Yes, atheists can have objective morality

[Arthur King]

Irrelevant question

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.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

 

[Arthur King]

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.

The OP explains why this argument is wrong.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The OP explains why this argument is wrong.

Making the OP wrong, and not just in that point. 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.

 

[Arthur King]

Making the OP wrong, and not just in that point. 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.

The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.

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"? )

 

[Arthur King]

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"? )

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?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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?

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?

 

[Arthur King]

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?

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."

 

[JonC]

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).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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."

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.

of course, just look at Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, LA, and Memphis

 

[Marooncat79]

And Philly? NYC?

 

[Marooncat79]

What rule of Law or Morality are you espousing? Because with fallen man, there are no societal norms

 

[Marooncat79]

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.

sin is rebellion against God and the Law of God

 

[Marooncat79]

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.

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?

 

[37818]

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.

laughable

 

[Arthur King]

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?

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.

 

[Arthur King]

sin is rebellion against God and the Law of God

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?