Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
"Can we be good without God?" William Lane Craig Lecture Highlights, SOAS, London, October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2012
- Extracts from the full lecture, which can be viewed at: • William Lane Craig: Ca...
Prof. William Lane Craig was invited by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Christian Union, London to give a lecture titled "Can we be good without God?"
Dr Craig presented a 45 minute lecture followed by questions from the student audience.
The lecture formed part of the Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. The Tour was sponsored by Damaris Trust, UCCF and Premier Christian Radio.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.
For more resources visit www.bethinking.org
More videos from the tour can be viewed at: / reasonablefaithtour
More videos of Dr Craig's work can be viewed at:
/ drcraigvideos
Production of this presentation is sponsored by The Christian Evidence Society: www.christianev...
No. It's pretty spot on.
Depends which way you look at it. My father was an atheist and a fine man. Having said that If as I believe there is no god then it stands to reason that you don't need god to be good.
You only proved you don't need to Believe in God to be good.
WLC is a beast.
I'm not sure what you are asking.
(2) is about what subjective moral theorists believe. Whether they are correct or not is a good philosophical debate, but there is no question as to whether or not that IS what they in fact believe.
(3) is something I noticed WLC does.
Nah, I believe it is. I even checked it twice.
We are all the moderators. Conjuring up a god solves nothing.
It's not misleading, because only if morality is objective can a **thing** be described as wrong (e.g. the act of rape can be described as wrong).
If morality is subjective, then there is no thing which is really wrong. The "wrong" merely describes the individual's taste, but the "wrong" cannot be attached to anything.
I wrote why already. Over a month ago....look down at the comments.
My only problem with WLC when he speaks about ethics, is that his speeches are full of biased phrases which can confuse people who aren't familiar with moral philosophy.
To say that the difference between object and subjective values is that in an objective view "something's are REALLY wrong" is far too misleading.
Based mostly on the genesis 1:11, but with regard that God Himself ordered to the "Son of Man to Domain"; should the endless Omnipresence of God even in all living beings, affect our Moral, Principles and Ethics regarding how we deal with wildlife?
Can and invalidating that living beings are in any case "adoptive sons", and even due to their limited degree of intelligence, also that being not sapient; be considered that they are correspondingly servants of God, since in many of The Holy Bible references, they do obey to God?
If so, can there exist some degree of corresponding Love , Care and Protection?
Obs; I Thank the Authority for any reply, For The Holy Spirit in You, has in me , even in all nature's beings.
It's misleading, and precisely for the reasons you describe.
(1) I'm a moral realist
(2) The subjectivist does NOT say that "wrongness" does not exist. He simply asserts its dependent on the individual; its not universal.
(3) WLC does this again and again: uses his moral realist definition of wrong to conclude that the subjectivist therefore doesn't REALLY believe in "wrongness." The status of "wrongness" is what being debated.
Text/Title: An unexisting divided reality/ An amateur(layman) experience perspective.
In my opinion; God of us all, and the duty for Him, never was divided, from the common days reality of carrer, status, and monetary success.The human freewill and respective time's comprehension of the options it can choose, my leave the apearance that its dificult to accomplish the duty in equilibrium; but God in His Will makes able through time, any individual of any carrer, status, and monetary achievement , that also obeys to His laws, but with His care and Protection.
In my opinion also; if we would hyphoteticaly observe the majority of world's population, the middle, and even "economic dificulties"(lower) classes, the Faith based belief systems are more secure and reliable in their traditions and habits; but only an dedicated statistical study, can possibly validate or not .
Obs and opinion; The Humanism remains with its advantages, disavantages and also limits, that even any Philosophy, or even any existing field of knowledge, has the most equilibrated; I.E. the individualism, with respect to the mentioned advantages, disanvantages and limits, that has vastly though time gained an dominance over other(s) Philosophies; only achieved the "almost static" result, that can even be validated by conducted studies; the economic growth, and wealth remains with the majority of its "richness", that belongs to the steady minority, that slowly growths, leaving an apearance that regarding the middle and lower classes numbers increase though time, that its just an illusion.
If we again had access to the correlation of data regarding the Individualism aproach growth in societiy(s) individuals, through the last decades, and the statistical growth rate of all classes( lower, middle higher); we could validate or not, even know if the illusion exists , or will persist.
Luís Maduro.