Yes, atheists can have objective morality

[Arthur King]

Respectfully, NOTHING produces happiness for all human beings.
Even in the wealthiest societies on earth, most are dissatisfied.

So where is the Objective data that this “happiness for all human beings” is more than “unicorn farts”?

Excellent. Now you have arrived at my recommended moral argument for God's existence.

1) A universal human desire for God would not exist if God did not exist.
2) A universal human desire for God exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.

So what we Christians should rather argue is that “The specific nature of the objective moral values we know exist would not exist if God did not exist.” That is to say, “If God did not exist, we would not have the objective moral values that we, in fact, do have.” The human being is a Godward creature (a creature oriented to God). God is the source of our happiness. If there was no God, then the human being would not be a Godward creature.

 

[atpollard]

You can ground objective purposes in the desires of God, or in the universal desires of human nature. If it is the case that there is a universal human nature, and if that universal human nature has bedrock purposes it seeks, those purposes constitute grounds for objective moral values.

What are the OBJECTIVE “universal desires of human nature” that constitute “natural moral values”? What DATA affirms that these are OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE?

 

[Arthur King]

What are the OBJECTIVE “universal desires of human nature” that constitute “natural moral values”? What DATA affirms that these are OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE?

What is sufficient for the argument to work is that if such universal desires exist, then they would serve as grounds for objective moral values.

So it is not true that "If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist." All I have to point out is that there are other possible grounds for objective moral values.

 

[taisto]

What is sufficient for the argument to work is that if such universal desires exist, then they would serve as grounds for objective moral values.

So it is not true that "If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist." All I have to point out is that there are other possible grounds for objective moral values.

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
- Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

[taisto]

Excellent. Now you have arrived at my recommended moral argument for God's existence.

1) A universal human desire for God would not exist if God did not exist.
2) A universal human desire for God exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.

So what we Christians should rather argue is that “The specific nature of the objective moral values we know exist would not exist if God did not exist.” That is to say, “If God did not exist, we would not have the objective moral values that we, in fact, do have.” The human being is a Godward creature (a creature oriented to God). God is the source of our happiness. If there was no God, then the human being would not be a Godward creature.

I prefer Peter Kreeft's arguments for God's existence.
Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is no expectation that “life is fair”. Nothing that we are, nothing that we say and nothing that we do has any real meaning. It can be summed up in a philosophy of life as follows:

“You are born, you live, you die, and when you are gone, you don’t even leave a hole behind to show that you were here.”

In practical terms, there is no objective morality. People assign morality to all actions. If I lived in NYC today, killing a “Jew” or a “Black” would get me arrested, crucified in the press, and life in prison. In Germany in 1939, killing a Jew would get me a pat on the back and a promotion. In Alabama in 1900, killing a Black would be a reason to stop and take a photo to turn into a post card. Has the value of the life of a “Jew” or a “Black” changed … or do people define all morality subjectively? How about the cheers as OJ was acquitted for murdering his wife and the riots for a police officer not charged in the death of a black criminal? Is Justice really determined by RACE and WEALTH?

From this, some see a world where “it isn’t a crime to steal, it is a crime to get caught”. 100% subjective morality. That is “practical nihilism”. Buying a newspaper or shooting a rival are both just “actions” … there is no innate right or wrong to either. Every action carries risks and consequences. You do the action, you take the risk and you accept the consequences (of course you try like heck to avoid the consequences, but there is no sense that “this is unfair” … LIFE is unfair, if you don’t like it, then die.)

I’m not certain that worldview really escapes the issue raised in my posts. One who is completely nihilist would not care whatever happened to him. Consequences would be meaningless. There would be no sense that one event or another was better or worse for himself, whether to be in prison or out.

But, yes, I would present the argument differently in such a case. So, while it may not really escape the issue, I don’t think it worth trying to pursue here in this thread. Unless AK thinks it has something to do with his “the good.” But I haven’t been able to track his argument there at all. It’s not that I don’t see the dots; I don’t see the connections he seems to.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

"There are plenty of hardcore neo-Darwinists who like to appeal to “survival of the fittest,”"

Yeah, and they are objectively wrong about morality. Even on atheism. Survival of the fittest does not produce the survival and happiness of all human beings.

AK, there are serious disconnects in your argument every time presented.

A major problem is that we can agree that such atheistic stances are wrong. But there is no clear connection in how to get to that point through your argument. Telling an atheist he is wrong is hardly a compelling argument, in fact it is really not argument at all, just assertion.

This sort of disconnect seems to permeate your posts. There seems to be an assumption that a point has been reached via a bridge visible only to yourself.

 

[Arthur King]

AK, there are serious disconnects in your argument every time presented.

A major problem is that we can agree that such atheistic stances are wrong. But there is no clear connection in how to get to that point through your argument. Telling an atheist he is wrong is hardly a compelling argument, in fact it is really not argument at all, just assertion.

This sort of disconnect seems to permeate your posts. There seems to be an assumption that a point has been reached via a bridge visible only to yourself.

Simple standard: are the actions conducive to producing life and happiness for all human beings? If no, they are wrong. Life and happiness for all human beings - that is the objective standard. It really is not complicated.

A nihilist living like a nihilist will fail to achieve that state of life and happiness for all human beings. So his lifestyle is wrong.

Even as Christians, what are we trying to achieve? Life and happiness for all human beings (or as many human beings as possible). This is really not a foreign concept. You are making it way too complicated.

 

[Alan Gross]

But even in an atheistic worldview in which the universe exists without God, natural law would still exist, and therefore objective morality.

Natural law as being somehow a given, without an Intelligent Law Giver as the Source of it is one thing, but I am struck by these who say that they are Atheists, when they are operating under the necessity of making another assumption.

That assumption that is also somehow automatically assumed to be able to granted for their arguments is the existence of the Foundation of Reason.

The Foundation of Reason being maintained continually as a constant component in their depiction of reality is a requirement for being able to say anything, in order for it to keep it's intended meaning and not capriciously morph into something else, haphazardly.

1+1=2, yesterday and today and 1+1=2, tomorrow, because there is a rock solid continual force in reality of the Foundation of Reason having been lain down and established, to start with.

Other nothing could even begin to be 'reasoned out' and proposed to be true, because the next day it would not be the same equivalent reasoning it was before.

All the axioms would have adjusted and shifted into some other arguments that have changed, simple under the variations caused by there being a mutable framework in which they are being attempted to be built that would pull the rug out from under any attempt at thinking, or logic, or talking at all.

Nothing would be able to mean anything tomorrow that was intended today because 1+1=2 had changed into 1+1=14, and all the efforts made toward 'reasoning' would have collapsed upon themselves, out of anyone's control.

So, the Foundation of Reason, as a proof of the existence of an Intelligent Creator and Sustainer of it, is assumedly 'just there', simultaneously with that same Intelligent Creator and Sustainer essential for the possibility of it being an established fact, being said to be non-existent.

It does not follow, specifically because there is a Foundation of Reason that exists and they have to consent to admitting that it does.

Then, even though there is a Foundation of Reason that remains constantly from one day to the next, we need to understand that the Atheist's reasoning that can then take place, is done so by using their own ability of intelligence utilizing the limited capacity of a mind that has been effected by the curse of the fall and is presently alienated from the Mind and dead to the Spirit of God, Who is Spirit, with which they can not fundamentally relate, on the same playing field.

They simply don't get it, because they can't get it.

“The OP seems to declare "natural law" as an objective law, yet nature cannot exist without God.”

Based on the logic resulting from there being an initial Foundation of Reason.

Yes, but it doesn't matter what the unbeliever's worldview is - the FACT is that God does exist and he created morality and order.

The Atheist's worldview is not said by God to actually believe that God does not exist, but God says only that, "the fool HAS SAID IN THEIR HEART that there is no God".

They just say it. That doesn't tell us whether they also do not 'believe' like the devil's do in God, or not. Since, God says He has revealed Himself and the Power of His Godhead to all men that they might be without excuse, my guess is that they are lying to themselves and me, if they do pretend not to 'believe' there is a God.

They are just saying that and using God's morality and order established by the natural law and Foundation of Reason, in order to make their say-so, immorally at that.

Whether the unbeliever recognizes God or not is irrelevant.

Yes, unless we're really talking about going just plum crazy about all of it and 'reasoning' that the life we are in and living, and walking and talking, came from a rock, etc. Which, of course they do. But, that is all crazy, because as you said, 'believing' or saying there is no God is irrelevant to God, as their Creator, for God's sake.

The cosmological argument, ex nihilo, nihilo fit (out of nothing, nothing can come), logically points to no laws existing, nothing existing, and therefore no objective morality.

Right. Unless, you make a gratuitous and probably clandestine allowance that they do exist just long enough to pretend to invent some scheme of objective morality or some such and then to fold them back up in their wallet and put them away in their pocket (along with the existence of God as being necessary for those laws being established to start with.)

It is a qualified proposal, similar to, "there is no such thing as Absolute Truth, except that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth".

Qualifying itself right out from under itself, just to propose a very demonic lie.

The devil is tricky.

Such processes depend on consistent laws.

Ahhhh, like 'what goes around comes around', or the two cause and effect aspects of "you reap what you sow'?

Those are proofs of the existence of God.

So, saying that the process of stating there is no God is dependant on God Inventing and Sustaining consistent laws is kind of dropping a bomb, IMHO.

Atheists and Christians will disagree over WHY a natural law exists. But they will agree THAT a natural law exists

I'd like to see WHY an Atheist says natural law exists. I think. Maybe I wouldn't.

It's probably like an Armenian trying to explain why they have no systematic Doctrines of Works.

They just say 'it all works out' by itself in our head and we don't have any more evidence for it than that that we could possibly put in writing that would make sense to anyone else. Finis.

And that natural law is sufficient to ground objective moral values.

The natural law is what morality is and any attempt to ground a moral value opposed to their witness in the soul and upon the conscious and call it a new impartial criteria of morality, only produces Immortality, as any objective moral value.

But there is objective reality.

Yes, there is, 37. A genuine given that can't be mocked. Because God is and God will not be mocked.

There is no objective truth w/o God

The only such thing as Absolute Truth is the Absolute Truths of God.

Thank you, Marooncat79.

 

[Alan Gross]

This sort of disconnect seems to permeate your posts. There seems to be an assumption that a point has been reached via a bridge visible only to yourself.

It's sort of like the, "That's the Way it is Bird".

That bird keeps flying around and around and around in smaller and smaller and smaller circles, until it eventually flies up its own tiny posterior.

And, that's the way it is.

Sort of.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…
Even as Christians, what are we trying to achieve? Life and happiness for all human beings (or as many human beings as possible). This is really not a foreign concept. You are making it way too complicated.

That parenthetical “or” option is quite an important distinction. There is a vast difference between it and the all inclusive stated goal “for all.”

It might be better to cite your intended argument as presented in the link offered here (Twenty Arguments for God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli). Kreeft has always seemed pretty articulate in his presentation, and comprehensive.

By the way, I agree with him that thinking of morality via the Divine Command Theory, that is, as if apart and separate from God is indeed flawed. But I was never arguing for that.

I prefer Peter Kreeft's arguments for God's existence.

Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
2030 hrs GMT 430 pm EDT 130 pm PDT

 

[Alan Gross]

Simple standard: are the actions conducive to producing life and happiness for all human beings? If no, they are wrong. Life and happiness for all human beings - that is the objective standard. It really is not complicated.

The impartial standard by which to hold to a self-imposed moral value is whether or not it is conducive to producing pleasure in sin for a season?

By what standard can holding a position of what value produces life and happiness for anyone, anywhere? What does that? Where is something promised to do that or given as an imperative for us to achieve for others?

A nihilist living like a nihilist will fail to achieve that state of life and happiness for all human beings. So his lifestyle is wrong.

The extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism of the nihilist condemns existence and only goes about seeking whom and what it may destroy, by having been gotten to and influenced by that kind of evil, personified.

What is 'a state of life and happiness' for any human beings?

Glorification?

Even as Christians, what are we trying to achieve? Life and happiness for all human beings (or as many human beings as possible). This is really not a foreign concept. You are making it way too complicated.

Our concept as Christians is to establish standards by which we can assist any human being in achieving Glorification of their body, forgiven from the guilt of sin, and delivered from the power and penalty and presence of sin, to freely Worship God in companionship with Him, and that where He is we might be also, for the endless endurance of Eternity?

That would be some very lofty standards that we'd be coming up with for people to preform in an effort to produce life and happiness that may very well be in competition with and opposed to the commands to repent and believe the Gospel, we have actually been given to proclaim.

If I think that I am trying to achieve life and happiness for other human beings and to convince them that that is what I am trying to do for them, why would I want to bring them to Christianity where if the world then would hate them, it is because they first hated Christ Jesus?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Arthur: While I appreciate your opinion and thoughts on this matter (very worthy of discussion);
I believe your arguments still miss the mark. Once this thread closes, I will probably start a thread to continue to the topic.
In short I will give you the basic reasons where I think your argument fails:

1.) The assumption that Holistic thriving for all humans is the highest good or grounded inherently in the Natural Law I think fails.

While there is some truth to it, other things that are equally as objectively real in Natural Law are lusts, competition, greed etc....
"Nature is red in tooth and claw" as the saying goes:
While there is some validity to the idea that the ultimate survival and thriving of humanity as a whole is an objectively good thing...I can imagine an argument that eugenics would be a very useful tool for achieving those ends. Similarly, if resources are scarce, and the population entirely too large to be sustained then, a systematic effort to reduce over-population either through forced sterilization or euthanasia could be a useful (or even absolutely necessary) policy to achieve that end.
Also...who says that the Holistic thriving of all human beings is a good?
Some environmentalists for instance consider all of the ecosystem, the planet et. al. of as much, or even more moral worth than humans who (given atheism) are mere accidents. If, as many believe mankind is the most destructive animal on the planet...the eradication of human beings is a Greater Good than the thriving of all other species on the planet.

2.) You argument tries to derive an "ought" from an "is".

Morality isn't about what is but what ought to be by definition. It is objectively true whether a single person believes it or not.
If humans apprehend an idea that the thriving of all human persons is inherently a good thing,
Then, that is a mere description of how the world IS. Just as it is a non-moral fact that 2+2=4 (an objective truth). It MAY even be a fact (and I do not grant it) that this accidental and purposeless universe has caused mankind to evolve an instinct {a herd mentality if you will} whereby we believe that it is in everyone's best interest to seek the good of all.
All we have then observed is a rote fact of what is....not what ought to be.
This is a mere observation being made about how a virtue like cooperation or even self-sacrifice for the sake of the herd takes place within humans...much like they might in herd animals.

Herd animals like buffalo or musk oxen that cooperate (even to the point of self-endangerment) to protect others of the species are not acting morally. They are not doing what they ought to do...They are only doing as they have evolved by accident of nature to do.
Similarly, when that disgusting, lazy, vile eagle that lives across my lake steals the hard- won well-earned fish that the osprey who live nearby caught it is not acting morally. It is simply doing what the accident of nature has evolved it to do.
These are objective realities of unguided nature. They are simply what IS...not what OUGHT to be.

 

[The Archangel]

Objective morality for the atheist would refer to a harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and the rest of 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.

And yet the recorded history of mankind from scripture until today demonstrates your "premise" to be false from the start.

The Archangel

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning:
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
2030 hrs GMT 430 pm EDT 130 pm PDT

This thread is closed