The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated from the beginning that there is no such thing as this concept of "objective" morality you Christers keep pimping.

LOL.

The Moral Argument posits that objective moral values exist; it's the theists burden to prove that they do. At the same time, the atheist (and this means you this time) posits that objective moral values do not exist (ie, that all moral values are subjective); it's your burden to prove that all moral values are purely subjective.

Your explanation that Mary's marriage at a young age was appropriate then but not know merely demonstrates that the age of marriage is NOT and never was an objective moral value. 

So, you attempted to give an example of how society makes up its moral values subjectively as it goes along. And that may be true in SOME cases (the age of marriage being one), but you fail to prove thereby that objective moral values do not exist, and you have not proven that all moral values are subjective. 

You haven't proven yourself right or me wrong with this example.

You don't then get to turn around and say that I failed to demonstrate objective morality! That is your concept. Y'all made it up; like much in philosophy, it's an imaginary extreme used to demonstrate an idea, but it just doesn't play out in reality.

And as I have explained twice now, I have not said that you failed to prove the existence of OMV's. You simply failed to show that all moral values are subjective.

As to your example of FGM, do you know why they do that? They believe that their Ultimate Moral Lawgiver has said that women's place is to be breeders for one man, and remove the clitoris so she isn't tempted into sin by the ability to have sex for fun. To them, it is a moral act. To us, it is a horrifying breach of individual rights. Many things allegedly commanded by scripture are morally horrifying in this way (see e.g. Leviticus 25:44-46) to our modern idea of morality... but if we accept that morals come from the gods described by scripture, what basis is there to say it isn't, even when it conflicts with our post-Enlightenment values? This is true for slavery in Leviticus as much as for the FGM.

You can sneer at us all you like, but the fact remains that your concept of "objective" morality is not reality. It's a philosophy exercise, but it's not some kind of problem for atheists except in the minds of people who can't tell fantasy from reality.

Sneer? Rocket, this is really poor thinking. I have not argued for a Jewish god or a Christian god. I'm simply asking the questions that arise from considering the argument for ANY god, and this has you completely unraveled. I'm not asking you to be a Christer, but you're not merely a-Christ or a-Krishna -- you're a-theist. So, you reject all gods or concepts of god, and I'm asking you to give a coherent explanation as to why you deny the existence of ANY supreme being in light of what appears to be a solid moral argument in favor of one.

And this you have not done.

Look, I get that you are a former Christian, and you have a big chip on your shoulder. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you can adequately explain the existence or non-existence of moral values that appear to be objective and NOT the result of personal preference or societal convention.

As a thoughtful a-theist, don't you owe it to yourself to have an answer?

---

Are you asking if everyone on earth (every woman included, obviously) rejected the idea that rape is wrong, then would rape be okay? But then it's no longer rape, is it? It's just universally agreed that all sex is consensual.

Are you asking if a two-year old consents to having its head smashed against a concrete wall so that someone else can laugh at her crying or lifeless body, then it's okay?

What are you really asking?

I'm asking you where these moral values go to hide when they're not in people's heads?  Are they in the rocks?  Where and how do objective moral values exist?

Two days ago, I watched the documentary, "India's Daughter". Have you seen it? It's available for free on Netflix.

India's Daughter covers the story of the rape and murder of Jyoti Singh, a young medical student, who was assaulted by six men on a bus in Delhi in 2012.

The producer interviewed many people involved with the case including Jyoti's parents and friends, the convicted men and their parents, lawyers on both sides and various government officials.

The attitude of the attackers and their lawyers seems to reflect an ancient (thought changing in part because of this case) cultural understanding that any woman who goes out of her home in the evening without a family member (she went to see a movie with a male friend) is asking to be raped. By wearing certain clothing, women are asking to be raped. It's not the man's fault - how can men be expected to control themselves when women are so provocative? And if she hadn't struggled and merely accepted the gang rape, she wouldn't have been killed. So, this is all on her.

Now, Jorm, let me ask: if everyone in India decided that women are always responsible for being raped, would that make it right in your mind? And if you, personally, decided that Jyoti had no right to go to see a movie, would that make her rape okay?

Or is it really the case that because you think she deserved to be raped for violating a cultural convention, it's perfectly acceptable because all moral values are subjective?

As for where and how OMV's exist, that's what the Argument seeks to establish. 

But that's putting the cart before the horse if there is no agreement that they even exist at all.

[athrock]

From Wikipedia:

"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern ."

Let's play with this just a bit to see how a Christian might meme this:

God is a hyperthetical kind of being that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for all of the matter in the . The existence and properties of God are inferred from its effects on the human intellect, emotions and will, and on the finely-tuned design of the universe. God has been detected directly in the form of His incarnate Son and Holy Spirit, making the Holy Trinity one of the greatest mysteries in modern theology.

[Angrboda]

I'm asking you where these moral values go to hide when they're not in people's heads?  Are they in the rocks?  Where and how do objective moral values exist?

[sad story snipped]

Now, Jorm, let me ask: if everyone in India decided that women are always responsible for being raped, would that make it right in your mind? And if you, personally, decided that Jyoti had no right to go to see a movie, would that make her rape okay?

Or is it really the case that because you think she deserved to be raped for violating a cultural convention, it's perfectly acceptable because all moral values are subjective?

As for where and how OMV's exist, that's what the Argument seeks to establish. 

But that's putting the cart before the horse if there is no agreement that they even exist at all.

I don't believe you when you say objective moral values exist. Where is not an aim of the argument; the argument just assumes they do. And I think you're just evading the question of where. I don't believe you actually have a good theory as to how objective moral values would work. The closest you've come is a sort of Platonism wherein God is the form of the highest good. Is that your theory of how morality works, that we are all attempting to approximate "the good" ?

As to your question, we are partially constrained by evolutionary psychology, so not everything goes. The concept of fairness is more than a cultural norm and less than an objective value; that accounts for a lot of answers about morality. Morality resides in the subconscious; it is not something we can change willy nilly, so it is relative to that person's mind, and in that sense subjective.

[Vincent]

the atheist (and this means you this time) posits that objective moral values do not exist (ie, that all moral values are subjective); it's your burden to prove that all moral values are purely subjective.

Okay. 

Morals and ethics are not chosen by facts. They are chosen by human feeling. You refuse to answer my question of why murder is wrong. So let me supply the answer for you. 

Murder is wrong because we, as humans, value our lives. We do not want other people taking our lives. And because we have these emotions called "empathy", we understand that if we don't want our lives taken, then other people don't want theirs taken. And thus to form a society in which I am not at risk of being killed by people and my neighbor and my friends and family are not at risk of being killed by people, we come to an agreement to outlaw murder. That is, to make a rule that we shouldn't kill each other. 

Notice how the above reason for the immorality of murder is based ENTIRELY on the feelings of humans. Even if every human agrees, it is still a conclusion reached through emotion and pure human bias. "Human life has value." Not objectively it doesn't! The universe doesn't care if you live or die. We say life is sacred because we are alive. Of course the living would feel their condition to be sacred. But that bias doesn't make it objectively true. 

You're failing to make a decent argument because, after 21 pages, you STILL don't see the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is not that which is universally agreed upon. A long time ago, basically everyone agreed that natural disasters were the acts of Gods. Popular opinion is irrelevant when it comes to objectivity. Popular opinion might be right about an objective truth (i.e. all of America agreeing that evolution happened), but it is not the popular opinion which makes it factual; it is the facts that support it. With objectivity, it is the facts - and only the facts - that have a say. With subjectivity, it is opinion, feeling, and bias that decide. 

And it is opinion, feeling, and bias that decide murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong. Humans are upset with the idea of people being killed, raped, and abused, and thus it is outlawed. NOT because nature has a law that says so. NOT because science or mathematics says so. But because we say so, because we FEEL so. 

Everything that is morally wrong is morally wrong because humans feel it to be wrong. If you want to say an all powerful being that determines everything makes it wrong, and not human feeling, then fine. But in order to do that, you have to show that your being exists in the first place. 

So if we're being technical here, one must prove God's existence in order to prove that OMVs exist, and not the other way around, as your premise asserts.

[abaris]

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

I wouldn't go about dismantling it at all. I would just recommend to not only look at the species of homo but at other social species as well. If this is done, the one making that argument is either an idiot or refrains from making the argument in the future.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated from the beginning that there is no such thing as this concept of "objective" morality you Christers keep pimping.

LOL.

The Moral Argument posits that objective moral values exist; it's the theists burden to prove that they do. At the same time, the atheist (and this means you this time) posits that objective moral values do not exist (ie, that all moral values are subjective); it's your burden to prove that all moral values are purely subjective.

Your explanation that Mary's marriage at a young age was appropriate then but not know merely demonstrates that the age of marriage is NOT and never was an objective moral value. 

So, you attempted to give an example of how society makes up its moral values subjectively as it goes along. And that may be true in SOME cases (the age of marriage being one), but you fail to prove thereby that objective moral values do not exist, and you have not proven that all moral values are subjective. 

You haven't proven yourself right or me wrong with this example.

"True in some cases"? What!? You went from listing examples of things that you considered to be objective morals, shared by all; I showed you that even in cases of things that seem like moral absolutes, there are exceptions, including the concept of the Age of Consent (the story of the virgin Mary, in this example). I showed you that even FGMs are considered to be a moral action by the people who do that, based on that same invented concept of Objective (read: divine) Morality.

I have posited the very simple concept that your claim is invented nonsense, since every example I can see is an example of moral relativity, based on the cultures that devise them. It has been well established that societies benefit if they have social rules of behavior (what we like to call morals), with laws to back many/most of them up, that limit the harm done by individuals to that society, in comparison to those which do not (anarchy), which is hardly a controversial statement. You do not get to shift the burden of proof back to me by claiming I have made some wild, unsubstantiated claim... until you establish that Objective Morals even exist, subjective moral codes established by society is the default. I have already listed examples of how societies vary widely on their concepts of "what is moral", and that the things considered moral by those societies alter over time even within the same society (such that the Bible no longer dovetails neatly with the moral code of most post-Enlightenment Christians, as it did with the early Christians and Hebrews), so it is clear that moral codes are a subjective, cultural thing, despite your claims to the contrary. You're the only one here making a claim. I am simply showing you that the answers to the questions "What is moral behavior?" and/or "Is ____ moral?" will change depending on what city you're asking in.

If you can find an example where this is not true, I'd love to hear it.

You don't then get to turn around and say that I failed to demonstrate objective morality! That is your concept. Y'all made it up; like much in philosophy, it's an imaginary extreme used to demonstrate an idea, but it just doesn't play out in reality.

And as I have explained twice now, I have not said that you failed to prove the existence of OMV's. You simply failed to show that all moral values are subjective.

So let me get this straight... you start with the claim (paraphrased), "If you atheists don't believe in God, then how can you say one moral behavior is better than another?", a basic summary of your perception of the weakness of moral subjectivity, which presumes that morals are subjective (and thus, apparently, random) unless one follows the dictates of a Moral Lawgiver... then you try to bait-and-switch and pretend that I must now establish that morals are subjective?

I don't know a way to "prove that all moral values are subjective", except to show you examples of ones that seem like they'd be universally prohibited but in fact are not so, even in societies that consider themselves to be based on the height of human moral thinking, as in the FGM example. It is why I have repeatedly invited you to show me an example that you think I cannot show is in fact subjective. (I'm not expecting you to actually acknowledge that I have done so, just as you have not acknowledged my challenges to you to back up your statements that we gave up Christianity because we don't understand it by providing me an example of something about Christianity you think I can't grasp. You seem more content to sling dire insults our way, couched in polite language, and then take umbrage when we insult you in return. It's a fundamental form of dishonesty and is why I am becoming less-polite with you.)

As to your example of FGM, do you know why they do that? They believe that their Ultimate Moral Lawgiver has said that women's place is to be breeders for one man, and remove the clitoris so she isn't tempted into sin by the ability to have sex for fun. To them, it is a moral act. To us, it is a horrifying breach of individual rights. Many things allegedly commanded by scripture are morally horrifying in this way (see e.g. Leviticus 25:44-46) to our modern idea of morality... but if we accept that morals come from the gods described by scripture, what basis is there to say it isn't, even when it conflicts with our post-Enlightenment values? This is true for slavery in Leviticus as much as for the FGM.

You can sneer at us all you like, but the fact remains that your concept of "objective" morality is not reality. It's a philosophy exercise, but it's not some kind of problem for atheists except in the minds of people who can't tell fantasy from reality.

Sneer? Rocket, this is really poor thinking. I have not argued for a Jewish god or a Christian god. I'm simply asking the questions that arise from considering the argument for ANY god, and this has you completely unraveled. I'm not asking you to be a Christer, but you're not merely a-Christ or a-Krishna -- you're a-theist. So, you reject all gods or concepts of god, and I'm asking you to give a coherent explanation as to why you deny the existence of ANY supreme being in light of what appears to be a solid moral argument in favor of one.

And this you have not done.

Look, I get that you are a former Christian, and you have a big chip on your shoulder. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you can adequately explain the existence or non-existence of moral values that appear to be objective and NOT the result of personal preference or societal convention.

As a thoughtful a-theist, don't you owe it to yourself to have an answer?

"Completely unraveled"? Are you taking hallucinogens? First of all, I did not leave my church in anger, nor did I have anything but positive experiences there until the moment I started asking questions that undermined the teachings of the church, just before I left... and even then, it was not hostile until I was thrown out of my house for refusing to attend church. I'm not even angry about that, at this point in my life. The only chip I carry has to do with hearing the lies about atheists repeated, over and again, until people actually believe the horrible things about us. The "subjective moralists are immoral" argument being first among the ones that are nothing but slander, and which make me angry. (I'm also pretty angry when I see science abused for ideological purposes of any kind, but that's a different conversation.) The reason I assume you are a Christian but just playing irritatingly coy is because I don't really hear this argument from other religionists, except the occasional Muslim... your phrasing of these questions and philosophies dovetails nicely with a lot of the latest that's coming from the Christian Apologetics Factories™, as I call them, so if I had to bet my last dollar, I'd say you're a Christian. And if you're a Christian, then you're playing rhetorical games just to try to win an argument via disingenuous means.

On to my point (the bold emphasis, above)... what "moral values that appear to be objective" would you be talking about? I don't know of any... but I'm willing to listen. So I guess I'll make my fifth request that you provide an example of such, since it's apparent to you but not to me. I don't think you can.

[tkolter]

OP, please explain how the first item is true. I don't see how morality hinges upon a supreme being.

I tend to see many issues first of all morality is largely subject and are societal constructs the Vikings morality, and modern morality and the morality of ISIL for example as they interpret their faith is all very different but inside those cultures people are "moral".

My second point is what if the morality is fundamentally flawed lets pick a real example in the South for two centuries they had brutal slavery. They who were in the slave trade at all levels thought it was moral and further used the Bible to defend it rather simply since the Bible said it was okay to own slaves and slaves should obey their masters. Now many didn't agree and resisted it with the Underground Railroad and so forth. I think we can agree the slavery system was highly immoral but the people who were involved believed it was religiously moral but flawed.

So if there is subjective morals and it can be flawed or not its hardly necessary for a deity in fact in my example religion in this case Biblical Christianity backed slavery, maybe atheism with our general respect for human dignity and empathy would have been far superior to the religious in this case.

[GUBU]

From Wikipedia:

"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern ."

Let's play with this just a bit to see how a Christian might meme this:

God is a hyperthetical kind of being that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for all of the matter in the . The existence and properties of God are inferred from its effects on the human intellect, emotions and will, and on the finely-tuned design of the universe. God has been detected directly in the form of His incarnate Son and Holy Spirit, making the Holy Trinity one of the greatest mysteries in modern theology.

I'll illustrate the difference between dark matter and your imaginary friend yhwh using the concept of luminiferous aether (I was going to use phlogiston, but the aether is more aesthetically pleasing). The concept of luminiferous aether was current in science to explain outer space and how light traveled from the sun to us until well into the 19th century. Once it was shown that luminiferous aether was non-existent (through the Michelson-Morley experiment) it was dropped, and better theories of outer space and what light was were developed which massively increased our understanding of the universe (for example Relativity). Essentially the aether was a means to explain a group of phenomena that scientists hadn't gotten a handle on at that stage and was dropped when understanding and knowledge improved.

Now it may turn that dark matter is the 21st century luminiferous aether (scientists did posit it to explain something they don't quite understand after all). If that is the case it will be dropped as quickly and as easily as the luminiferous aether was, and substituted with something better.

On the other hand, you've got all the human concepts of god (for it is man who created god, not vice versa) which upon any objective examination of the facts can be shown to be false, and have been shown to be false. But, unlike the luminiferous aether these concepts have not been dropped, they have propogated and multiplied and impeded our understanding of reality.

You see, athrock that is the difference between us and you, when we are shown reality and have it explained to us, we drop the falsehoods quite readily and accept the reality. You on the other hand, deny the reality and hold on to the comfort blanket of the idea that god watches over you, and has made you special. But lets face it, we exist on a pale blue dot, there's no way we're special and we're probably not unique (considering the vastness of space, the amount of stars, and the amount of planets around those stars, and finally the sheer extent of time, I'd put money on some other creature out there having at least gotten as far as us at some stage in the 13odd bn years of existence), and it is preposterous that if there were a ultimate being out there it would find us the remote bit interesting, never mind so central to reality as to send part of itself to proselytise at us.

[IATIA]

Physically abusing children simply for the the fun of it.

Rape. Always and everywhere.

#1 Pedophiles, abusive parents and drunks.

#2 Rape is not only condoned in the bible, it is commanded. U.S. history; Slaves were raped and it was considered moral. Not only that, but god seemed to have neglected to imbibe humans with a sense of morality toward 'sub-humans' and that was considered moral.

[robvalue]

I repeat my proposal that morality is a value judgement, not a measurement.

Measurements are generally objective. Value judgements are not.

If you are just talking about consequences of actions, then yes, those consequences can be objectively measured. But it's whether those consequences are "OK", good", "bad", and to what extent, that is a value judgement. Also, just considering consequences ignores the intent of actions. This makes the assumption that everyone always causes the outcome they intend to, and it assumes that everyone has all the information they could possibly require when making decisions. (For example, I open a door with the belief that there is no one on the other side. But there is someone there, and the door hits them and hurts them. To act "morally" I would then be required to know my own belief was false.)

To show morality is objective, you have to show that it is somehow more than just individuals making value judgements. Because clearly, people don't agree. Not even whole societies agree when norms are assessed. Especially where religion is involved, what is considered a "good" and "bad" outcome can be wildly different to someone with no religious beliefs. The opinion of "God" is still just another opinion. If he wanted us all to have the same objective morality then he should have made us that way.