil that atheists usually bring up, which is: “If God can prevent evil, but does not, then He is not good. If He cannot prevent it, then He is not all-powerful.” The fallacy here is that the atheist is defining God in his own manner but pretending it is the theistic position.

In the first place, God does not take naps. What theist would make that argument? In the second place, God does not correct every evil act at the moment it breaks out. Every sin does not receive immediate punishment. If punishment occurred at the moment of sin, all of us—including atheists—would be in big trouble. Also, there would be no need for a Day of Judgment if judgments had already been dispensed. God gave the world 100 years to repent while Noah built the ark. He sent prophets to His people to get them to repent. The New Testament begins with a message of repentance (Matt. 3:2). But eventually a Day of Judgment occurs. God is all-powerful, but He also is merciful in giving sinners time to repent.

The futility of this debate was demonstrated in the question section. The second question asked involved inductive versus deductive proof. Wielenberg admitted that it was inductive and that all other views are worse than his. Craig then expressed shock that anyone would ask about certainty. He claimed it was a false standard of success, and then added, “The quest or demand for certainty is a will-o’-the-wisp that will ultimately lead to sheer skepticism.” Wielenburg said, “Amen, brother.”

One might ask, “Well, then, in what way was this discussion important?” Jesus talked about truth and certainty (John 8:31-32; 17:17). All these two guys did was wrangle over words and concepts without any compelling evidence being offered for either position.

In the last question, when Wielenberg was asked, “What arguments and evidence do you have for the existence of these brute moral facts that you’re positing?” He answered, “My only argument is: ‘These seem right; these seem plausible.’” Seriously? So, the entire debate revolves around the way things seem? Neither party showed concern about, “What is truth?” So, why should anyone waste his time listening to a bunch of opinions that seem right? He also said, “We just pick different moral axioms, as far as I can tell.” Yawn! Thomas Warren’s debates were far more informative and fascinating. And they dealt with truth and evidence.