Debate Summary

Friends, I was recently sent an AI-generated summary of my debate with Shermer. It is balanced, insightful, and does a remarkable job capturing the heart of our arguments! Check it out!

Is morality better explained by God or science? This is the fundamental question at the heart of my recent debate between Christian apologist Sean McDowell and renowned skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer. As two leading thinkers in their respective fields, their discussion provides a fascinating window into the clash of worldviews when it comes to the origins and foundations of morality.

On one side, McDowell argues that a theistic, Christian framework best accounts for objective moral values, human dignity, and free will - core aspects of the moral realm that he believes cannot be adequately grounded in a purely naturalistic, scientific worldview. Shermer, on the other hand, contends that science and reason alone can provide a robust foundation for morality, without needing to appeal to the supernatural or divine command.

This debate touches on some of the most fundamental questions in philosophy and ethics: What is the source of moral truth? Do we have genuine free will, or are our choices ultimately determined by physical causes? How can we ground the inherent worth and dignity of every human being? The stakes are high, as the answers to these questions have profound implications for how we understand ourselves, our moral obligations, and the meaning of the human experience.

Grounding Morality in Nature

At the heart of Shermer's case is the idea that we can derive objective moral truths from the natural world, without needing to appeal to the supernatural or divine. As an atheist and self-described "materialist reductionist," Shermer argues that the laws of physics, biology, and evolution provide a sufficient foundation for morality.

Shermer points to the survival and flourishing of sentient beings as the bedrock of his moral framework. He contends that because evolution has "designed" us to have a strong drive to survive and thrive, we can derive objective moral obligations from this basic fact of our nature. As he states, "if the survival and flourishing of individual sentient beings is the foundation of values and morals, then we can say objectively and absolutely that ending poverty is real moral progress."

Furthermore, Shermer argues that the cooperative, reciprocal nature of human relationships - what he calls "reciprocal altruism" - also provides a naturalistic basis for moral norms like honesty, promise-keeping, and care for others. He believes that these moral intuitions and behaviors have been shaped by evolutionary pressures to promote the survival and thriving of our species.

• Shermer contends that science can provide a robust foundation for morality, without needing to appeal to the supernatural or divine.
• He grounds objective moral truths in the natural drive for survival and flourishing of sentient beings, as shaped by evolutionary processes.
• Shermer also points to the cooperative, reciprocal nature of human relationships as a naturalistic basis for moral norms like honesty and care for others.

The Challenge of Grounding Morality in Nature

While Shermer's arguments are compelling, McDowell raises some significant challenges to the idea of grounding morality solely in a naturalistic, scientific framework. One of his key objections is the is-ought problem, first articulated by the philosopher David Hume.

The is-ought problem points out the logical gap between descriptive claims about how the world is (the "is") and prescriptive claims about how the world ought to be (the "ought"). McDowell argues that Shermer's move from the "is" of human nature and evolutionary drives to the "ought" of moral obligations is problematic. Just because we have certain instincts or feelings, McDowell contends, does not necessarily mean we are morally obligated to act on them.

McDowell also questions how Shermer can ground the inherent worth and dignity of every human being within a purely naturalistic worldview. He argues that if morality is simply a product of evolutionary forces, then our moral intuitions and beliefs are ultimately just subjective feelings that have no objective, mind-independent reality. This raises the specter of moral relativism, where there is no basis to say that one moral view is truly better or more justified than another.

Furthermore, McDowell points to the challenge of reconciling determinism and free will within a naturalistic framework. If our thoughts and behaviors are ultimately the product of physical, causal factors, he argues, then how can we be truly free and morally responsible agents? Shermer's response of "compatibilism" - the idea that free will is compatible with determinism - does not fully satisfy McDowell, who sees a deeper tension between the two.

• McDowell challenges Shermer's attempt to derive "ought" claims from "is" claims, arguing this commits the is-ought fallacy.
• He questions how Shermer can ground the inherent worth and dignity of human beings within a purely naturalistic worldview, fearing this leads to moral relativism.
• McDowell also raises concerns about reconciling determinism and free will in a naturalistic framework, arguing Shermer's "compatibilism" is insufficient.

The Theistic Alternative

In contrast to Shermer's naturalistic approach, McDowell argues that a theistic, Christian worldview provides a more robust and coherent foundation for morality. At the heart of his case is the idea that objective moral values, human dignity, and free will are best accounted for by the existence of a good, all-powerful God who has created us in His image.

McDowell contends that if God exists, then moral truths are not arbitrary or subjective, but are grounded in the very nature of this divine being. Just as the number 2 is necessarily even, McDowell believes that God's perfect goodness and justice serve as the authoritative source for moral obligations. Furthermore, the idea that humans are made in God's image provides a powerful basis for the inherent worth and dignity of every person, regardless of their circumstances or societal status.

Regarding free will, McDowell argues that the theistic framework of body and soul better accounts for our experience of genuine choice and moral responsibility. He sees the human person as an embodied, rational agent with an immaterial "soul" that is distinct from the physical brain. This allows for a form of libertarian free will, where our choices are not fully determined by prior physical causes.

Ultimately, McDowell believes that the theistic worldview provides a more coherent and satisfying explanation for the moral realm than the naturalistic alternative. While he acknowledges the challenges and mysteries involved, he contends that the Christian framework best aligns with our deepest moral intuitions and lived experience.

• McDowell argues that a theistic, Christian worldview provides a more robust foundation for objective moral values, human dignity, and free will.
• He contends that moral truths are grounded in the nature of a good, all-powerful God, rather than being arbitrary or subjective.
• McDowell's theistic framework of body and soul better accounts for genuine human agency and moral responsibility, in contrast to the determinism inherent in naturalism.

If you are looking for a guide on how to have meaningful conversations with people who see the world differently, check out my recent book End the Stalemate.