Debate Teacher Reacts: William Lane Craig vs. Shelly Kagan

On the latest Debate Teacher Reacts, I look at an apologetics debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan on the topic "Is God Necessary for Morality?" Who handled himself better? Find out in this episode!

[christophekeating]

Good analysis! I just want to add that Dr. Craig has commented on this exchange on his website in question of the week #116 Contemporary Moral Arguments.
Here's an excerpt:
"I didn't press the point because our hosts with the Veritas Forum had made it very clear to me that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment, which I think we did."

[TheGoogleScholar]

I very much agree that Kagan came across as more comfortable and relatable stylistically. Even his sweater over collared shirt combo paired with the jeans and sneakers contributed a subtle visual cue that this guy is in his element. Lol

[charlesbrown]

I read Craig's reflection of this discussion and he said the reason that he didn't really press Kagan harder on his views was because he was explicitly told by the people hosting the discussion that they basically didn't want a knock down debate but rather a place that was more warm and inviting and that would serve as a jumping off point for other people to continue these types of discussions

[jpissini]

Dude, your inputs and comments on debates are very informative and great. I’m glad to have found your channel.

[sensereference]

In regards to 23:06. If you get a group of people together and they all agree that monopoly money is a million dollars then, at least as far as interactions within that group go, isn't it a million dollars in the most significant sense (i.e. paper currency that can be exchanged for goods and services from those people)? So, the value of the money does change depending on what label people decide to collectively apply to it.

[DanielApologetics]

I would love to see Dr. David Baggett debate Shelly Kagan on this topic.
(Baggett is renowned for being one of the best Christians out there defending the moral argument - I think he phrase differently than Craig.)

[MaverickChristian]

I think Kagan is answering the question about moral grounding; he's saying that human mental capacities are what make humans moral agents, and that moral properties supervening on such natural facts (facts of psychology and the natural sciences) is simply a "brute fact" with no further explanation.

Do I think the explanation works on atheism? No, but I can understand it.

[Dionysus]

Kagan said to Craig "Originally you asked me how I can explain why it's wrong for me to murder when it's not wrong for lions to murder." You objected saying "Ahhh... not exactly", but that's not correct. Craig DID ask this at 2:24 directly: "...why on the worldview of naturalism [is] inflicting harm *upon other members of our species* really wrong? It seems to me that this happens all the time among *other animals* . So why is it wrong peculiarly for humans to inflict harm on each other". Kagan gave a set of specific reasons why this is so.

You say that Kagan is "still not answering the question" at 7:00, but that's not true. He answered it directly. His position is that once conscious creatures achieve a certain level of rationality and with it the ability to appreciate reasons to behave morally, nothing more is needed for good or evil to enter into the world. That's not the theistic view, but it IS an answer to the question, even if you don't find it sufficient.

One consistent point where there seems to be a hangup is where Kagan appeals to the generally broad human ability to reason and appreciate reasons to behave morally as one of the the key ingredients for good and evil to enter the world. Craig agrees that these things are a necessary feature of a foundation for morality, but in his view they are not sufficient. This seems to me to beg some questions:

~Is *God* capable of appreciating reasons why humans should behave in certain ways and not in other ways? (Remember that both Craig and Kagan agree that at least this much is necessary as a feature of a moral foundation)

~If he is capable of appreciating those reasons, then does that ability play a role in how he determines what is good/evil behavior? (As above)

~If God's appreciation of those reasons does play a role, does not that make it so that some acts are not amoral (as you said), but rather, are good or evil in and of themselves, irrespective of God's commands of them?

~If God's appreciation of those reasons does NOT play a role in God's commanding of the foundations of morality, then why is the ability to appreciate reasons why humans should behave in certain ways and not in other ways important at all?

~If God is NOT capable of appreciating reasons why humans should behave in certain ways and not in other ways, then would that not make it so that God's commands are capricious, since he is not capable of appreciating such reasons and thus is incapable of understanding such reasons and/or doesn't that mean that such reasons don't actually exist in any meaningful sense?

[voodoopriestessXY]

I find it highly suspect that a debate teacher failed to include Craig's use of the "no true Scotsman" in their analysis of this debate.

[mdsammy]

I’m used to Craig representing himself and his arguments much better than this. He seems less comfortable and prepared than in other debates I’ve seen.
I’ll have to watch the whole thing but it seemed like Kegan took control and Craig wasn’t able to get off his back foot.

[filchhoff]

"if I hold this apple and a bunch of people say it's worth 1 mil, they are still wrong!"

*Pays for food with a piece of plastic*

All money is a social construct. It's a contract between people to agree these imaginary numbers are worth something when traded. We also agree to have paper or code to stand in for actual value (originally each dollar represented an amount of gold in your bank account, then we had more money then gold and we did away with the metal conversion. Though even gold holds no inherit value, old that which it is proscribed.
So yes, as a matter of fact, if everyone agreed that apple was worth 1 mil, it would be worth 1 mil.
If you need any more convincing, look at the modern art market.

[micahknerl]

I've recently discovered this channel and I'm thankful I have, Thank you for the content.

[Kaymen]

5:55 Not exactly, the question was; what makes inflicting harm _really wrong"_

Which is, in reality, a heavily loaded question as Dr. Craig is essentially asking, mind you, an atheist: "What makes something _God wrong", _ and for all the obvious reasons Dr. Kagan can't answer this in any manner that will fully satisfy Dr. Craig - or any christian listening, which are all pre-supposing that "cosmic/God wrongness" is something that exists.

[victor_rybin]

the "debate teacher" reacted not as a debate teacher, but as a christian apologist.

8:52 Kagan did say why rape "on itself is wrong" - "because ideal people think it's wrong". how is it different from Craig, who says it's wrong, because "god thinks it's wrong". or does god sprinkle rape with some additional wrongness, so that it's "wrong on itself"?

23:01 theists are "agreeing" on the definitions of words, defining god into existence: "objective by definition means given by god.." but it's not how it's used in language.

[scienceexplains]

Calling something wrong isn’t just a linguistic quirk for naturalists. We mean that it is perceived to do harm. Rape is wrong because it harms the victim and terrorizes people who see themselves as similar. So all women on a campus can reasonably feel threatened when one is raped.
Why is rape wrong under Christianity? The Bible treats it as a property crime against the woman’s effective male owner and imposes a 50 shekel fine. Jesus said the Law must be fulfilled. In the USA, The people trying to reduce the ability to punish rape are generally theists.

[adenjones]

23:04

This is a terrible argument and a bad example of objective value. Primarily because a bunch of people getting together and agreeing that what you have is a million dollars is PRECISLY how money works. That collective agreement is the thing that makes money valuable. Otherwise it's just paper.

[pookz]

Kagan is purposefully not elaborating in his worldview because “is god necessary for morality” is the prompt. That’s why he always says “why can’t it be [my view]” without justifying his worldview. Because Craig presents his, but to then say it’s necessary he needs to argue that the propositions Kagan is laying out are false, since they are possible alternatives. Kagan is not required to elaborate on reasons for these alternatives, because Craigs argument hinges on the fact that God is the only resolution to these issues.

[guillermocuadra]

As you suggest, the key of this debate is separating moral ontology from moral epistemology. Most people don't pickup on that significant distinction.

[gthamite]

I was at that debate. I am a Craig fanboy but must admit this was one of his poorer debates. Kagan held his own and then some. Not Craig's best night.

[jackwilmoresongs]

After viewing many Craig debates and this one a number of times, I have to agree that Kagan, I think came off better. As a Christian and Craig enthusiast, I came away willing to take an Ethics class with Shelley Kagan.