(April 17, 2012 at 10:50 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I think I understand now. This at least helps put atheism and theism on equal footing in terms of epistemology in my mind. Some theists might try to use the transcendental argument though but I've seen some good refutations of that.
Back to morality. Craig's comment was a response to an atheist's objection to a premise of the moral argument for the existence of God. Here's the argument (He assumes of course that morales aren't subjective and says that those who think so have an "impairment"):
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The hypothetical atheist's response that sociobiological account invalidates moral experience was to premise 2.
Instead of summarizing Craig's entire response, you can read here: Click me
He says that the sociobiological account doesn't undermine the truth of moral beliefs. This answer seems to contradict his notion that the sociobiological account undermines the truth of our ability to know truth, correct?
Actually, I'd say that both of Craig's premises are wrong.
Taking it one at a time:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. - This is another way of saying "Objective moral values come from god". I can prove this statement wrong by a simple logical formulation
1. For moral values to be objective, they need to exist independently from any entity's mind.
2. If moral values came from god, they would depend on god's mind.
3. Therefore, if moral values come from god, then they are not objective moral values.
4. Therefore, objective moral values can exist only if god does not exist.
There you go. His first premise should be the opposite of what he said.
2. Objective moral values do exist. Well, this just hasn't been shown to be true.
Thus his argument is a complete failure.
By the way, whether or not he treats the socio-biological accounts of morality and reason consistently is irrelevant. He is wrong on both counts.
