I’ll have my own analysis of the Craig/Hitchens debate coming up. For now, check out this atheist’s perspective.
I took a gander around his blog. Looks interesting. Perhaps we could have some blog discussions in the future.
He put forth a question he wanted to ask at the
Dr. Craig,
Tonight you’ve argued that objective moral values cannot exist apart from grounding them in the traits and opinions of a particular person. Your choice is Yahweh. That seems like an odd way to get objective moral values, but nevertheless, you’ve elsewhere argued just the opposite: that objective moral values do exist apart from Yahweh.
For example, in your answer to question #61 on your website, you write that abortion is wrong because life has intrinsic moral value – that is, moral value within itself, apart from anything outside it, including the opinions of Yahweh. Is this a discrepancy, or have I misunderstood you?
Short answer: not a discrepancy. Luke has misunderstood Craig.
(Somewhat) Longer answer: according to the Christian worldview, God is the one that bestows intrinsic dignity on human beings, because the grounding of such dignity is the “imago dei” which is imprinted on humanity. Without that, there is no intrinsic dignity. Atheist philosophers have instead usually give humans functional value, but this is far from intrinsic. Without God, no intrinsic dignity. Humans are byproducts of an impersonal, mindless force. There is no more qualitative difference between them and a bag of snakes. Humans can do more (reason, for example), but this is functional, not intrinsic value, and it just means our material is arranged in a more complex manner.
In the absence of God, we might think humans have intrinsic dignity and we might act like they do, but our beliefs are illusory.
Thus, Luke’s question illegitimately tries to divorce humanity’s intrinsic dignity from its source, and it is not true Craig has argued that objective values exist apart from Yahweh.
One can take the same answer theists give to the Euthyphro dilemma and apply it here (you must scroll down quite a few pages before you get to Copan’s treatment. The whole paper is a good read, however…also see here and here for Craig’s answer. ID: pugnacious. password: irishman).
Also, Luke stacks the deck by the terminology he uses. He says Craig grounds morality in the “opinions” of a particular person. This is a straw man, for it makes it seem like Yahweh is just as qualified as you or I in being the ground of morality. This is far from the case, though. First, Yahweh’s character is completely holy, righteous, just, and good. Everyone elses, well…is not. Secondly, being that Yahweh is a maximally great Being (who created all things), has the proper authority as the ground of morality. He’s not just an “average joe” like you or I.
Think of it this way: if I am guilty of a crime before the court, and I argue that the judge is just as qualified to make pronouncements on jurisprudence as I am, wouldn’t that strike you as a bit presumptuous? He has the proper authority, and he has the proper perspective to judge on the law. He’s gone to law school and has studied and practiced for years. I, on the other hand, have not.
It is the same with God. Being the type of being He is qualifies Him as the authority and ground of morality. Given His attributes and essential qualities, we’re not talking about a level playing field here, and the way Luke frames the issue makes it seem like we are on equal footing to God.
Check out the following related posts:
Hitchens-Turek Debate analysis
Skeptics Answered series (more posts in the series forthcoming in a few weeks)
______________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar) and/or stumble this post (S.U button below).
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Pingback: Craig/Hitchens Post-Debate Analysis « The Pugnacious Irishman