Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[Nishant Xavier]

During an investigative case, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously quipped: "There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the Goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only a Goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope for from the flowers.”

This thread is to examine and investigate the Goodness of God. Agnostics and some Deists typically argue that God, even if He exists, is evil and thus not to be worshipped. So, for e.g. if the Principle of Contingent Causation could prove the existence of God or a First Cause, it might still be objected that it says nothing about whether that Being is Good or evil. Is there some specific argument for the goodness of God? Yes, from Conscience.

A typical argument would go something like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. (because there would be objective and universal moral laws in a godless Universe without a divine Law-Giver.)
2. But we know from our Conscience that objective moral values do in fact exist, and this is a properly basic belief for virtually everybody, including atheists (e.g. that certain acts are intrinsically and objectively evil, like e.g. murder, rape etc, irrespective of the subjective beliefs of murderers and rapists etc).
3. Therefore, granted the fact of the existence of objective moral values known through our Conscience, we can reasonably conclude that our awareness of this Eternal Moral Law came from the Divine Law-Giver Who made us. 

[Even some Atheist/Agnostic Moral Philosophers do concede that Objective Moral Values entail and are entailed by Theism, i.e. Objective Moral Values exist if and only if Theism is the Truth. To maintain their Atheism, they deny then that moral values are objective.]

Thus, since the objective moral law exhorts us to choose good and avoid evil - even if evil may be in our self-advantage - it is clear that that impulse within us could only have originated from an Essentially Good Being, thus refuting the opinion that God might be evil. 

Thoughts? 

God Bless.

[Astreja]

Thoughts?  For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron.  Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective).

As for the god of the Bible, if it actually did exist and had deliberately created a place for sentient beings to be tormented for eternity, that one action would make it a being of infinite evil.  No amount of good intentions or "holiness" can wave that away.

(I doubt very much you're going to make any "sales" here, Mr. Xavier.  You're dealing with people who have seen all your arguments many times before and find them both wrong and risible.)

[Peebothuhlu]

Hello.

"Arguments" are, in the long run, simply words.

Nw something tangible and testable? That'd be interesting.

However, let's address your post.

"1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists. (because there would be objective and universal moral laws in a godless Universe without a divine Law-Giver.)"

This, does not follow. I could posit, "If objective gravitic values exist, then a deity exists. (Because there would be objective and universal gravitic laws in a diety-less universe without such a divine lawgiver.)

I think you've switched out your meaning in the parenthesis there btw.

'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology.

"2. But we know from our Conscience that objective moral values do in fact exist, and this is a properly basic belief for virtually everybody, including atheists (e.g. that certain acts are intrinsically and objectively evil, like e.g. murder, rape etc, irrespective of the subjective beliefs of murderers and rapists etc)."

Well... a better way of putting this would be that 'By out consciousness we can see recurring patterns of behaviour that have thence been labelled as 'Moral'. Kind of like how we see different cars and, by observation, classify some of them as 'Fast'.

"3. Therefore, granted the fact of the existence of objective moral values known through our Conscience, we can reasonably conclude that our awareness of this Eternal Moral Law came from the Divine Law-Giver Who made us."

Our biology, with all its quirks, would not seem to indicate any such "Made up" concept.

 

Cheers to you and yours.

[Silver]

The beauty of nature is not evidence of a deity's existence. You can say, god is this, god is that, god did this, god did that, but as the logical saying goes, you are putting the cart before the horse.

First, prove god exists. Otherwise, all your arguments are fantasy based.

[Fake Messiah]

It is true that humans live under moral laws or guidelines. However, every society has its morality, but each is different. What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative.

So if there is a god, he has either given humanity lots of conflicting moral guidelines or none at all. More likely, humans give themselves moral codes wherever they live because humans are a moral --- that is, a social species.

[Deesse23]

But we know from our Conscience that objective moral values do in fact exist, 

No, we dont.  You dont KNOW that from your conscience, but you BELIEVE this to be true. If you KNEW, then please DEMONSTRATE that objective moral values exist.

Second:
It does not follow from objective moral values existing that a god exists. Its called a " non sequitur".

Oh, and if objective moral values would exist, then "thou shalt not kill" would apply ALYWAYS, no matter what (opinion anyone has about it, including your god). If a god would command "slaughter the *insert random tribe slaughtered by israelites on command by their god*", that would be IMMORAL!

Do you think objective moral values exist? Do you think the abrahamic god commanded to slaughter the Amalekites? Do you think this was moral? Then you are wrong. But dont worry, many christians are wrong about that.

[Nishant Xavier]

Thanks, all, for the responses. 

Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics").

Ruse is mistaken but consistent with his agnostic worldview. If there were no God, all ethics would be just "an aid to survival and reproduction". Someone should tell that to those who've given their lives for a just cause. Morality is not just an aid to survival or reproduction because people have gladly, and righteously, given up lives and families etc to die for such causes, as for e.g. soldiers in a Just War do, to save others. So much for just "surviving and reproducing" and that allegedly being all that morality is about. These are the kind of absurdities to which subjective morality leads, ergo it is incorrect.

Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron.  Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."

How would morality be automatically subjective? Subjective morality means something is wrong for you if you believe it is. It is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is, objective moral facts are clearly not subjective in this way, unless you want to say murder, rape and theft is fine if murderers, rapists and thieves subjectively believe what they're doing is ok. In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.

How do you understand subjective morality, Astreja? and do you believe: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil (independent of the subjective opinions of anyone who thinks they might be good/ok", as I think you would? Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate. Even Ruse contradicted himself in another passage of his writings by saying something to the effect of: "the person who says raping children is ok is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2=5". If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.

Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."

There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".

Tomato said: "The beauty of nature is not evidence of a deity's existence. You can say, god is this, god is that, god did this, god did that, but as the logical saying goes, you are putting the cart before the horse."

The fact alone of God's existence can also be established in other ways, like the Principle of Contingent Causation mentioned on another thread. This thread goes further to see whether it can be established that God is Good. If you disagree with one of the premises, pls explain why and give your own reasons.

Fake Messiah said: "What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative."

Apologies, but this is confused. It's like saying, "if some believe the earth is a globe, yet others consider that it is flat" (like if killing is or was not considered a crime in some primitive civilizations, e.g. killing children by infanticide), therefore science and whether the earth is a globe or flat is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. Actually, it just means that some are objectively right (who believe murder is wrong), and others are objectively wrong (who believe its ok).

Thank God, Fake Messiah, that the Real Messiah did not say: "Love your Neighbor if you want to, but otherwise, if you consider it immoral, then hate your neighbor if you want to"(!). No, He simply laid down the objective moral obligation that binds all of us to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's also why He had so many followers, even right from the beginning, not to mention today (2.6 BN), because the moral and religious Truth He taught resonated with the deepest Truths already present in the human Conscience. Catholic Christianity does not accept "Total Depravity", "Denial of Free Will" and other false opinions. We know that, as St. Paul says in Romans, and St. Thomas explains, good and evil are knowable through Conscience and thus binding on all.

Alexander Hamilton said: "Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable Law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatsoever. This is what is called the Law of Nature.
Being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, it is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [Law]."

God Bless.

[Peebothuhlu]

Thanks, all, for the responses. 

Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics").

Ruse is mistaken but consistent with his agnostic worldview. If there were no God, all ethics would be just "an aid to survival and reproduction". Someone should tell that to those who've given their lives for a just cause. Morality is not just an aid to survival or reproduction because people have gladly, and righteously, given up lives and families etc to die for such causes, as for e.g. soldiers in a Just War do, to save others. So much for just "surviving and reproducing" and that allegedly being all that morality is about. These are the kind of absurdities to which subjective morality leads, ergo it is incorrect.


Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals" might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."

There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".

God Bless.

Hello again.

What a single philosopher thinks is interesting but in no way conclusive or otherwise helpful.

You also simply dismiss his points while repeating yourself.

IF 'Morals' are an emergent property, then the whole 'Is/Ought' thing simply goes out the window. No need for it.

Morals become similar to chemistry. Morals 'Just are'.

Tell me, good Nishant Xavier, do you 'Choose' to be conscious?

Again, you're confusing the 'Thing' for its attributes.

A car is a 'Thing'. How fast it goes is an emergent property.

'Water' is a 'Thing'. How 'Wet' it is, is an emergent property.

Similarly, an/a Hominid is a 'Thing'. How moral it is is an emergent property.

Cheers.

[Fake Messiah]

, but this is confused. It's like saying, "if some believe the earth is a globe, yet others consider that it is flat" (like if killing is or was not considered a crime in some primitive civilizations, e.g. killing children by infanticide), therefore science and whether the earth is a globe or flat is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. Actually, it just means that some are objectively right (who believe murder is wrong), and others are objectively wrong (who believe its ok).

It is not, you are using a false comparison. And don't act so arrogant to call other societies primitive when Christian societies were no better. Pope Urban said that killing Muslims was an act of love and Christians believed him. Also, slavery, killing Jews, and public executions were all morally accepted Christian societies, but are not anymore in humanistic societies. Slavery was also something condoned by Jesus.

[Belacqua]

IF 'Morals' are an emergent property, then the whole 'Is/Ought' thing simply goes out the window. No need for it.

Morals become similar to chemistry. Morals 'Just are'.

Tell me, good Nishant Xavier, do you 'Choose' to be conscious?

Again, you're confusing the 'Thing' for its attributes.

A car is a 'Thing'. How fast it goes is an emergent property.

'Water' is a 'Thing'. How 'Wet' it is, is an emergent property.

Similarly, an/a Hominid is a 'Thing'. How moral it is is an emergent property.

Cheers.

Emergent properties are real. 

For example, if we agree that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity, that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't really exist. It does. 

Therefore, even if morality is an emergent property, it may still be a real thing. Not some sort of illusion. And not a subjective thing that we can change at will.

The car is a thing. How fast it goes may be an emergent property. Standing in front of the car while it's going fast will teach you that the speed has real-world effects.