The topic of the debate was on the grounding of morality – which worldview (theism or atheism) is better at grounding morality?

And here is the MP3 for the cross-examination only, which is what I will be summarizing. (12.5 Mb)

The full debate can be seen here and can be heard here.

Turek’s cross-examination period starts at 74m22s and ends at 89m20s.

Shermer’s cross-examination period starts at 89m50s and ends at 105m0s.

Topics of Turek’s cross-examination:

• evolution produces Shermer’s moral sense and Hitler’s moral sense
• why does Shermer think his is better than Hitler’s, since both were produced by the same evolution?
• what makes right or wrong if evolution is the source of morality?
• why is Stalin’s opinion of right and wrong less valuable than the herd’s opinion of right and wrong?
• do the Founding Fathers ground inalienable rights in a Creator, or in evolution?
• can atheism ground the existence of inalienable rights?
• can you ground objective moral values and objective moral duties by asking people how they feel?
• can you ground objective human rights on atheism by shouting like a madman and interrupting?
• how can you trust your thinking if they are the result of an unguided, random process of evolution?
• how can you have rational thoughts if materialism is true, and you are a machine made out of meat?
• can you ground objective moral values and objective moral duties on personal preferences?
• how do the personal preferences of some individuals create an objective moral duty for other individuals?
• does naturalistic evolution orient human beings toward survival or truth?
• on materialism, what is the chemical composition of justice?

Topics of Shermer’s cross-examination:

• Radical muslims are exactly the same as evangelical Christians, and have the same God (Allah is the same as the Triune Christian God)
• Radical muslims would assert that their God is the same as the Triune Christian God, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit also being God
• Therefore, we can lay the blame for what radical muslims do on the backs of evangelical Christians
• Radical muslims and evangelical Christians are the same, because “you’re enthusiastic, they’re enthusiastic”
• The Bible’s notion of indentured servitude to pay off debt is the identical to the idea of slavery based on race
• The Bible’s notion that masters and slaves are equal in the sight of God forms a basis for thinking they are unequal
• The Bible teaches things that I disagree with, like the idea that marriage should provide children with a mother and a father
• Gay marriage is solidly grounded in evolution, even though the morality that evolution produces varies by time and place
• Atheists can ground objective moral values and objective moral duties by asking people how they feel
• Can atheists who want to legalize gay marriage because “they’re in love” prohibit polygamy or incest as marriage?
• Is shouting “you’re on the wrong side of history” a way to rationally ground morality in an accidental atheistic universe?
• Is it loving for atheists to celebrate a lifestyle that exposes gay men to sickness and premature death?
• Is it “bigotry” for the Center for Disease Control to warn men who have sex with men about higher health risks?
• How do Christians decide what is right and wrong when they are confronted with a moral dilemma?
• How do humans sense the objective moral standard that is required for them to make moral judgments
• Can enlightenment philosophers who merely imagine human rights actually create those human rights?
• If revelations change over time for Mormons, does that undermine the need for God to ground objective morality?

I apologize for the poor quality of the video and audio. The moderator was extremely ineffective, letting Shermer go on and on making speeches instead of asking questions during his questioning time. Also, Shermer apparently thought that shouting at Turek and waving his finger at Turek was a good strategy to defend against Turek’s use of logic and evidence.

My thoughts on Michael Shermer

I do want to make some general comments about what Shermer said. Shermer’s view of morality is “what is best for the greatest number of people”. There are no inalienable rights that act as a break on the will of the majority. Shermer has no objection to anything that the majority has decided in any time or in any place. If he were there, he would agree that whatever they decided was morally right.

Two hundred years ago, Shermer would have endorsed slavery. And if he were in Germany 50 years ago, he would have endorsed the Holocaust. If he lived in a Pakistan today, he would endorse stoning women for wearing the wrong clothes. Atheists always think that whatever the majority is doing in a particular time and place is right for them. There are no inalienable human rights that exist apart from human opinions, on atheism.

Another problem is that Shermer is constantly making moral judgments when his own view is that morality is constantly changing in different times and places. He condemns the moral values of other times and places without having any standard in his worldview that can decide between different moral values and duties. It is like saying that lunch is better than breakfast because lunch is here and now, and breakfast was then and there. That is literally what atheists do when they make moral judgments. They have no standard that applies to different times and places, just the ever evolving opinions of the majority of people in different times and places.

Is Michael Shermer concerned about morality?

Finally, I want people to understand what kind of person Michael Shermer is. You can read a post by PZ Myers on his blog Pharyngula to get the picture. I think it’s useful to know about Shermer’s own morality since he seems to like to make moral judgments so much during debates. In my own experience in dealing with atheists, although they will talk about slavery and the Crusades, there is nothing in an atheist’s moral system that makes things wrong for all times and all places. They bring it up to stop you from judging them about the things that they care about. When an atheist says “the Crusades! Slavery!” what they really mean is “I need to shame you for having a basis for moral judgments against me, so that you won’t say anything about me getting married women drunk then raping them”. That’s what atheistic use of moral language is really about.

What atheists really think about morality

Atheist Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

So, when Shermer tries to shame Christians for behaviors in other times and places which our society here and now disagrees with, what he really means is “morality, objectively speaking, is nonsense, but I will use your moral sense that comes from your non-atheistic worldview to shame you, so that you won’t have the confidence to judge me for my immoral behavior”. And we need to get used to understanding this about atheists. Morality is nonsense to them, and their real goal is to get you off their back for their hedonism. For atheists, morality is just complying with arbitrary social customs which vary by time and place. There is nothing more to it than aping their neighbors (at least when their neighbors are watching). And they would have aped slave-owners, widow-burners and Nazi prison guards too, if they lived in that time and place. And shouted at Christians for disagreeing with them, just like Shermer did about gay marriage.

If you like the way that Frank Turek debates, then be sure and check out his new book “Stealing From God“. I highly recommend it.

The topic of the debate was on the grounding of morality – which worldview (theism or atheism) is better at grounding morality?

And here is the MP3 for the cross-examination only, which is what I will be summarizing. (12.5 Mb)

The full debate can be seen here and can be heard here.

Turek’s cross-examination period starts at 74m22s and ends at 89m20s.

Shermer’s cross-examination period starts at 89m50s and ends at 105m0s.

Topics of Turek’s cross-examination:

• evolution produces Shermer’s moral sense and Hitler’s moral sense
• why does Shermer think his is better than Hitler’s, since both were produced by the same evolution?
• what makes right or wrong if evolution is the source of morality?
• why is Stalin’s opinion of right and wrong less valuable than the herd’s opinion of right and wrong?
• do the Founding Fathers ground inalienable rights in a Creator, or in evolution?
• can atheism ground the existence of inalienable rights?
• can you ground objective moral values and objective moral duties by asking people how they feel?
• can you ground objective human rights on atheism by shouting like a madman and interrupting?
• how can you trust your thinking if they are the result of an unguided, random process of evolution?
• how can you have rational thoughts if materialism is true, and you are a machine made out of meat?
• can you ground objective moral values and objective moral duties on personal preferences?
• how do the personal preferences of some individuals create an objective moral duty for other individuals?
• does naturalistic evolution orient human beings toward survival or truth?
• on materialism, what is the chemical composition of justice?

Topics of Shermer’s cross-examination:

• Radical muslims are exactly the same as evangelical Christians, and have the same God (Allah is the same as the Triune Christian God)
• Radical muslims would assert that their God is the same as the Triune Christian God, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit also being God
• Therefore, we can lay the blame for what radical muslims do on the backs of evangelical Christians
• Radical muslims and evangelical Christians are the same, because “you’re enthusiastic, they’re enthusiastic”
• The Bible’s notion of indentured servitude to pay off debt is the identical to the idea of slavery based on race
• The Bible’s notion that masters and slaves are equal in the sight of God forms a basis for thinking they are unequal
• The Bible teaches things that I disagree with, like the idea that marriage should provide children with a mother and a father
• Gay marriage is solidly grounded in evolution, even though the morality that evolution produces varies by time and place
• Atheists can ground objective moral values and objective moral duties by asking people how they feel
• Can atheists who want to legalize gay marriage because “they’re in love” prohibit polygamy or incest as marriage?
• Is shouting “you’re on the wrong side of history” a way to rationally ground morality in an accidental atheistic universe?
• Is it loving for atheists to celebrate a lifestyle that exposes gay men to sickness and premature death?
• Is it “bigotry” for the Center for Disease Control to warn men who have sex with men about higher health risks?
• How do Christians decide what is right and wrong when they are confronted with a moral dilemma?
• How do humans sense the objective moral standard that is required for them to make moral judgments
• Can enlightenment philosophers who merely imagine human rights actually create those human rights?
• If revelations change over time for Mormons, does that undermine the need for God to ground objective morality?

I apologize for the poor quality of the video and audio. The moderator was extremely ineffective, letting Shermer go on and on making speeches instead of asking questions during his questioning time. Also, Shermer apparently thought that shouting at Turek and waving his finger at Turek was a good strategy to defend against Turek’s use of logic and evidence.

My thoughts on Michael Shermer

I do want to make some general comments about what Shermer said. Shermer’s view of morality is “what is best for the greatest number of people”. There are no inalienable rights that act as a break on the will of the majority. Shermer has no objection to anything that the majority has decided in any time or in any place. If he were there, he would agree that whatever they decided was morally right.

Two hundred years ago, Shermer would have endorsed slavery. And if he were in Germany 50 years ago, he would have endorsed the Holocaust. If he lived in a Pakistan today, he would endorse stoning women for wearing the wrong clothes. Atheists always think that whatever the majority is doing in a particular time and place is right for them. There are no inalienable human rights that exist apart from human opinions, on atheism.

Another problem is that Shermer is constantly making moral judgments when his own view is that morality is constantly changing in different times and places. He condemns the moral values of other times and places without having any standard in his worldview that can decide between different moral values and duties. It is like saying that lunch is better than breakfast because lunch is here and now, and breakfast was then and there. That is literally what atheists do when they make moral judgments. They have no standard that applies to different times and places, just the ever evolving opinions of the majority of people in different times and places.

Is Michael Shermer concerned about morality?

Finally, I want people to understand what kind of person Michael Shermer is. You can read a post by PZ Myers on his blog Pharyngula to get the picture. I think it’s useful to know about Shermer’s own morality since he seems to like to make moral judgments so much during debates. In my own experience in dealing with atheists, although they will talk about slavery and the Crusades, there is nothing in an atheist’s moral system that makes things wrong for all times and all places. They bring it up to stop you from judging them about the things that they care about. When an atheist says “the Crusades! Slavery!” what they really mean is “I need to shame you for having a basis for moral judgments against me, so that you won’t say anything about me getting married women drunk then raping them”. That’s what atheistic use of moral language is really about.

What atheists really think about morality

Atheist Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

So, when Shermer tries to shame Christians for behaviors in other times and places which our society here and now disagrees with, what he really means is “morality, objectively speaking, is nonsense, but I will use your moral sense that comes from your non-atheistic worldview to shame you, so that you won’t have the confidence to judge me for my immoral behavior”. And we need to get used to understanding this about atheists. Morality is nonsense to them, and their real goal is to get you off their back for their hedonism. For atheists, morality is just complying with arbitrary social customs which vary by time and place. There is nothing more to it than aping their neighbors (at least when their neighbors are watching). And they would have aped slave-owners, widow-burners and Nazi prison guards too, if they lived in that time and place. And shouted at Christians for disagreeing with them, just like Shermer did about gay marriage.

If you like the way that Frank Turek debates, then be sure and check out his new book “Stealing From God“. I highly recommend it.