Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm (This post was last modified: October 17, 2013 at 10:44 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
Sorry for the 2 week hiatus. Midterms, extra shifts at my part-time, yada yada. Good to be back.
So, the moral argument for the existence of God usually goes roughly as follows:
Moral Argument Wrote:P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3) Therefore God exists.
Man, as far as apologetics goes, the moral arguments are really sctaping the bottom of the barrel.
But one thing needs to be admitted: The logic is valid. It's straightforward modus ponens:
If P, then Q. P. Therefore Q.
Woop de doo. Validity is no great accomplishment as far as usability goes. I could just as easily reverse the argument and it'd be just the same:
Quote:P1) If objective moral values and duties exist, then God does not exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3) Therefore God does not exist.
In other words, theists need to actually defend the 2 premises, rather than just chucking up this argument. And to date, I myself have never heard anything resembling a cogent defense of the first premise. Certainly not, in any case, from the likes of William Lane Craig and his copycat minions, who always seem to merely point out that there are some people who agree with that assertion.
The oft put forward Divine Command Theory honestly seems to me to be the moral framework of a psychopath and is cornered by Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma in my opinion.
Another quibble of mine is with the term 'objective morality'. That needs to be replaced with 'moral realism', because otherwise it's just confusing. It gets kind of annoying when it's claimed that because person X 'has' objective morality', their's therefore escapes moral relativism, which fails to realize that some can be objective, yet still relative (i.e those are not actually polarized terms).
Another reason I mention that slight annoyance is that such an assertion can't even be supported as at least being plausible and well defended in modern philosophical literature (that moral realism necessitates God existing, or some god anyway). In the 'PhilPapers' survey back in 2010 (of over 3000 professional philosophers), we get some interesting information:
~73% of philosophers are or lean toward atheism.
~14% of philosophers are or lean towards some kind of theism (mostly Christians, I'm sure).
The 13% left are like strict "agnostics/other".
Further, about ~60% of philosophers are moral realists. Now, I haven't yet looked at the breakdown of how many moral realists are theists/atheists/whatever but mathematically, even if all 14% of theist philosophers were moral realists (and they probably are, I'd bet), that leaves a whopping 46% of nontheist moral realists among philosophers. Not even close.
So the game of claiming (as William Lane Craig always does) that "Theists and nontheists agree that without God, objective moral values and duties do not exist" is a blatant lie or an ignorantly made assumption (assuming I'm not having a critical failure in understanding the survey and terms involved) and naming 2 or 3 philosophers who are atheists that agree is irrelevant.
The last common 'defense' of the argument is that we just know that moral realism is true... that's it. Or as Craig has put it, "We know that it's true, as much as we know anything. In our experience, we apprehend a realm of moral truth" or something to that effect.
Anyhow, thoughts? Do you know better criticisms of the moral arguments for God's existence? Problems with mine?
Okay, I swear when I searched 'moral argument' on this forum, I didn't see that I'd already made this thread before (I'd forgotten I guess). :l Oh well, that thread was 30+ days. :p
The thing that I find funny is that theists just assume everyone thinks objective morals exists. So all they have to do is employ an "If...Then..." argument, and viola, praise Jesus!
I remember having a chat with my university's Christian union president about objective morals last semester. My take on the discussion was that I assumed objective morals to exist, and so I simply asked him "well, what are these objective morals exactly? You say your moral code happens to match these objective morals, so what exactly are they, since you say you live by them?" 3 hours later and he still couldn't give me even one entry of this mythical objective code. I can't remember how the discussion went, but I do remember at one point he was trying an analogy to do with the sunset: "everyone that I know thinks sunsets are beautiful". And when I told him I think sunsets are ok, he said "well, what about the Grand Canyon? Surely *everyone* thinks it's spectacular?" I was just thinking to myself "well, shit..."
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Far be it from me to dignify any of Craig's arguments with a response, but what irritates me is the way theists use these arguments without any regard for the philosophical implications.
The phrase "objective morals" means morals independent of any conscious entity's will, desires or opinions. If god exists and morality comes from him, then it is, by definition, subjective. As a matter of fact, in that case, the whole reality would be subjective and the word "objective" would lose all meaning. But once this argument is made - often in the form of Euthyphro Dilemma - they scramble for explanations like "but god is objectively morally good by his very nature" - forgetting that if morality is established as a standard independent of god then the existence of god becomes irrelevant to existence of objective morality. If they do remember that, then their position becomes even weirder. So, basically, Craig's moral argument is a complicated game of moving the goalposts with no regard for what morality actually means or what actual existence objective moral values would require.
Now, here's something I find even more irritating - a lot of atheists seem to accept that god is required for objective moral values. They attack premise 2 - question whether objective moral values do exist while professing belief in the social contract theory - while disregarding premise 1. I'd expect atheists to actually consider the premises required for objective morality to exist and use that as a basis to judge whether or not it does or could rather than simply accepting the theistic view that god is required for it.
The MA is definitely a contender for the stupidest thing apologists have ever said, a truly competitive field.
"Solve meta-ethics or God exists!"
But Gen, an apologist would just respond that the objective moral standard is God's nature, wouldn't they?
I remember Craig (in his debate with Sam Harris) was challenged by an audience member about something related to the fact/value distinction and Craig's response was like "Our duties are constituted by commands from a competent authority, that is to say, by imperatives issued by the Good itself."
Oh boy, Christianity thieving from Platonism again! Didn't see that coming...
(October 18, 2013 at 2:02 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: But Gen, an apologist would just respond that the objective moral standard is God's nature, wouldn't they?
That's what I said an apologist would say. And that's the first step in the game "hide the goalposts".
A conceptual standard and a conscious entity's nature are two separate things. So, saying that "objective moral standard is god's nature" would either mean that god's nature conforms to an objective moral standard - in which case, his existence is irrelevant to the existence of this standard - or that the standard is determined by god's nature - in which case it is no longer objective.
The next move is to actually conflate the two different concepts and claim that god's nature - somehow - is the moral standard. At which point the whole thing stops making any sense at all.
(October 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Sorry for the 2 week hiatus. Midterms, extra shifts at my part-time, yada yada. Good to be back.
So, the moral argument for the existence of God usually goes roughly as follows:
Moral Argument Wrote:P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3) Therefore God exists.
Man, as far as apologetics goes, the moral arguments are really sctaping the bottom of the barrel.
But one thing needs to be admitted: The logic is valid. It's straightforward modus ponens:
If P, then Q. P. Therefore Q.
Woop de doo. Validity is no great accomplishment as far as usability goes. I could just as easily reverse the argument and it'd be just the same:
Quote:P1) If objective moral values and duties exist, then God does not exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3) Therefore God does not exist.
In other words, theists need to actually defend the 2 premises, rather than just chucking up this argument. And to date, I myself have never heard anything resembling a cogent defense of the first premise. Certainly not, in any case, from the likes of William Lane Craig and his copycat minions, who always seem to merely point out that there are some people who agree with that assertion.
The oft put forward Divine Command Theory honestly seems to me to be the moral framework of a psychopath and is cornered by Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma in my opinion.
Another quibble of mine is with the term 'objective morality'. That needs to be replaced with 'moral realism', because otherwise it's just confusing. It gets kind of annoying when it's claimed that because person X 'has' objective morality', their's therefore escapes moral relativism, which fails to realize that some can be objective, yet still relative (i.e those are not actually polarized terms).
Another reason I mention that slight annoyance is that such an assertion can't even be supported as at least being plausible and well defended in modern philosophical literature (that moral realism necessitates God existing, or some god anyway). In the 'PhilPapers' survey back in 2010 (of over 3000 professional philosophers), we get some interesting information:
~73% of philosophers are or lean toward atheism.
~14% of philosophers are or lean towards some kind of theism (mostly Christians, I'm sure).
The 13% left are like strict "agnostics/other".
Further, about ~60% of philosophers are moral realists. Now, I haven't yet looked at the breakdown of how many moral realists are theists/atheists/whatever but mathematically, even if all 14% of theist philosophers were moral realists (and they probably are, I'd bet), that leaves a whopping 46% of nontheist moral realists among philosophers. Not even close.
So the game of claiming (as William Lane Craig always does) that "Theists and nontheists agree that without God, objective moral values and duties do not exist" is a blatant lie or an ignorantly made assumption (assuming I'm not having a critical failure in understanding the survey and terms involved) and naming 2 or 3 philosophers who are atheists that agree is irrelevant.
The last common 'defense' of the argument is that we just know that moral realism is true... that's it. Or as Craig has put it, "We know that it's true, as much as we know anything. In our experience, we apprehend a realm of moral truth" or something to that effect.
Anyhow, thoughts? Do you know better criticisms of the moral arguments for God's existence? Problems with mine?
Okay, I swear when I searched 'moral argument' on this forum, I didn't see that I'd already made this thread before (I'd forgotten I guess). :l Oh well, that thread was 30+ days. :p
What does existence mean when applied to God?
God doesn't exist in the physical realm as such. We can't identify anything of God in the physical realm. God therefore exists (assuming) in a spiritual or metaphysical realm.
Equally objective moral values and duties don't exist as a physical entity. You can't be introduced to them at a dinner party.
So objective moral values and duties exist in either a spiritual or metaphysical realm (or A.N.Other realm) but not the physical one.
They could, for example exist in a realm of the imagination, along with God.
If we can imagine them, therefore, they exist in as much as objective moral values and duties can.
I think the WLC premise that God is required for an objective morality holds. True, you can say it's subjective for God, but that argument doesn't work. The cubic centimeter was arbitrarily made by others than me, but from my perspective, it still stands as an objective measure of volume. I can't sensibly redefine it. And if God is real and right, then you couldn't really sensibly redefine morality.
I think it is P2 that totally fails. I don't think there is any moral that is truly objective, EVEN IF there is some kind of Deity. What we have are instincts that we place in a bell curve and say, "normal, therefore objective." But some people probably think killing babies, or raping little boys, or stealing, are perfectly moral, due to a world view of twisted justifications.
October 19, 2013 at 12:27 am (This post was last modified: October 19, 2013 at 12:30 am by Cato.)
(October 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: [quote='Moral Argument']
P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
You cannot possibly substantiate this claim using generally accepted definitions for God, objective and duty.
Oh yeah, midterms in the first two weeks of October. Please tell me what school you attend. It's not that I don't believe you, just odd.
October 19, 2013 at 8:59 am (This post was last modified: October 19, 2013 at 9:04 am by genkaus.)
This should be interesting.
"From my perspective, it still stands as an objective measure... I can't sensibly redefine it."
Make a good note of this statement. Either you didn't mean to make such a statement and would wish to retract it or if you meant it, it contradicts your own arguments and ends up showing that P1 is false and P2 is true.
When you are considering the question of morality, then you are the subject of consideration (one who considers) and morality is the object of consideration (that which is considered). And your argument is pretty straightforward - if morality is independent of the subject (you) then it is objective and if it is dependent on the subject, it is subjective. So, I'll go ahead and accept these definitions of subjective and objective for this post.
(October 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think the WLC premise that God is required for an objective morality holds. True, you can say it's subjective for God, but that argument doesn't work. The cubic centimeter was arbitrarily made by others than me, but from my perspective, it still stands as an objective measure of volume. I can't sensibly redefine it. And if God is real and right, then you couldn't really sensibly redefine morality.
So, according to you, since a bunch of people arbitrarily came up with a measure for volume - the cubic centimeter - one which you cannot redefine, then that is objective. So, if a bunch of people come up with a measure for actions - which would be their morality - and you cannot redefine it, then you should also regard it as objective. Which means, god is not required for objective morality.
You see, Craig's argument is not that if god existed, his given morality would be objective, his argument is that god is necessarily required for the existence of objective morals. But if we go by your definition of "objective", then, obviously, god is not required - thus defeating P1.
(October 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think it is P2 that totally fails. I don't think there is any moral that is truly objective, EVEN IF there is some kind of Deity. What we have are instincts that we place in a bell curve and say, "normal, therefore objective." But some people probably think killing babies, or raping little boys, or stealing, are perfectly moral, due to a world view of twisted justifications.
But, going by your definitions, there are objective moral values out there. There are a whole bunch of moral theories, like Contractarianism, Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics etc. none of which you can sensibly redefine. The fact that all of them are different from each-other is irrelevant. After all, you have a whole bunch of standards for measuring volume other than the cubic centimeter - such as gallons, quarts, teaspoons, bushels, cubic inches etc. - and all of them are regarded as objective. Which means P2 has been proven as true - there are objective moral values out there.
Interestingly, does this argument mean that Biblical morality is objective as well? After all, those morals are written down in a book, so it shouldn't be possible for the subject to sensibly redefine them. I'd be inclined to say yes - IF the subjects didn't actually keep redefining it. In my experience, the subject considering Biblical morality goes about picking and choosing - this doesn't apply today, this is metaphorical, this is an allegory, this doesn't mean what it says it means but something completely different, but THIS part is to be taken literally. Which is why I'd regard Christian morality as subjective.
So, now that you've made an argument that contradicts both of your stated positions, do you care to reconsider how you define the terms objective and subjective?
(October 19, 2013 at 12:27 am)cato123 Wrote: Oh yeah, midterms in the first two weeks of October. Please tell me what school you attend. It's not that I don't believe you, just odd.
Is it odd? My semesters used to be from late-July to early-December and we used to have mid-terms in late-September/early-October. I was under the impression that most schools followed this pattern.
