1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Yes, atheists can have objective morality

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Arthur King, Aug 5, 2023.

?
  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, it is not irrelevant. Is sin (a) only destructive because God punishes it, or is sin (b) a violation of the order in nature and a violation of the purposes of human nature seeks, and therefore intrinsically harmful.

    On (a) we live in a morally subjective and morally relative universe in which order must be imposed by a powerful authority. On (b) we live in an ordered universe (like the one described in Genesis 1) and therefore the universe and human nature have a moral structure to them.
     
  2. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The argument should go the other way round and is quite sound.

    1. If objective moral values exist, then God must exist.

    2. Objective moral values do exist.

    3. Therefore, God must exist.
     
  3. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The OP explains why this argument is wrong.
     
  4. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Making the OP wrong, and not just in that point. :Wink Seriously, there is more to it, of course, but the basic argument, as my post presented it, is essentially correct, albeit abbreviated.

    The actual flow is less direct, because, counter the OP, people do not appeal first Godward, but “goodward.” In other words, there is a certain universal standard to which human nature naturally appeals when offended.

    CS Lewis makes this observation (in his Mere Christianity, IRC). He also notes that human nature naturally makes excuses when violating this universal standard of right and wrong.

    The point is that this standard is readily acknowledged given the necessary circumstance. The question is, whence this universal standard? Hint: It has nothing to do with atheism.
     
  5. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.
     
  6. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Saying they “provide the moral standard” assumes much.

    What can be said is that human nature, but not the order of the universe, indicates that the moral standard is assumed to exist.

    The question remains, whence this universal standard of morality? Hint: It has nothing to do with atheism.

    As I write this, I sense "déjà vu all over again," yes, even as I write this. (Does that make me a "Calvinist"? :Wink)
     
  7. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let me define morality again: there is a certain harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and that which is external to human nature. This harmony is most conducive to certain universal human purposes: such as survival of the species and long term, holistic pleasure for all human beings. On Natural Law, for the theist or atheist, an act like murder is wrong because it violates the harmony between human nature and the Natural Law/Created Order. Murder is detrimental towards the goals of survival of the species and long-term holistic happiness for all people. When a person commits murder, they not only harm their victim, but they also harm themselves. This is an objective standard of morality that an atheist could affirm.

    Do you think sin only produces harm because God punishes in response to sin? Or is sin instrinsically self-destructive?
     
  8. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We may not be able to agree on the basics here regarding a natural sense of morality. While a given atheist might be able to acquiesce in some respects to your assertions, or at least give lip service, atheists in general will not, in fact, do not.

    And when it comes to that precious Darwinian tenet “survival of the fittest,” it won’t do at all, not even that prohibition against murder, especially given an opportunity to eliminate those who will not give up “their religion.”

    The argument must be much more basic. What is consistent among cultures and individuals is an appeal to the moral law regarding one’s own position, that is, when one feels violated. (Do atheists call it sin?)

    As has already been pointed out, there is also a natural tendency to defend or excuse oneself when violating the moral law. What is consistent, then, is a tacit acknowledgment that there is such a thing. Explicit acknowledgement is another matter entirely.

    Again, the question remains, whence this universal standard of morality?
     
  9. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again, the question remains, whence this universal standard of morality?

    I have answered this question again and again. The goods of human nature, such as survival for all and long term holistic pleasure (happiness) for all. Your next response needs to be why this does not qualify as a universal moral standard.

    Why can I not say "Don't murder because it is a violation of human nature. It is an intrinsically destructive act. You will compromise the happiness of yourself and another person."
     
  10. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think the barrier here is that the objective Standard remains God regardless of whether it is acknowledged.

    "Do not murder" is a violation of human nature. But human nature itself is a reflection of God (man is made in God's image).

    An atheist will not articulate the objective moral standard as God, but instead choose to set humanity as the standard (for example, not compromising the happiness of yourself and another person). But this implies some intrinsic value to man (which is God).
     
  11. RighteousnessTemperance&

    RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You can make the assertions, but they go far beyond what people acknowledge. Human history speaks of another reality at work, especially the bloody dominance of atheism in the 20th century.

    “The goods of human nature” seems to me a formulation foreign to reality. Human nature more readily recognizes good from a selfish perspective.

    Of course “you shouldn’t murder me or mine” works just fine. But excuses will be formulated to explain why this should not necessarily work the other way.

    Again, the point is that the moral standard tacitly being appealed to is actually external to us, even though sensed by us. Human nature has the law written on it, but only one way.

    This is not to say that strains of atheism haven’t tried to co-opt components of God’s morality while denying the source, for of course they have, and often even try to take the credit. :Wink
     
  12. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist
    of course, just look at Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, LA, and Memphis
     
  13. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And Philly? NYC?
     
  14. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What rule of Law or Morality are you espousing? Because with fallen man, there are no societal norms
     
  15. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist
    sin is rebellion against God and the Law of God
     
  16. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist

    There is no order of nature

    some societies think nothing of murder

    some are matriarchal

    some think lying is perfectly ok

    some think stealing is no big deal

    some killed the wives when husbands died

    some cast the aged out of the camp when they got old

    some cast virgins into volcanoes

    some sacrificed their children to pagan gods

    some are ok with polygamy

    are they all equally valid?
     
  17. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,464
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In all of this rhetoric, and some core truths are being missed.

    That the knowledge of good and evil originates from God. Genesis 2:9.

    And God Himself is the fundamental self *evident truth and the means in which all other self evident truth is self evident. Deuteronomy 4:35.

    God's *omnipresence defines reality. Acts of the Apostles 17:28.
     
    #57 37818, Aug 8, 2023
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2023
  18. Marooncat79

    Marooncat79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,636
    Likes Received:
    640
    Faith:
    Baptist
    laughable
     
  19. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist

    No, they are not all equally valid. That people are wrong about order in nature does not mean that there is no order in nature.

    Cultures can be wrong about moral facts just as they can be wrong about historical facts or mathematical facts or anything else.
     
  20. Arthur King

    Arthur King Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    61
    Faith:
    Baptist
    True! But you didn't answer the question. If God did not lift a finger to punish sin, would sin itself still harm sinners? Is sin a violation of God's created order? Did God create the world with order?

    As a creature designed to love God, if I rebel against God, I am rebelling against my own design, am I not?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...