I recently encountered this debate between two philosophers: William Lane Craig and Peter Millican. Craig is a fairly big name in public debates over God, and in my view offers the most well-reasoned, logical arguments for the existence of the Christian God (not that I find all of them persuasive, but he gives you a lot to think about). He's a particularly masterful debater, and there's a good chance you've heard of him. Millican is apparently less experienced as a debater and public speaker, but his credentials as a philosopher and rationalist seem impressive to me. He's also apparently a chess grandmaster, so the guy is smart. I particularly enjoyed this debate because the participants were mutually respectful and actually tried to counter eachother's arguments rather than talk past eachother. There was also a sit-down, face-to-face discussion in the end which was both cordial and engaging. I think you can enjoy this, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fEw8VzzXcjE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I am interested in checking it out but it will be tough for me to find two hours + to watch the whole thing.
Thanks. But I am lost (or totally not convinced) when he said there must be two causes that began the universe's existence. The unknowns are unknowns. There is no "must be two causes" for the unknowns. I get the syllogism, but this is the universe we are talking about, not some detective story. The genesis of the universe is probably much much more complicated. I did not finish the video, but ... whether God exists or not, freedom of religion includes freedom not to believe. Non-believers are often not intrusive until pushed to the corner to reveal the non-belief.
To me the existence of God(or gods in other religions) has never been nearly as important as how religion would affect me. In the end it's basically saying a person should live a certain way to reap a certain benefit. But as a person I have trouble accepting such a long-time-in-future benefit with no possible proof despite substantial investment over my life. So it's not so much as believing in God as it is believing that submitting my life for him is good for me and those I care about.
That's the trick, religion says your reward is in the afterlife but in reality, living a moral life that you are proud of and that gives you peace of mind is it's own reward. It's heavenly for your eternity.
"...A religion true to its nature must...be concerned about man's social conditions. Religion deals with both earth and heaven, both time and eternity. Religion operates not only on the vertical plane but also on the horizontal. It seeks not only to integrate men with God but to integrate men with men and each man with himself. This means, at bottom, that the Christian gospel is a two-way road. On the one hand it seeks to change the souls of men, and thereby unite them with God; on the other hand it seeks to change the environmental conditions of men so that the soul will have a chance after it is changed. Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind that Marxists like to see - an opiate of the people." -- Martin Luther King
Believe it or not, public debates about this kind of stuff are usually quite civil. I encourage you to keep searching on Youtube. You'll find a lot more. Pretty enlightening stuff.
Yeap. The afterlife is a great promise. The now is reality. Whatever you believe, at least try not to cause suffering for you and others in the now. Knowingly doing so for a great promise is trading reality for well, a belief.
Religion doesn't say that. It says ultimate reward lies in the afterlife. I can point to a number of verses in the Jewish Bible, Christian Bible, Quran that point to joy in this life as a reward for faithfulness in God. The point you raise is interesting though. Those same three religions I mentioned would also ask you what is moral to you and its source? and would see pridefulness in one's own "moral" life as a sin. As for the debate, there's a number of debates like these across universities worldwide. I absolutely love them. William Lane Craig is a tremendously gifted debater. So much so that Richard Dawkins has denied debating him a number of times (precisely because Craig is a debater and Dawkins isn't)
Haha.... Watterson atcually named his comic strip characters after John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes. Even some aspects of their behaviour mirror the philosophical outlooks of their respective namesakes.
Still listening, but I have a problem with the objective moralism as proof of a god. Maybe I just have a problem with objective moralism in general. If I were to make a list of supposedly objective morals, several practices would not have been considered immoral in the past, further, some would be actively endorsed by the Bible. I can't wrap my head around that and not come to the conclusion that morality is a subjective notion instead of a guiding system based on the supernatural. But, I confess to not having delved into this concept much at all in the past, so I could have this entirely wrong.
Moral behaviour is an evolutionary advantage for an intelligent social animal. It promotes cooperative behaviours that are collectively more successful, like agriculture, cumlitive shared knowledge and organized self-defense. Amoral behaviours disrupt the advantages of the group. (and hence, a lot of the differences between conservatives and liberals is how they have been socialized to view themselves, as an individual or as part of a group)
The thing is, living a moral life has A LOT OF benefits for people in this life and the right now. Being nice to your co-workers, for example, will make your working experience better. Not beating up people that irks you prevent you from going to jail or at the very least, looking over your back wondering if the other guy's going to jump you. Like Dubious said above, being moral is a self-defense mechanism that people learn from interacting with society.
