My Debate on the Grounding of Morality

Was I nervous? Yes, absolutely. Of course, this wasn't my ordinary speaking event. On April 5, about 170 people packed a room at Weber State University, to watch my formal debate with professor of philosophy Dr. Richard Greene. The question: Can there be objective moral values and obligations without God? Each debater had 20 minutes for opening arguments, a 10-minute rebuttal, about 40 minutes of joint Q & A from the audience, and a 5-minute conclusion.

Dr. Greene had home field advantage. He has been teaching classes at Weber State for about eight years and a number of his students came out for the debate.  About 65% of the attendees indicated on a pre-debate survey that they held Dr. Greene’s view, that morality is best explained without God.

I won’t rehearse all the details of the debate here as I've posted the video below, but it was a lively give-and-take and I thoroughly enjoyed it (particularly in hindsight!). Certainly, as a rookie debater--this was my second formal debate in my ten years of work at Stand to Reason--there are areas I can grow in and arguments I can improve. Indeed, I knew I would make some mistakes and drop some balls, and in my immediate post-debate reflections, it was difficult not to obsess over those things. The experience reminded me of what rookie NFL quarterbacks say about the speed of the game and how fast it seems to be moving during their rookie year.  However, seasoned veterans will talk about how the game has "slowed down" and how they see so much more now, after years of practice and game experience.  Well, as a rookie debater I definitely felt the "speed" of the debate.  Lots of things were said, I had organize my thoughts quickly, and then figure out what to respond to and how best to respond.  

As I've reveiwed some of the "game film," there are several things I need to work on and improve.  First, I needed to address more of the details that Dr. Greene discussed.  In particular, Dr. Greene threw out a few possible ways he thinks we can have morality without God, mentioning Plato's view and utilitarianism as examples. I responded to his claim that all he had to show were mere possibilities, but I also I needed to spend a few moments showing how Plato's view is inadequate to ground morality. In regards to utilitarianism, I needed to distinguish between the meta-ethical foundations of ethics (which was the topic of our debate) from normative systems of ethics. Second, during the Q&A there was a question regarding free will and after my response, Dr. Greene claimed there was no free will (around 1:30:45 in the video).  Unfortunately, I failed to hammer him on the incompatibility of determinism and moral action.  Third, I really needed to draw the audience's attention to the fact that Dr. Greene did not knock down my contentions, nor answer a number of the arguments I raised.  I think I needed to push him much harder in my responses. Well, I plan to go back and watch the entire "game film" a few times and also have some folks help me evaluate. I can and will learn from my mistakes in attempt to improve my debate skills and master the arguments.

For me, the highlight of the debate came from an unexpected source—a group of high school students. The debate was scheduled at the tail end of a Utah Mission trip I was leading for Upland Christian Academy, a Christian high school in Southern California. We had spent the previous four days sharing Christ with Mormons around the Salt Lake Valley. However, all week I was regretting the decision to coincide the mission trip and debate, feeling like my attention was torn between the two. In contrast, the high schoolers kept sharing their excitement about the debate. “That’s nice,” I thought to myself, “but I’ll never do this again!” God needed to change my perspective.

The afternoon of the debate, students helped with set up and created signs to post around campus. During the debate, they sat at the individual tables, collecting surveys from attendees and facilitating questions for the Q & A. Afterward, they helped clean up. When it was all said and done, we returned to our host church for a late night debrief.

But rather than being worn out from a long day, the students were beaming. Their excitement was palpable. They couldn’t wait to discuss the debate. As they shared their thoughts and feelings, it was clear this event was a huge faith-builder. They didn’t just get a behind-the-scenes peek at my debate preparation and nervousness. They didn’t just get to help with debate details, like room setup. They felt like they had just walked side-by-side with me, into hostile territory, and then watched as one of their own Christian leaders stepped up in a public venue to defend the truth of Christianity. And from their perspective, our arguments won the day. Here’s how sophomore Micah summarized it:

[L]ately, the secular world seems to dismiss Christians and Christianity, and theology in general, as an outdated form of science or philosophy. Brett totally proving them wrong was a very fun thing to see. Dr. Greene, the atheist professor, made bottomless and obviously last-minute mocked-up arguments that held no weight. He simply displayed possibilities, rather than giving a real objective moral basis without God.

After hearing from students, I realized the entire endeavor was worthwhile. Studying for countless hours was worth it. Balancing the trip and the debate was worth it. Constantly fighting back my nerves was worth it. It was all worth it to build the God-confidence of those 20 high school students.

Here is video of the debate for your enjoyment!

 

Comments

[KWM]

Wow.

I’m only 30 minutes in, but Dr. Greene's argument amounts to, “Look at these horrible things. Surely we can all acknowledge these things are bad! Killing children and slavery are very very bad. We can all surely think these things are bad. Let’s say there is a world with no God….see these things are still bad!”

I find it amazing that you can lay out, preemptively, that this can be true, yet people always seem to think they’re saying something meaningful when they go ahead and point out the obvious.
I’ll continue watching…

[Brett Kunkle]

KWM, after the debate (of course!), Greg helped me think of a counterexample, as a quick response: "Look at the mail in your mailbox. Surely we can acknowledge there is mail in there. Now, let's say there is a world with no mailmen...see there's still mail in the mailbox! Therefore, we can have mail delivered without mailmen."

[Gabriel]

Brett, great job. I think this was a fantastic blend of the Utah mission with a sprinkling of the Berkeley mixed in. I know the students and I are very grateful for all of your hard work.

[AJG]

Can there be objective moral values and obligations without God?

Dr. Greene is incorrect. There cannot be objective morality without a law-giver. I have no idea why he would attempt to argue otherwise. Rather, humans have moral preferences which are nearly universal and have been selected by natural means. Certain behaviors and preferences were selected by nature because they provided an advantage to humans who had these traits. Man is a social animal so preferences and behaviors that strengthened that social aspect of his person were advantageous to his survival.

So morality is not objective. There is no universal good or evil. However, there are traits and behaviors that repulse the vast majority of humankind and we call those things "evil".

[KWM]

Brett,

Nice. You performed well. L'esprit de l'escalier. But as a fighter might say, “You should’ve seen the other guy”.

In the same vein, I’d also add that the questioner at 1:36 thought a little bit too much of her question.

[Bernie]

Brett;

I am a retired police officer and amateur apologist. I volunteer with the high school group at my church and I am working on a local college campus with Ratio Christi.

I still remember the first traffic ticket I ever wrote. I was more nervous than the guy I stopped. But as I gained experience in lots of areas of law enforcement, I become better at everything from traffic stops to "man with a gun" calls.

I a high stress situation, panic wants to take over. There are three parts to panic: I am alone, I am trapped, I can't handle this - I've got to find a way out.

Even in a crowd, we feel alone in these situation. As a cop, we learn to rely on other officers and the force of the law to be there with us. As apologists we know that we have other Christians and God on our side. (A lot better than a couple cops and a law book)

Being trapped is the feeling of loss of control and the ability to maneuver. Learning good tactical responses is important in law enforcement and the military. Where to defend territory, where to advance, what risks to take, choice of weapons, etc. As you gain experience, you will develop a repertoire of tactics, responses and favorite "weapons".

The "I can't handle this" aspect will diminish with training and experience. Those first few times I turned on the red lights and siren to fly to a call caused sensory overload. The speed, the adrenaline, the apprehension about what to do when I got there, IF I got there in one piece all rushed through my mind. After a while, I was able to think through fast moving crisis situations like they were in slow motion and I had plenty of time to make good decisions.

You are well on your way to handling all three parts of panic.

With experience, those situations that would have caused panic, instead became exciting adventures to be remembered fondly rather than dreaded. Keep up the good work that encourages us all to not only maintain our faith, but to bravely advance the Kingdom.

[KWM]

AJG,

Rather, humans have moral preferences which are nearly universal and have been selected by natural means

Is this similar to how most people like the flavor of chocolate over Brussels sprouts?

Certain behaviors and preferences were selected by nature because they provided an advantage to humans who had these traits. Man is a social animal so preferences and behaviors that strengthened that social aspect of his person were advantageous to his survival.

“Selected by nature?” So “nature” chose behaviors? How did “nature” know which behaviors to choose from? When did this choosing occur? Was killing a bad preference before “nature” decided it was a bad preference? When will nature get to work on passing that info on to the rest of the social animals?

So morality is not objective. There is no universal good or evil. However, there are traits and behaviors that repulse the vast majority of humankind and we call those things "evil".

So it’s morality by popular demand? So, if we all get together and vote on morality would that satisfy our thirst for “nearly universal” moral preference or do individuals get to have their own “preferences”?

[AJG]

“Selected by nature?” So “nature” chose behaviors? How did “nature” know which behaviors to choose from? When did this choosing occur?

Individuals who were predisposed to act in a moral manner had a survivability advantage. Heck, we can observe this behavior in other primates. For a social species (like chimps, bonobos or humans), immoral behavior generally leads to shunning or death and an inability to pass on one's "defective" genes.

Was killing a bad preference before “nature” decided it was a bad preference?

Killing is only perceived as a bad preference by higher-order animals who have the cognitive ability to conceive of the self and the other. I don't want to kill you and steal all your stuff because I understand you are like me with similar wants and needs. I doubt the black widow sees the cricket as anything other than food.

When will nature get to work on passing that info on to the rest of the social animals?

You mean like bonobos? They are decidedly non-violent for the most part toward the apes in their own shrewdness. Of course, they will attack their own kind who they perceive to be a threat. Just like humans.

[scblhrm]

Yes. First the world is too evil for God. Now the world is too slaughter-free for Him.

Comical.

[scblhrm]

KWM

Not to worry about all the talk of natural selection. The naturalist will embrace Love's Image and thank natural selection for it all the while disowning the myriad of combinations and permutations of ugly behaviors as "against the grain". But we know that every behavior has been quietly fostered and watered and valued by natural selection if there is no God. The naturalist who thus attempts the fantasy of "this is universally good and this is universally bad" invokes a moral framework which is thus independent of natural selection when we press him on it. This is the incoherency of such a line. All the killing and inhumanity in the world is, if God, the gift of the Volition which Love calls 'sin', or, if no God, then such is the gift of natural selection's deterministic and volition-less slavery it so values.

[scblhrm]

As in other arenas the naturalist here again borrows from the God of Genesis, that Singular Us, that Singular-Self-Other of Love's necessarily Triune I-You-We who fashions all life as it was and will be again. The naturalist is slowly catching up with the Hebrew and the Christian in his worldview here as, "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."

[RonH]

I won’t rehearse all the details of the debate here as I've posted the video below

!

[Peter]

I haven't seen the video yet. But having spoken with several atheists on this same topic I have come to the conclusion that the reason why these debates can never be resolved is because of fundamental differences in definitions. Even with words that are fairly unambiguous.

Like, 'objective', for example.

I won't be surprised if many atheists define 'Objective' to mean 'Personal Opinions that are free from bias'.

Lesson: Don't be afraid to clarify the meanings of everything that's being discussed. You will end up sounding anal. But you will also force the other person to be upfront about the definitions they're working with. If there are differences in definitions, no point proceeding with the discussion till the differences are sorted out.

[David Kirkland]

Brett, I applaud you for having the courage and strength to step up to this debate! I hope you will do more of these events in the future. Greg, Jim, yourself and Alan are all excellent speakers, quite pleasant, intelligent and respectful. You guys rep the Lord very well, and that is so winsome in the end...
Every time I hear atheists/agnostics/skeptics claiming that objective morals or good and evil can exist with no need for God to define them, I am left asking, "What is natural standard inside humans? or Good and evil COMPARED TO WHAT?" That seems to escape these skeptics, or they side-step the issue on purpose. If people of any society cannot agree on what good and evil must be compared to, or how the standard was first defined, then morals are not objective. They become subject, opinions, preferences, differences of societies and cultures, and compared to many things. Skeptics act like a bunch of cavemen "voted" on what was considered evil millions of years ago, and it just stuck with us for some reason (Evolution?) Why did those cavemen have an inherent feeling of what is GOOD inside them, and want that more than evil? Many people enjoy evil, and it is far easier, and we cannot seem to agree on what is "good for society" to save our lives presently. So, these things are NOT determined simply by majority (or even vocal minority) The buck must stop somewhere as far as an ultimate source of "good", and I believe that is God. If people compare good and evil to far different sources, there will be no consistency or objective end. Thanks for your hard work & God bless! - Dave

[Richard Greene]

Dear Brett,
I'm glad the debate was a good experience for you. I really enjoyed it, too. It was much fun and I think my students got a lot out of it. I hope that our paths cross again in the future. I wish you all the best.

Richard Greene

[Brett Kunkle]

Hi Dr. Greene,
I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and you were a fantastic debate partner. Maybe we can have a second round sometime in the future!

[Slcik]

Prof green mopped the floor with him