God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Ryft]

Actually, to me statement Y seems to say a great deal about God. To say that morality or goodness is "grounded in the very nature of God" is to say that God is good.

So then, to you, what statement Y says about God is that he is good? I think the easiest way to expose your error here is to have you demonstrate, if you will, how it is that "God is good" follows from statement Y at all.

And as a clarifying aside, your comment ("To say that morality or goodness...") flirts with an equivocation, since morality does not address simply what is moral (good or right) but also what is immoral; for example, "Rape is wrong" is a moral statement but identifies what is bad or wrong. You do not err when you equate 'moral' and 'good' (or 'immoral' and 'bad') but you do when you equate 'morality' and 'goodness', for such implies that badness is not an issue for morality to address, which is quite false. I find it helpful to think of it this way: "what is moral" comes under ethics, but "what morality is" comes under meta-ethics. And it is meta-ethics that we are discussing, not ethics.

So fine, let's replace option #3 with your statement: "Morality is grounded in the very nature [and will] of God."

Good choice, for that is what you WILL find from capable Christian apologists, such as John Frame, Scott Rae, Keith Ward, Greg Koukl and so forth. Incidentally, I am still waiting for those academic sources you were to dig up showing that any Christian apologists have argued "God is morality"—although you are free to admit that you actually had no academic sources, that you were basing your critique on arguments made by vidiots on YouTube. (And the will of God is included in the definition, despite your persistent attempts to dismiss the second half of my statement, which was, "and revealed prescriptively in his commands," that is, the will of God.)

Ah, this is an important point to clarify. I was speaking of the concept of God in the abstract, not necessarily any particular version of anyone's religion. ... I'd like to keep this discussion on whether or not a god is required for morality to exist.

You are trying to escape your own words. The very first paragraph of your post (Msg. 1) identified the context in which you were using the terms, when you said it was Christians recycling these arguments. At any rate, if God is a necessary precondition for morality, then it follows that "a god is required." Ergo, keeping this discussion on God accomplishes your stated goal.

You have not presented any argument on this thread discussing whether or not the existence of morality and the existence of God are two separate issues? I must be confused then.

Indeed you must be confused. Although you did see me write those things, you do not seem to realize that they are not arguments. All I did was identify the Christian theory of meta-ethics, showing that your list either did not include it or that Option #3 badly misrepresented it (which I initiated by asking you to cite your sources). To state the case is one thing, which is what I did, while making the case is quite another thing. I am not sure how one could fairly disagree with that.

See, that's called "taking a position," not begging the question. ... don't bandy about frivolous accusations of logical fallacies.

It is both, sir. The position you took simply begged the question against your Christian opponent. You assumed the truth of your presuppositions and reasoned to the conclusion they entail, simply begging the question against the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. Pointing out this logical fallacy is not frivolous; it should be helpful to the discussion, for who wants to persist in bad reasoning? If your opponent's view is wrong, you must demonstrate that under its own terms. The fact that it fails to satisfy the terms or criteria of your view is utterly irrelevant.

If I'm wrong or missing something, feel free to present your own counter-arguments ...

Your view simply does not matter, sir. Period. You are attempting to critically analyze the Christian theory of meta-ethics, which means your view is utterly irrelevant here. (Unless of course you simply want to persist in begging the question.) The Christian theory of meta-ethics I identified stands or falls under its own terms. Pointing out that it fails under the terms or criteria of your view is irrelevant, for it is bad reasoning to assume your view is right until proven wrong.

---

---

Nope, it specifically says something about the nature of God.

Feel free to demonstrate how "morality is grounded in the nature and will of God" says something about God. Basic English grammar tells you the sentence says something about morality, and nothing about God. Again, referring to the nature of God says nothing about the nature of God.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it becomes circular; i.e., God by his very nature is good ... [snip rest]

Who concluded a moral valuation about God's nature? "God is good" is a moral valuation; who made that valuation?

Oh dear. How did you get to the Abrahamic God?

By Scripture—which includes the New Testament and, thus, is not strictly "the Abrahamic God" (a term that precludes the New Testament). And it is not "mere speculation" but rather an axiomatic presupposition.