"This house believes that one cannot be truly moral without God" (NUIM, 30th March)

philologos

Maynooth Christian Union and Maynooth LnD (Literary and Debating) are promoting a debate in John Hume Lecture Theatre 2, John Hume Building, NUI Maynooth on March 30th at 7pm as a part of the Christian Union's upcoming Christianity Week.

The motion is "This house believes that one cannot be truly moral without God", and our invited speakers are:
Dr. John Murray (Mater Dei Institute)
Michael Nugent (Atheist Ireland).

In addition to this, two students from the Christian Union, and two students from LnD will be speaking on the motion.

The facebook event is here, the thread on the other forum is here, and a thread on the Atheist Ireland forum is here.

If you have any questions concerning the debate itself, I'd be glad to take them.

liamw

Is it being recorded? Video or audio?

philologos

The Christian Union plan on recording it subject on permissions from all parties for it to go ahead. As for what anyone else plans are to record it, that's another matter and what we will do with the recording is up for discussion.

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

The Christian Union plan on recording it subject on permissions from all parties for it to go ahead. As for what anyone else plans are to record it, that's another matter and what we will do with the recording is up for discussion.

If it's put up on the interwebz, I'd like to check it out.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

the thread on the other forum is here,

Heh, I love the way people when on the A&A forum refer to the Christian forum, or visa versa, simply as "the other forum". Always put's an image into my mind of some fantasy book and a wizard speaking of "they whom we shall not name".

Sounds interesting Jakkass, if it get's put online, wouldn't be too hard to stream the audio live even, which would be great, I'll definately give it a listen. Let us know.

Dades

Sounds interesting.

Possibly only because I cannot for the life of me imagine what someone arguing for the motion is likely to say. The motion is ridiculous. Though no doubt it'll get bogged down in the term 'morality'.

The Mad Hatter

Hunh, you're in my old Alma Mater, Jakkass. And I'm off that week - I have half a mind to pop along to that debate.

Tyler MacDurden

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hunh, you're in my old Alma Mater, Jakkass. And I'm off that week - I have half a mind to pop along to that debate.

Likewise. Might head along for old time's sake. Will you be contributing yourself Jakkass?

eoin5

You'd want steel shelters there for when the skyhooks start falling down.

philologos

eoin5 wrote: »

You'd want steel shelters there for when the skyhooks start falling down.

Eh?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I cannot for the life of me imagine what someone arguing for the motion is likely to say.

I wouldn't imagine that the religious side is going to get much beyond "People are sometimes nice, therefore there has to be a god up there making them behave that way". For, if one believes that humans are intrinsically evil as claimed by christianity, what other option can there be?

Also, I see that the title of the debate contains the weasel-word "truly", so the evening may just turn into a no-true-scotsman exchange. And in any case, bearing in mind that "moral", in the strict sense, only has meaning in an top-down, authoritarian framework typically provided by one religion or another, then unless Nugent is going to invoke Stalin etc who asserted similar moralities, it's going to be an uphill struggle to show that "morality", in the strict sense, actually can exist without god.

Now, if the debate was about ethical behaviour, and not morality, then that is a completely separate debate and one that would be worth listening to.

But a debate that's named and framed, intentionally or unintentionally, to neuter any opposition, well, that just ain't gonna be much fun. I'll be washing my hair that evening, I suspect.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

Sounds interesting.

Possibly only because I cannot for the life of me imagine what someone arguing for the motion is likely to say. The motion is ridiculous. Though no doubt it'll get bogged down in the term 'morality'.

I'm sure the hitler/stalin/pol pot card will be pulled a fair bit.

Dades

So once the non-existence of a "universal morality" is conceded, you can only be truly moral under a 'fixed' moral code? Sheeesh.

They could invoke Humanist doctrine, maybe??

folan

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm sure the hitler/stalin/pol pot card will be pulled a fair bit.

thats lazy debating. using extremes as the center of a debate dont really work to win an arguement, everyone can spot an extreme as not really representitive. Also, its a small sample of the total data, which makes the representation even less convincing.

Galvasean

WE should place bets on when Stalin is mentioned first.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

So once the non-existence of a "universal morality" is conceded, you can only be truly moral under a 'fixed' moral code?

Effectively, since frameworks that are called "moral", in the strict sense of the word, are all top-down societies, where a small group of individuals assert a set of unchangeable, un-discussable values, at least one of which is the superior value of the people doing the asserting.

"Ethics" operates in the other way, typically by people discussing and assigning values to thoughts and actions and having them filter through society at large by co-operation, rather than coercion.

Dades wrote: »

They could invoke Humanist doctrine, maybe??

Ignoring, for the time being, the difference between value ("killing is bad") and meta-value ("the rule about killing is open to discussion") -- I think Michael Nugent would have a hard time making anything changeable look like the "universal morality" that religious people claim exists.

fontanalis

Nugent should bring a copy of the Murphy Report.

biko

I won't be seeing you there.

Bottle_of_Smoke

folan wrote: »

thats lazy debating. using extremes as the center of a debate dont really work to win an arguement, everyone can spot an extreme as not really representitive. Also, its a small sample of the total data, which makes the representation even less convincing.

Completely agree. I just think that's exactly what they'll do.

fontanalis wrote:

Nugent should bring a copy of the Murphy Report.

Nah. That's much the same as a Christian going on about Stalin.

Sure lots of Priests were paedos and Bishops were covering it up, but Christianity itself never preached to do this

Xluna

Galvasean wrote: »

WE should place bets on when Stalin is mentioned first.

Better yet,put bets on whether Hitler or Stalin is mentioned first. I'd very much like to see this debate but the internet is the only method I'll be able to see it. Hope its uploaded.

fontanalis

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Completely agree. I just think that's exactly what they'll do.



Nah. That's much the same as a Christian going on about Stalin.

Sure lots of Priests were paedos and Bishops were covering it up, but Christianity itself never preached to do this

Of course and I'd never in a life time suggest it, but the people who covered it up and whose action or inactions allowed it to happen again would have considered themselves moral and had no problem lecturing about lack of morals eg pregnancy out of wedlock and teh ghey

Byron85

A similar debate will be taking place in UCC on Monday.

Atheism isn't real? Projects Committee Debate
Monday 15th 19:30, G19


The future of the Philosoph has put on a delightful treat of the non-Religious variety
Followed by a gig from the Anybodies!
Speakers:
Brian Bocking, UCC Lecturer in the Religion Dep.
Micahel Nugent, head of Atheist Ireland
Peter Cave, Philosopher

I know Brian as i'm a student in the Religion Dept. He's a genuinely nice guy and good lecturer so it'll be interesting to see how this goes.

Antbert

Sounds interesting. And convenient for me. I'll be there. And I'm going to be looking out for you Jakkass. Maybe we'll have a real life argument.

philologos

Antbert wrote: »

Sounds interesting. And convenient for me. I'll be there. And I'm going to be looking out for you Jakkass. Maybe we'll have a real life argument.

I'd love to have a chat with you afterwards, please wear a big white sign with Antbert written on it

strobe

Xluna wrote: »

Better yet,put bets on whether Hitler or Stalin is mentioned first.

Put me down for 50 on Pol Pot, always bet on the underdog baby. :cool:

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd love to have a chat with you afterwards, please wear a big white sign with Antbert written on it

Haha ok. Although I think you should be the one to bear the brunt of everyone asking you 'why do you have a sign with Jakkass written on it?' all day.

philologos

Just to remind you, that this event is on this Tuesday at NUI Maynooth. If anyone has any questions before then please PM me, and I'll try to get around to them when I can

nozzferrahhtoo

For anyone interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXP1uix68HA&feature=email

Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland, debates John Murray, director of the Iona Institute for Religion and Society, on the motion: That one cannot be truly moral without God.

The debate took place on 30 March 2010 in Maynooth University, and was organized by the Maynooth Christian Union and the Maynooth Literary and Debating Society.

philologos

The quality on these videos is excellent. Not all of it is up yet though.

Zillah

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For anyone interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXP1uix68HA&feature=email

Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland, debates John Murray, director of the Iona Institute for Religion and Society, on the motion: That one cannot be truly moral without God.

The debate took place on 30 March 2010 in Maynooth University, and was organized by the Maynooth Christian Union and the Maynooth Literary and Debating Society.

There is a very special sort of dissatisfaction to be experienced when hearing poor arguments made at great length.

Dave!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For anyone interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXP1uix68HA&feature=email

Michael Nugent, chair of Atheist Ireland, debates John Murray, director of the Iona Institute for Religion and Society, on the motion: That one cannot be truly moral without God.

The debate took place on 30 March 2010 in Maynooth University, and was organized by the Maynooth Christian Union and the Maynooth Literary and Debating Society.

With a special guest appearance by Sam Harris? :pac: Yes? Please?

/watches

nozzferrahhtoo

The opening speech and position of Murray is pretty awful. He has assumed some of the things are true that he should be arguing for, a common mistake by a bad debater.

Foe example he just talked at length about how a non-objective morality is just made up be humans. He just says it matter of fact if he just assumes we all think “Ah therefore it must be bad”. He did not even attempt to argue that this is in fact so.

He calls morality not grounded in god “Wishful thinking” but this is exactly what he is engaged in. He does not _like_ the fact that subjective morality is not universally grounded and hence he just declares there must be an objective one. In other words he is making an argument from inference fallacy or “I do not like the implications of the conclusion therefore the conclusion must be false”

In fact his whole speech seems to be based on the benefits he believes there would be if his proposition is true, at no point did he actually argue that the proposition is IN FACT true.

He declares more than a few times that no one can find a basis for morality if there is none grounded in god. I beg to differ:

http://www.atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/

Galvasean

I'll check it out tonight (if I can drag myself away from Chaos Rising for a while). How long is the full thing?

PS: Does Jakkass make a cameo in the audience?

mardybumbum

I believe Jakass is actually debating in the video.

nozzferrahhtoo

I may have jumped the gun by promoting the link it seems, as I did not notice only the first 4 parts are up. I have watched them and look forward to the next parts. If you subscribe to the Atheist Ireland you tube channel however it will tell you when new videos and video parts are added.

Dave!

mardybumbum wrote: »

I believe Jakass is actually debating in the video.

rly? Is that him in video 3?

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I may have jumped the gun by promoting the link it seems, as I did not notice only the first 4 parts are up. I have watched them and look forward to the next parts. If you subscribe to the Atheist Ireland you tube channel however it will tell you when new videos and video parts are added.

I will note, there are sections edited out from the student speakers who spoke on our side.

The Christian Union has footage, and we'll put up the uncut version if you will. The student speakers spoke for 7 minutes each on our side. They spoke for less on the other side.

The lengths of the introduction speeches are about right.

The layout was as follows:
1. Dr. John Murray (10 minutes)
2. Michael Nugent (10 minutes)
3. First CU speaker (7 minutes)
4. First LnD speaker (7 minutes)
5. Second CU speaker (7 minutes)
6. Second LnD speaker (7 minutes).
7. Questions (20 minutes, but in practice went on much much longer).
8. Closing remarks Dr. John Murray (7 minutes)
9. Closing remarks Michael Nugent (7 minutes)

So the CU speakers are truncated by about 2 minutes. A little bit of this was introductions, but still.

nozzferrahhtoo

If the video is not all up yet, how do you know what is edited out?

philologos

They put the two CU speakers into one video of 10 minutes. In reality they spoke for slightly over 14 minutes.

The footage from the two opposing speakers, is about right as their speeches were shorter.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well when you find out exactly what words were edited out do let us know, it would be interesting to know.

philologos

What I'll do is, get our footage up in the next few days.

I'm not overly complaining. As I said, the quality of the stuff is very good indeed.

nozzferrahhtoo

The first student speaker for the motion could have done with some more rehearsal time. However I find he was a bit better than the opening speaker in that he actually did try and argue for the motion. Unlike the opening speaker who just relied on arguments that were of the “I like the conclusion, therefore it must be true” sort.

The opening words of the speaker however could have been uttered by the other side. He claims that morality is merely a framework to guide us in a societal and is based on common human empathy. Exactly! What more do you need? Why postulate a moral law giver, for which you have provided ZERO evidence for the existence of, in order to go any further? Morality simply works fine without that assumption. And given no evidence IS on offer for this entity, yet people claim to know it exists and what it wants… are they not claiming to know something no one else does and hence they are building their moral system, from the very outset, on dishonesty and lies!

However I tuned that part out and tried to find the speakers actual arguments that there IS such an objective law, rather than arguments like the opening speaker which were just wishful thinking. The only one I could find was comical.

Basically the argument goes, when someone performs a “bad” moral action we suggest to them “You should have known better” and why would we utter such words if there was not a “better” that was indeed knowable.

That’s it. Devastating argument huh?

No thanks. ALL humans claim others should “know better” and not just in the moral realm. They claim this when they themselves feel they are the one in the right and someone else is in the wrong. “Oh do not vote, there is a secret elite one world government controlling everything anyway so it is all meaningless, you should know better” does not exactly constitute evidence that such a secret entity exists.

Alarm bells should ALWAYS go off in your head if someone presents as evidence that X is true, a quirk in common human phrases and speech. That someone says “oh god” when something shocking happens constitutes NO evidence that god exists or the speaker believes it does for example. There are many odd vagaries in the english language of this sort and none of them provide a shred of evidence for the existence of things unseen. Commonly understood turns of phrase rarely reflect what we actually mean in their use.

The speaker did say one true thing though. That people saying the phrase “you should have known better” are speaking as if there is SOME common ground between them. His conclusion that this common ground is an objective morality appears to be false, and substantiated by literally nothing but “Why would we say you should have known better if there wasn’t”. But I do agree that there IS common ground. The human condition.

The vast majority share common desires and goals. Avoiding pain. Protecting our loved ones and possessions. Wish to live comfortably and to find food. Desire to sleep in safety. These are things we share because of the human condition and it is this commonality between us we speak to and of. Not some imagined god entity which none of the speakers even attempted to show even exists.

The only other thing of use this speaker said was that we fall short of the standard of obedience that this god sets us. Of course we do, that’s the whole idea with propagation of religion. You set people a perfect standard that they can never attain and use their guilt at failing to attain it to fuel further interest and dedication to the religion. This is a common tactic in any mind control 101 both in AND out of religion. Commonly this is coupled with directing that guilt into gratitude by giving the “mark” an “out” such as “but god loves you all the same and all this is created with you in mind and he forgives you your failings although you do not deserve his love and forgiveness. Is god not great??”.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No thanks. ALL humans claim others should “know better” and not just in the moral realm. They claim this when they themselves feel they are the one in the right and someone else is in the wrong. “Oh do not vote, there is a secret elite one world government controlling everything anyway so it is all meaningless, you should know better” does not exactly constitute evidence that such a secret entity exists.

And what is the right, or the wrong?

One of the points also made in that speech was that the Moral Law isn't deterministic.

Edit: There is also a key piece regarding human rights, and on international conflict missing from that speech which is a bit disappointing to see cut out. The CU should have their own copy of the debate uploaded within a few days.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Good question.

The vote was 50:50 at first, the chair (who was also the first LnD speaker) asked for a show of hands again, and concluded it was a majority against the motion.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Good question.

The vote was 50:50 at first, the chair (who was also the first LnD speaker) asked for a show of hands again, and concluded it was a majority against the motion.

That's how we do votes in Ireland. Make them keep voting until they vote the right way. :pac:

Wacker

PDN wrote: »

That's how we do votes in Ireland. Make them keep voting until they vote the right way. :pac:

But you voted Yes to Lisbon II, if memory serves?! ?


I understand you were being facetious.

mardybumbum

I was a tad confused by the psychology student.
You would be forgiven for thinking she was arguing against the motion.

"If altruism is the means by which the survival of the gene(ome) is ensured in an organism, this process can become so frequent that altruism becomes the norm."

and

"If true morality means a relationship with our fellow beings where we always benifit from our moral behaviour, then yes, one can be truly moral without god."

She then used the following counter argument to provide some basis for her belief in God. "Humans would be mad to give up their possessions, status, time even our lives if there is no glory (I'm assuming she used the word "glory" to replace "advantage") for us?
But where is the evidence that humans, or indeed any species make sacrifices that do not ultimately lead to an increased likelyhood of the survival of their species.
Perhaps she doesn't realise that natural selection is not concerned with conferring advantage to individuals, but to a species as a whole.

The crux of her argument was that it makes no sense to her without god. I believe that it would make plenty of sense to her If she picked up an introductory text on evolution.

Props to the fellow castlebar man whom I was fortunate to meet at the physics olympiad a few years ago. I enjoyed his contribution.
And well done to all the students involved. It takes some balls to stand up in front of a crowd like that.

I look forward to watching the whole debate when I have a bit of time to spare.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

And what is the right, or the wrong?

I think I failed to make my point clear enough, I will try again, as this question is not relevant to what I am trying to say.

It is irrelevant what the right or wrong is, or whether there even IS a right and a wrong to BE, to the point I am making at this time.

I just mean that people tend to say things like "You should have known better" when they THINK they are the ones somehow in the “right” regardless of whether that “right” even exists to be “in” in the first place.

So as for your question, you need to ask the person saying "You should have known better" what the right/wrong is/was. Not me.

My point put another way is that pointing our a quirk of the english language where people say "You should have known better" does not somehow imply there even IS a "better" to be known.

I COULD say to someone who says chocolate tastes bad that they should "know better" as if the good taste of chocolate is some objective truth to be "known". It is not however and taste is a purely subjective experience and me saying something like "you should know better" does not magically confer some attribute into the realm of "truth" that was not there before.

As I said, if someone wants to assign attributes to something solely through pointing out how people use language strangely, then alarm bells should go off in your head instantly.

Or my point put one final different way in the hope at least one of them succeeds, is that we must first establish there IS a right and wrong first, before deciding which is which. And someone using a common English turn of phrase which inherently assumes that there IS, does not mean that there automatically is.

philologos

My point just was that your language itself points towards an absolute form of good and evil.

In reality, as much as people would like to engage in pretence about how morality is constructed, people operate on a day to day basis by appealing to universals in every day moral dilemmas.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

My point just was that your language itself points towards an absolute form of good and evil.

In reality, as much as people would like to engage in pretence about how morality is constructed, people operate on a day to day basis by appealing to universals in every day moral dilemmas.

Yes you're absolutely right that people appeal to universals but those "universals" are invariably only considered universal within a particular society at a particular time. In Ireland in the 21st century "you don't drink and drive" is fast becoming a universal and you would be very likely to hear someone say "you should have known better" and I often hear people calling for life sentences and attempted murder charges to be levelled against drink drivers but the same would definitely not have been said 30 years ago when it was considered normal. That's just one example but I could go on forever listing things that certain societies consider "just wrong" that different societies don't or that the same societies didn't not too long ago. So the fact that human beings talk as if there is a single universal standard does not mean there is one.