I got the audio for this debate from Apologetics 315, linked below.
Here is the MP3 file.
Sean’s case is similar to the one I make, but he only has 3 minimal requirements for morality.
First, he explains the difference between objective and subjective truth claims, and points out that statements of a moral nature are meaningless unless morality is objective. Then he states 3 things that are needed in order to ground objective morality.
- an objective moral standard
- free will
- objective moral value of humans
The question of the foundations of morality is without a doubt the easiest issue for beginning apologists to discuss with their neighbor. If you’re new, then you need to at least listen to his opening speech. He’s an excellent speaker, and his rebuttals are very, very smooth. The citations of atheist philosophers like Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, e.g. – to show that “religious” wars had nothing to do with religion, really hurt his opponent. He seems to cite prominent atheists like Thomas Nagel, Richard Taylor, Michael Shermer, etc., constantly in order to get support for his assertions. That took preparation. McDowell was very calm in this debate. It’s very hard to stay calm when someone is disagreeing with you in front of a crowd, but McDowell did a great job at that. He also seemed to be really prepared, because his rebuttals were crisp and concise.
For those of you who want to understand how these things work, listen to the debate. There is a period of cross-examination if you like that sort of thing. I do!
Filed under: Podcasts, Agency, Atheism, Atheist, Debate, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, Free Will, Freedom, God, James Corbett, Logic, Moral Law, Moral Standard, Moral Values, Morality, Objective Moral Standard, Objective Morality, Ontological Foundations, Personal Preference, Rationality, Reason, Sean McDowell, Secular Humanism, Socio-biological Evolution, Subjective Preference, Theism