Why Atheists cannot account for Objective Moral Truths

[HeirofSalvation]

One of our members started a now closed thread arguing why he believes that Atheism can account for objective morality.

This is a good discussion to have, and I appreciate his willingness to argue an opinion on the topic although I disagree with him.
To recap: He was responding to a classic argument for God's existence which is commonly constructed thusly:

1.) If God does not exist objective moral truths do not exist
2.) Objective moral truths do exist
3.) Therefore, God exists.

An important point to understand about this argument is that it really cannot prove God's existence by itself.
It's purpose is to force the non-theist to purchase their view at a high cost.
To wit: it doesn't (if a sound argument) force the non-theist to believe in God...it forces them to take an untenable and uncomfortable position they do not otherwise wish to take:
Namely, It's designed to force them to accept that there are no objective moral truths whatsoever.

Few people wish to do this.

I would like to continue challenging him on this topic because it is a worthy discussion. But, I wish to categorically state that I have absolutely no lesser opinion of his sincere Christianity or Spiritual life because he has been willing to suggest that a commonly used argument by Theists is mistaken.

It is good and righteous to seek truth and to even critique a commonly held argument often made by believers.
He is not wrong to challenge us to hone our blades in understanding our faith.

The original form of the "Ontological Argument" for God's existence was initially challenged most vehemently by a fellow Theist, Philosopher and Monk named Guanilo....
Guanilo was hardly trying to prove God did not exist...but only that Anselm's argument was invalid.
Guanilo constructed a counter-argument to Anselm now commonly called "Guanilo's Island":

Whether or not either argument holds is not my point here, only that I appreciate the poster for daring to suggest that we as believers might hone our blades more perfectly.


However, I would like to launch in this post a further critique of his view and my objection works as follows:

His view of morality cannot account for punishment or requirement that all persons be compelled by law to follow objective moral truths in an atheistic framework. I'll explain:
One fact of accepting the existence of objective moral truths is that it seems incumbent upon society as a whole to enforce those moral principles even by force, policing, imprisonment, death etc....
Thus, if a particular member of society does not abide by them, or agree with those principles...it is fair and just to punish them and or to at minimum compell them in some way to adhere to those principles.

Put differently, we assume they know right from wrong in the same way everyone else does and they are therefore accountable to abide by that innate rule of law in the same way the rest of society does.

But, this cannot hold.

A genuine Psychopath who feels absolutely no guilt whatsoever for committing crimes cannot be said to have the same moral compass as the rest of society...Furthermore, the fact that the majority of society may hold a different moral compass than the psychopath cannot objectively demonstrate that the psychopath's morality is objectively wrong....It would only establish that the psychopath's morality is in the minority.

Psychopaths absolutely exist. (I tend to think that a genuine psychopath is demonically influenced/possessed)

Given an unguided Universe where all persons/humans are a result of unguided evolutionary processes (and therefore morality itself is merely a rote fact of said processes)....A psychopath is only a psycopath in the sense that they are in the minority. They are simply what the Universe/ Natural Law/ accident/ evolution/ made them to be.

There is no reason to take umbrage at the psychopath who has no moral problem with serially raping, cannibalizing, murdering, and burying alive small children, women, men or whatever....

Given an Atheistic view...why do we take umbrage at their actions?
They are the way they are...that is all. Those are simply rote facts about them. The fact that the majority of society has evolved a sense of loathing about those actions does not OBJECTIVELY make them wrong. That the bulk of society abhors them, is simply a rote fact about circumstance:

Our psychopath......is little different than a dwarf or giant:
He/she is a statistical anomaly, but, nothing more than is perfectly in keeping with unguided evolutionary facts: We certainly do not despise nor punish the dwarf of giant for being in a statistical minority.


Why then do we DESPISE the psychopath... why is our tendency to know that they should know better and do better, and furthermore....why punish them (thereby robbing them of their greatest chance of holistically thriving) for being what nature made them to be?

Society simply does NOT (Atheist or Christian) allow the moral outliers to do as they will.
Thus, the Atheist has no moral grounds for punishing, feeling umbrage against, or even preventing the actions of the worst form of psychopath.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The Original source of this discussion can be found here:
Yes, atheists can have objective morality | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

[37818]

Romans 14:8, ". . . For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. . . ."

Romans 8:16, ". . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . ."
I.e. we as genuine Christians actually know God though Christ.

Acts of the Apostles 17:28, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ."

Romans 1:18-19, ". . . For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. . . ."

 

[JonC]

I disagree with the OP. Atheists can, of course, account for objective moral truths. Often atheists are more moral than Christians, after all.

Most often their basis is humanity. In reality this is deeper - a moral truth based on God, Whom they deny.

But their basis is still objective. This is made very obvious simply by reading moral theories written by atheists. It is a morality based on ethics as related to human beings, or even on human society.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I disagree with the OP. Atheists can, of course, account for objective moral truths.

I have to disagree. They cannot.
While Atheists assume moral truths they cannot ground them in their own philosophical framework.
Inevitably, when they try to contend for objective moral truths they will fail because what they assert is either not objectively true but only incidentally true, or, it is not a moral fact they assert.

Often atheists are more moral than Christians, after all.

That has never been at issue, and that atheists often act morally (or even believe in objective moral truth) is not relevant.
This is not the question here:
The question is whether Atheism can make truth claims which are both objective and moral in nature.
Atheism, as a worldview cannot do so.
When atheists act morally, they are acting in accordance with a worldview they do not share.

But their basis is still objective.

Their basis is perhaps beyond themselves as individuals.
Their basis is perhaps not insisting on their own personal druthers, but, they aren't moral facts.
Sam Harris is perhaps the most recent example of an atheist who tries very hard (and admirably) to justify objective morality
within an atheistic framework:
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values: Harris, Sam: 9781439171226: Amazon.com: Books
It is notable that it is hardly the case that all or even most atheists assume objective morality at all.

It is hardly the case that all atheists (or even most) pretend that atheism accounts for objective moral truths. One can still be a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and reject the notion. (Even if they act morally) One can hardly be a Christian and deny Objective moral truth.

This is made very obvious simply by reading moral theories written by atheists.

They try sometimes, and some of them are quite brilliant. But, they ultimately fail.
What they propose are either not objective facts...or they are not ultimately moral facts.

It is a morality based on ethics as related to human beings, or even on human society.

Yes, usually by arguing that humans exhibit a form of "herd-mentality" as it is often called.
But, those usually boil down to mere facts about what is or how humans are....but, not how they ought to be.

They try to derive an ought from an is...and I maintain they cannot do so successfully.

I appreciate your willingness to engage with us in this conversation.

 

[JonC]

I have to disagree. They cannot.
While Atheists assume moral truths they cannot ground them in their own philosophical framework.

I do disagree here.

Atheists do ground themselves in their own philosophical framework. This is a danger of philosophy.

Likewise, false religions ground themselves in their own false religion.

Let me ask you, for my own clarification, how can an atheist who is moral and bases that morality on the good of man not have the good of man as defined by that atheist as an objective foundation?

How can an atheist who grounds morals and ethics on the good of society as a whole not have the good of society as a whole, as defined by that atheist as an objective foundation?

It is not a right foundation. But it is an objective foundation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I do disagree here.

Atheists do ground themselves in their own philosophical framework.

^ That would be a subjective framework.

Let me ask you, for my own clarification, how can an atheist who is moral and bases that morality on the good of man not have the good of man as defined by that atheist as an objective foundation?

Because it is subjective in nature, and does not carry with it a duty which can be imposed upon others.
We can quite rightly require all persons to abide by the moral framework the Scripture provides. We know from more than mere innate understanding that murder is wrong etc...An atheist can only impose what is at best a majority opinion. Which is a state of affairs about how people prefer others to act.

How can an atheist who grounds morals and ethics on the good of society as a whole not have the good of society as a whole, as defined by that atheist as an objective foundation?

It is not a right foundation. But it is an objective foundation.

I would contend that that is not objective. It is not a selfish one, and it looks beyond the person themselves outward to be sure, but that doesn't make it objective.
An objective moral fact has to be both truly objective and moral in nature.
I would contend that no Atheist can admit to objective moral truths even though they assume them.
They aren't necessarily immoral of course.
The strength of the argument is that almost no one wants to believe that there are no objective moral truths.

Similarly, an atheist cannot rightly insist that the moral framework they have (good of society as a whole) be applied to someone who disagrees with their framework.
Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?
Given an atheist worldview, the psychopath is in no way truly "evil"...just merely different. It could hardly even be fair to require them to undergo therapy let alone punishment. How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to? How do they impose their "own morality" on others? A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.
Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable? Majority preference?

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival of the human species?

I cannot imagine how an atheist can answer the challenge: "Why should human society thrive?"

At this point, they can only appeal to something like a general survival instinct...which, if true, is not an ought but an is.
Thus, it is no longer a moral fact, but a scientific one.

I appreciate your conversation.

 

[Alan Gross]

Romans 14:8, ". . . For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. . . ."

Romans 8:16, ". . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . ."
I.e. we as genuine Christians actually know God though Christ.

Acts of the Apostles 17:28, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ."

Romans 1:18-19, ". . . For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. . . ."

This, we have the perspective of the One and Only, True and Living Creator God, Who has revealed to mankind the way that things actually are.

Thank you, 37.

 

[kyredneck]

it is a worthy discussion. But, I wish to categorically state that I have absolutely no lesser opinion of his sincere Christianity or Spiritual life because he has been willing to suggest that a commonly used argument by Theists is mistaken.

Excellent! Absolutely agree. I've thoroughly enjoyed this topic.

 

[JonC]

^ That would be a subjective framework.

Because it is subjective in nature, and does not carry with it a duty which can be imposed upon others.
We can quite rightly require all persons to abide by the moral framework the Scripture provides. We know from more than mere innate understanding that murder is wrong etc...An atheist can only impose what is at best a majority opinion. Which is a state of affairs about how people prefer others to act.

I would contend that that is not objective. It is not a selfish one, and it looks beyond the person themselves outward to be sure, but that doesn't make it objective.
An objective moral fact has to be both truly objective and moral in nature.
I would contend that no Atheist can admit to objective moral truths even though they assume them.
They aren't necessarily immoral of course.
The strength of the argument is that almost no one wants to believe that there are no objective moral truths.

Similarly, an atheist cannot rightly insist that the moral framework they have (good of society as a whole) be applied to someone who disagrees with their framework.
Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?
Given an atheist worldview, the psychopath is in no way truly "evil"...just merely different. It could hardly even be fair to require them to undergo therapy let alone punishment. How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to? How do they impose their "own morality" on others? A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.
Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable? Majority preference?

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival of the human species?

I cannot imagine how an atheist can answer the challenge: "Why should human society thrive?"

At this point, they can only appeal to something like a general survival instinct...which, if true, is not an ought but an is.
Thus, it is no longer a moral fact, but a scientific one.

I appreciate your conversation.

I disagree that using their own framework is itself subjective. It depends on the framework.

Christians consider God as the ultimate basis of morality. It is still the person who is considering God as the foundation.

Here is an example of what I mean:

A Christian believes it is wrong to exceed the speed limit. Why? Because God commands us to obey such laws. It is less about not speeding and more about obeying God. It could be argued that Christians do not have a "moral standard" in regards to speeding, but that they simply obey God.

An atheist, on the other hand, may not speed for several objective reasons. Perhaps the atheist considers speeding immoral because it is the law (the objective law) set by men to protect others. Maybe the atheist believes it immoral to speed because it puts others at risk (based on human rights). All the while the atheist may obey the speed limit while subjectively believing he or she can handle driving at higher rates of speed (subjective, based on the person) but refrains due to the objective standard.

I believe Christians should be more concerned about obedience to God than they are about morality. Of course, obeying God satisfied any true moral criteria whether we understand the ethical or moral aspects of an action.

An example here would be Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I disagree with the OP. Atheists can, of course, account for objective moral truths. Often atheists are more moral than Christians, after all.

Most often their basis is humanity. In reality this is deeper - a moral truth based on God, Whom they deny.

But their basis is still objective. This is made very obvious simply by reading moral theories written by atheists. It is a morality based on ethics as related to human beings, or even on human society.

Atheists may argue that they can find a suitable objective moral standard. The question is on what basis would they know? What is that external standard by which they are judging (or ranking) other moral standards? Another way to ask would be how do they know their criteria are correct?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I disagree with the OP. Atheists can, of course, account for objective moral truths. Often atheists are more moral than Christians, after all.

Most often their basis is humanity. In reality this is deeper - a moral truth based on God, Whom they deny.

But their basis is still objective. This is made very obvious simply by reading moral theories written by atheists. It is a morality based on ethics as related to human beings, or even on human society.

There may be an atheist who has practiced a moral standard better than a Christian Christ’s. However, no atheist has come up with a higher standard of morality than Christ’s. And no one has ever lived a higher standard of morality than Christ.

This is not to say that atheists don’t argue against this point. But the question would be, how would they know if this is not true? On what basis? Where would the objective standard be by which to compare?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…I believe Christians should be more concerned about obedience to God than they are about morality. ….

Yes, "they" should. But because there are those who cleverly and influentially espouse anti-God concepts by which some may be led astray, are being led astray, it is important to think about and discuss these things.

 

[JonC]

Atheists may argue that they can find a suitable objective moral standard. The question is on what basis would they know? What is that external standard by which they are judging (or ranking) other moral standards? Another way to ask would be how do they know their criteria are correct?

Well, their criteria could actually be correct, but the reason for their criteria may not be right.

Take the common humanistic approach. Morality is based on love for ones fellow human being. Christians have the same criteria, but a different reason.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well, their criteria could actually be correct, but the reason for their criteria may not be right.

Take the common humanistic approach. Morality is based on love for ones fellow human being. Christians have the same criteria, but a different reason.

Biblical morality is based on self-love in the form of a command. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” As CS Lewis put it, “The first sum is worked out for us.” (That may not be an exact quote, but it’s very close.)

Christian morality is similarly based but fleshed out in Jesus on the cross and expounded upon at length in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I disagree that using their own framework is itself subjective. It depends on the framework.

I'm not sure what you mean by "framework"...but, I suppose we'll deal with it later.

Christians consider God as the ultimate basis of morality.

Yes, and as such, God has the authority to require all humans to adhere to the moral standard he insists upon.

It is still the person who is considering God as the foundation.

I think we might be arriving at the crux of the matter:
Whether a person individually accepts God's prerogative to command moral values and duties is not at issue....

Understand this:
A genuine moral truth (like it is not acceptable to torture babies for fun) has as much force as a non-moral truth...they are, or must be considered to be objective facts which carry with them the requirement that all persons adhere to them, whether they like it or not.

A Christian believes it is wrong to exceed the speed limit. Why? Because God commands us to obey such laws. It is less about not speeding and more about obeying God.

Yes.

It could be argued that Christians do not have a "moral standard" in regards to speeding, but that they simply obey God.

I suppose, but, speed limits exist for very reasonable reasons....i.e....It is not acceptable to endanger the life or health of either oneself or others (something like that). Speed limits only exist because they assume an objective moral standard. They aren't mere revenue generators... (unless you are in Waldo Florida). There exists a moral absolute which undergirds the idea of a speed limit.
Both the Atheist and the Christian agree on it for practical purposes.

An atheist, on the other hand, may not speed for several objective reasons.

If the atheist does anything due to his/her own personal predilections....it is no longer "objective"...but, subjective, by definition.

Perhaps the atheist considers speeding immoral because it is the law

"The atheist"...renders any moral adherence subjective by definition..."The atheist" is the subject, of your sentence...he does things...subjectively.

(the objective law) set by men to protect others.

What makes the law objective?
Maybe the atheist believes it immoral to speed because it puts others at risk (based on human rights).

He most likely does...(and is correct, and he most likely believes in objective moral truth)...but he cannot ground it upon anything:

WHY DO HUMANS OBJECTIVELY HAVE INNATE RIGHTS??

(I don't wish to "yell"...but, I think that is the crux of our disagreement) So, I do want some emphasis on that point, sorry if it's a little loud.
Obeying speed limits is a matter of applying a pre-concieved larger moral issue.
"Speed limits" are not either moral or immoral.
They exist because they appeal to an objective moral truth:
Something like: No person should endanger themselves or others (at least without justification)...
But: WHY can't they? An atheist, can, (IMO) appeal to nothing other than an innate normative drive in humans to desire the general thriving of their own species...
But, why should the species thrive?
Why is it not o.k. to endanger oneself or others?
What if, whoever is endangered, is a lesser and more genetically inferior specimen....A stronger and more intelligent specimen would reproduce better and more capable humans. (Thus, presumably strengthening the species as a whole).
Therefore, humanity, as a whole would thrive more if only the best genetic specimens survived.

All the while the atheist may obey the speed limit while subjectively believing he or she can handle driving at higher rates of speed (subjective, based on the person) but refrains due to the objective standard.

The speed limit is itself a subjective standard:
It can be changed. I is subject to a legislature (or most likely a bloated bureaucracy) which sets the speed limit according to whatever measures they see fit.

I believe Christians should be more concerned about obedience to God than they are about morality. Of course, obeying God satisfied any true moral criteria whether we understand the ethical or moral aspects of an action.

Maybe...
But, this conversation is really about a classic (and very hotly debated) argument for theism which is used by some of the best Philosophers of Religion in the world....literally.
They do not use it because it has no merit.
It's a very worthy discussion to have.

Again, thanks for your willingness to engage in this topic

 

[Arthur King]

One of our members started a now closed thread arguing why he believes that Atheism can account for objective morality.

This is a good discussion to have, and I appreciate his willingness to argue an opinion on the topic although I disagree with him.
To recap: He was responding to a classic argument for God's existence which is commonly constructed thusly:

1.) If God does not exist objective moral truths do not exist
2.) Objective moral truths do exist
3.) Therefore, God exists.

An important point to understand about this argument is that it really cannot prove God's existence by itself.
It's purpose is to force the non-theist to purchase their view at a high cost.
To wit: it doesn't (if a sound argument) force the non-theist to believe in God...it forces them to take an untenable and uncomfortable position they do not otherwise wish to take:
Namely, It's designed to force them to accept that there are no objective moral truths whatsoever.

Few people wish to do this.

I would like to continue challenging him on this topic because it is a worthy discussion. But, I wish to categorically state that I have absolutely no lesser opinion of his sincere Christianity or Spiritual life because he has been willing to suggest that a commonly used argument by Theists is mistaken.

It is good and righteous to seek truth and to even critique a commonly held argument often made by believers.
He is not wrong to challenge us to hone our blades in understanding our faith.

The original form of the "Ontological Argument" for God's existence was initially challenged most vehemently by a fellow Theist, Philosopher and Monk named Guanilo....
Guanilo was hardly trying to prove God did not exist...but only that Anselm's argument was invalid.
Guanilo constructed a counter-argument to Anselm now commonly called "Guanilo's Island":

Whether or not either argument holds is not my point here, only that I appreciate the poster for daring to suggest that we as believers might hone our blades more perfectly.


However, I would like to launch in this post a further critique of his view and my objection works as follows:

His view of morality cannot account for punishment or requirement that all persons be compelled by law to follow objective moral truths in an atheistic framework. I'll explain:
One fact of accepting the existence of objective moral truths is that it seems incumbent upon society as a whole to enforce those moral principles even by force, policing, imprisonment, death etc....
Thus, if a particular member of society does not abide by them, or agree with those principles...it is fair and just to punish them and or to at minimum compell them in some way to adhere to those principles.

Put differently, we assume they know right from wrong in the same way everyone else does and they are therefore accountable to abide by that innate rule of law in the same way the rest of society does.

But, this cannot hold.

A genuine Psychopath who feels absolutely no guilt whatsoever for committing crimes cannot be said to have the same moral compass as the rest of society...Furthermore, the fact that the majority of society may hold a different moral compass than the psychopath cannot objectively demonstrate that the psychopath's morality is objectively wrong....It would only establish that the psychopath's morality is in the minority.

Psychopaths absolutely exist. (I tend to think that a genuine psychopath is demonically influenced/possessed)

Given an unguided Universe where all persons/humans are a result of unguided evolutionary processes (and therefore morality itself is merely a rote fact of said processes)....A psychopath is only a psycopath in the sense that they are in the minority. They are simply what the Universe/ Natural Law/ accident/ evolution/ made them to be.

There is no reason to take umbrage at the psychopath who has no moral problem with serially raping, cannibalizing, murdering, and burying alive small children, women, men or whatever....

Given an Atheistic view...why do we take umbrage at their actions?
They are the way they are...that is all. Those are simply rote facts about them. The fact that the majority of society has evolved a sense of loathing about those actions does not OBJECTIVELY make them wrong. That the bulk of society abhors them, is simply a rote fact about circumstance:

Our psychopath......is little different than a dwarf or giant:
He/she is a statistical anomaly, but, nothing more than is perfectly in keeping with unguided evolutionary facts: We certainly do not despise nor punish the dwarf of giant for being in a statistical minority.


Why then do we DESPISE the psychopath... why is our tendency to know that they should know better and do better, and furthermore....why punish them (thereby robbing them of their greatest chance of holistically thriving) for being what nature made them to be?

Society simply does NOT (Atheist or Christian) allow the moral outliers to do as they will.
Thus, the Atheist has no moral grounds for punishing, feeling umbrage against, or even preventing the actions of the worst form of psychopath.

Thanks for continuing the discussion! And thank you for the thoughtful engagement with what I wrote. Thank you as well for not doubting my Christian faith, haha, I have been a committed Christian for nearly 35 years.

A) For the record, I think all of the following are solid arguments for God's existence:

1) Kalaam cosmological argument
2) Fine Tuning argument
3) Historical argument from the resurrection of Jesus
4) Argument from human agency (or free will)
5) Argument from extravagant beauty
6) Fulfillment of Biblical prophecies
7) The Bible as a work of supernatural literary magnificence and penetration into the depths of human nature

And my modified moral argument for God's existence:

1) If God did not exist, a universal, bedrock human desire for God would not exist
2) A universal. bedrock human desire for God does exist
3) Therefore God exists

In other words, it is NOT that "without God, objective moral values would not exist" but that "without God, not all the objective moral values that we in fact do have would exist."

Obviously, if God did not exist then "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" would not be a moral imperative (unless such a fantasy was still necessary for achieving the goods of human nature - but that is doubtful).

B) I should also clarify that my main argument against the popular argument for God's existence is a biblical argument. On page 1 of the Bible, we are told that "God SAW that it was good" meaning that goodness is in the created order, not merely in God's commands. God doesn't merely "SAY" that it is good, as if Creation were still a jumble of chaos that only has goodness because God says so, like I look at my 2 year old's scribble and say "it is good" even though it has no inherent order. No, creation is more like a work of Bach, in which it has objective order to it.

The standard moral argument for God's existence is really based on Divine Command Morality:

1) If God did not exist, Divine Command Morality would not exist
2) Divine Command Morality does exist
3) Therefore God exists

But I don't think the Bible teaches Divine Command Morality. The Bible teaches morality grounded in Creation, which gives us a Natural Law Morality that even an atheist could recognize.

The Bible just doesn't define morality the way many Christians are defining morality. "Morality" means "Good and Evil." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. "Objective good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of THE purpose for which a thing exists. A "purpose" is a type of desire or goal. We can locate a purpose for humanity in the desires of God, OR we can locate a purpose for humanity in a universal human nature, and it's universal, bedrock desires. Among these are survival, long life, and long term holistic pleasure (happiness) for all human beings.

So if an action is in violation of those goods, then it is objectively wrong as a violation of the goods of human nature.

C) If we do not locate morality in the order of the universe or in the definition of what it means to be human, then we start presupposing that the universe has no order and that humanity has no order. Morality must then be imposed by an authority like God or the state. We adopt an authoritarian structure of morality rather than a creational structure of morality. An authoritarian structure of morality is by definition subjective to the authority and relative the desires of that authority.

The view of the universe is also one in which there is not inherent order, and so ridiculous statements like "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" and "the entity in the womb is not a human being" become tolerable.

I will respond to your other points later.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thanks for continuing the discussion! And thank you for the thoughtful engagement with what I wrote. Thank you as well for not doubting my Christian faith, haha, I have been a committed Christian for nearly 35 years.

OMG! thanks for FINALLY rejoining the DEBATE YOU STARTED!!

A) For the record, I think all of the following are solid arguments for God's existence:
1) Kalaam cosmological argument
2) Fine Tuning argument
3) Historical argument from the resurrection of Jesus
4) Argument from human agency (or free will)
5) Argument from extravagant beauty
6) Fulfillment of Biblical prophecies
7) The Bible as a work of supernatural literary magnificence and penetration into the depths of human nature

I assume you are posting these things so that no one will question your sincerity, faith, or passion for truth.
I do not doubt that.
I do disagree with your critique of the "Moral argument"...but, I do not at all question your bona fides in doing so.

And my modified moral argument for God's existence:

1) If God did not exist, a universal, bedrock human desire for God would not exist
2) A universal. bedrock human desire for God does exist
3) Therefore God exists

An argument of this sort already exists, I think....
It's (I think) now called the "Argument from human desire"..
(I think it's a new one).

In other words, it is NOT that "without God, objective moral values would not exist" but that "without God, not all the objective moral values that we in fact do have would exist.

"
I think they are separate arguments...I may be wrong here...I'm not sure I understand you here.

One appeals to an innate drive of persons to seek a Divine influence, whereas the argument from morality assumes moral truths.
Obviously, if God did not exist then "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" would not be a moral imperative (unless such a fantasy was still necessary for achieving the goods of human nature - but that is doubtful).

B) I should also clarify that my main argument against the popular argument for God's existence is a biblical argument. On page 1 of the Bible, we are told that "God SAW that it was good" meaning that goodness is in the created order, not merely in God's commands. God doesn't merely "SAY" that it is good, as if Creation were still a jumble of chaos that only has goodness because God says so, like I look at my 2 year old's scribble and say "it is good" even though it has no inherent order. No, creation is more like a work of Bach, in which it has objective order to it.

The standard moral argument for God's existence is really based on Divine Command Morality:

1) If God did not exist, Divine Command Morality would not exist
2) Divine Command Morality does exist
3) Therefore God exists

But I don't think the Bible teaches Divine Command Morality. The Bible teaches morality grounded in Creation, which gives us a Natural Law Morality that even an atheist could recognize.

In short...I don't disagree with you because I don't accept Divine Command Morality either.
Obviously, most people who would side with me contra your view, would ascribe to it.
But, I think, perhaps, you are selling us short here:

I (like you) do not actually think "Divine Command Morality" is an adequate description or morality either...
And yet, I think the argument from morality still holds:

The Bible just doesn't define morality the way many Christians are defining morality. "Morality" means "Good and Evil." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. "Objective good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of THE purpose for which a thing exists. A "purpose" is a type of desire or goal. We can locate a purpose for humanity in the desires of God, OR we can locate a purpose for humanity in a universal human nature, and it's universal, bedrock desires. Among these are survival, long life, and long term holistic pleasure (happiness) for all human beings.

I placed in blue here what I find problematic.
Those things in blue are true from a purely atheistic standpoint:
They have no force in a Theistic one. I tend to wonder if you aren't confused about the nature of Morality.

So if an action is in violation of those goods, then it is objectively wrong as a violation of theThat

"The goods of human nature"...
That doesn't make sense (to me): Please explain what that means.

C) If we do not locate morality in the order of the universe or in the definition of what it means to be human, then we start presupposing that the universe has no order and that humanity has no order.

If I understand you correctly, I can't agree.
I God does not exist, the Universe has no MORAL order...it just is...
It is a state of affairs, a rote fact.
Thus, Human nature is merely a rote fact:
If human nature is the result of an unguided set of rote facts...they are merely " IS-ES"...statements about what "IS" but not what "OUGHT" to be.

Morality must then be imposed by an authority like God or the state.

I think you sell the moral argument short because of your insistence that only devotees of the "Divine Command Theory" accept it..
I do not think I subscribe to "Divine Command Theory" either: But, I do think the argument from objective morality holds.

We adopt an authoritarian structure of morality rather than a creational structure of morality. An authoritarian structure of morality is by definition subjective to the authority and relative the desires of that authority

I actually agree with you here 100%
I believe morality is grounded upon God's nature...(not man) and it isn't about what he "commands" man to do.. but, how he created his Universe....and he did so according to the loving nature he has.

In short...I think you sell the Moral Argument short because you only conceive of it in a stricture of "Divine Command Theory" ethics.....
And I agree that "Divine Command Theory" is insufficient...but, the argument can be re-conceptualized outside of that.

Thanks for your responses!

 

[Arthur King]

OMG! thanks for FINALLY rejoining the DEBATE YOU STARTED!!

I assume you are posting these things so that no one will question your sincerity, faith, or passion for truth.
I do not doubt that.
I do disagree with your critique of the "Moral argument"...but, I do not at all question your bona fides in doing so.

An argument of this sort already exists, I think....
It's (I think) now called the "Argument from human desire"..
(I think it's a new one).
"
I think they are separate arguments...

In short...I don't agree with you because I don't accept Divine Command Morality either.
Obviously, most people who would side with me contra your view, would ascribe to it.
But, I think, perhaps, you are selling us short here:

I (like you) do not actually think "Divine Command Morality" is an adequate description or morality either...
And yet, I think the argument from morality still holds:

I placed in blue here what I find problematic.
Those things in blue are true from a purely atheistic standpoint:
They have no force in a Theistic one. I tend to wonder if you aren't confused about the nature of Morality.

"The goods of human nature"...
That doesn't make sense: Please explain what that means.

If I understand you correctly, I can't agree.
I God does not exist, the Universe has no MORAL order...it just is...
It is a state of affairs, a rote fact.
Thus, Human nature is merely a rote fact:
If human nature is the result of an unguided set of rote facts...they are merely " IS-ES"...statements about what "IS" but not what "OUGHT" to be.

I think you sell the moral argument short because of your insistence that only devotees of the "Divine Command Theory" accept it..
I do not think I subscribe to "Divine Command Theory" either: But, I do think the argument from objective morality holds.

I actually agree with you here 100%
I believe morality is grounded upon God's nature...(not man) and it isn't about what he "commands" man to do.. but, how he created his Universe....and he did so according to the loving nature he has.

In short...I think you sell the Moral Argument short because you only conceive of it in a stricture of "Divine Command Theory" ethics.....
And I agree that "Divine Command Theory" is insufficient...but, the argument can be re-conceptualized outside of that.

Thanks for your responses!

"Morality" means "Good and Evil." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. "Objective good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of THE purpose for which a thing exists. A "purpose" is a type of desire or goal. We can locate a purpose for humanity in the desires of God, OR we can locate a purpose for humanity in a universal human nature, and it's universal, bedrock desires. Among these are survival, long life, and long term holistic pleasure (happiness) for all human beings.

So what have I misdefined here? You said this was problematic but I didn't see a reason why. You restated that an "ought" can't be derived from an "is", but my response here is that "ought", or objective purpose, is derived from universal desire. Universal desires can be located in the desires of God, AND/OR the universal, bedrock desires of human nature.

The universal desires of human beings (life and happiness) cannot be ignored in the objective conception of the good, and they are not ignored even on the Christian vision. What is the new heaven and earth but everlasting life and happiness?

 

[37818]

1.) If God does not exist . . . .

It is an absurd if.
As genuine Christians we actually know God, John 17:3.