The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

Perhaps not but you can reason your way to an understanding that something exists. Surely there are concepts in everyday usage that might be used as imperfect examples of this process? What about imaginary numbers? Do they really exist? Or are they merely ideas that mathematicians agree upon? Merely "defining" the Flying Spaghetti Monster (by describing its characteristics) hasn't made it real, either...other than as an idea.

However, it seems to me that by use of our reason, we can conclude that there are certain moral values, duties and obligations that are universally accepted and therefore, objectively true. Of course, others including you, seem to dispute that objective moral values exist. Yet, even our lived experience seems to tell us that they do.

Have a care with the terms "we" and "us". No, I can't reason my way to an understanding that something exists. I can have it proved to me, and I can use my ability to reason to understand the proof (as in things like imaginary numbers and bosons), but they can't be reasoned into existence. They either exist, and can be demonstrated, or they don't.

How strongly do you feel about the Big Bang as the likely beginning of the universe? Can it be proven as a historical event? Or do we simply reason that it must have occurred based on other things that we know (such as the observed expansion of the universe?) Aren't we reasoning that everything must have been denser previously?

Maybe this is going to fail because I'm not really up on things like dark energy and dark matter, etc., but it seems to me that scientists observe things and then hypothesize that other these things which they cant' actually observe must exist.

So, can't we use reasoning based upon things we can observe (like moral values or a finely-tuned universe) to determine that there must be a standard against which our values and obligations are measured or a tuner who designed everything?

You clearly don't understand why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is satire.

Right.

Whoops. Time out. There is an error in what you have written. I have repeatedly stated as you noted that "objective morality is that which is found universally in societies" but finding morality there does not imply that it is the societies themselves which are the source of this morality. I can find beer universally in fraternity houses but that fact does not mean the fraternities are the breweries, does it?

However, it is your insistence upon "exceptions and variations" that is the real issue. I see that you get to this point next.

False analogy. I have shown you that moral values are derived both from personal feelings (usually, hopefully, based on our evolved sense of empathy) and from societies. That means the societies are the breweries, when it comes to generating the agreed-upon sets of social/behavioral values we call "morality". It is plainly observed, and is basically what cultural anthropologists study for a living. If you're going to assert that there is another source, an "objective" source, then as has already been pointed out to you, you're going to have to demonstrate it.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Demonstrating that there is another "objective" source? And the methodology being employed is to eliminate all other options leaving a supreme being as the last best remaining explanation. IOW, if evolution, personal preference and societal convention are NOT the source of OMV's, then what is? And why?

YOUR argument fails, IMO, because what one society accepts another rejects. BZZZZZ! Nazis exterminated Jews, remember. Sorry, but that's not the technical definition of "objective". A truly objective moral value would exist even if every single person on the planet rejected it.

That's an answer? That's YOUR answer to my question?

This is why I wonder if the Moral Argument may not be the Achilles' Heel of atheism. The inability to answer direct questions about morality must haunt the thinking skeptic. Non-thinkers suffer no ill effects, of course.

I thought I answered as directly as possible, including providing an example. In the most famous Morality Play on the planet, we're told the story of a virgin who gives birth to a demigod, and we know that in that time and culture, 13-14 year old girls were considered to be ready for marriage, etc. Today, we consider that abuse. It seems the most obvious possible example of shifting moral values, subjectively determined by cultures (and thus changing with those cultures).

I agree that our values regarding the appropriate age for marriage have changed, but this is not proof that objective moral values do not exist. All this proves is that the age of marriage WAS NEVER AN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE.

So, yes, Rocket, I can agree that some moral values are based on societal convention, and I've never said that ALL moral values are objective nor have I denied the existence of subjective moral values. Got that?

But not all moral values are subjective. Some moral values are immutable, and these are objective moral values.

So, if genital mutilation of female children is acceptable "over there", it's okay? C'mon...I don't believe you actually believe this.

No, and I said pretty much the opposite of "okay". But that's an idea you and I share because we have a particular set of western social values which say that it is not okay. Keep in mind that, while it's not the same (in terms of removing the ability to orgasm) as what happens to women, our culture also practices routine male genital mutilation for primarily religious reasons. At least, I know I'm circumcised. Why? Because it's a value of this culture.

So, just to nail this down in a word, I hear you agreeing that female genital mutilation is always wrong. Yes or No.

You wrote: "there are...arguments to be made for the rights of every person, regardless of social prejudices. [emphasis added]"

I think you've just made my point.  

Are you being willfully dishonest?

Never. Don't be rude.

"There are arguments to be made for" means that someone must make the argument. It's not universal, it's something that must be asserted as a right, argued for in front of others in order to convince them to agree, and sometimes it must be fought for. That's not the point you're making at all! So I must conclude that you are either being disingenuous or simply dense. I do not need to say something is universally wrong in order to judge it, nor does it need to be universal in order for enough of us to be horrified by it in order to act to counter those who find it perfectly acceptable.

Others have pointed it out to you, as well, but the fact remains that:

1) You have in no way demonstrated that there exists such a thing as "objective" morality.

This will depend upon how you respond to the above and the "Yes or No" question in particular.

2) You have in no way demonstrated that even if such a thing did exist, it would have anything to do with God.

You have me there. I have had to spend far more time than I anticipated just getting otherwise intelligent people to see that yes, there are things that are right and wrong always and everywhere. I thought this would be intuitively obvious.

3) You have in no way deflected from the above two facts by your false analogy and misleading restatements of my arguments.

Nor was there any intent to deflect. Please stop assigning negative motivations to me.

Far from being an Achilles' heel of atheism, it's starting to look to me like this may be an A.H. for religion, since you guys keep asserting this concept known as "objective morality" which appears to be made up entirely of lies and bullshit. Ironically, that makes it not a very moral thing (according to my subjective, Western post-Enlightenment standard, anyway) to do when trying to claim the moral high ground as religionists. Try a different approach, perhaps?

Lies and bullshit, eh? If that's all there was to the Moral Argument, Rocket, then it would have been quietly discarded as a useful tool by theist philosophers long ago.  I mean, why continue pitching softball arguments if your opponent is simply going to knock them out of the park?

No, the fact is that the Moral Argument makes atheists squirm...or attempt change the subject...as you have just done.