The Moral Argument for the Existence of God
(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Comments (93)
Objectivity doesn't entail God, does it? Science is, supposedly, objective and nowhere do they invoke the divine.
What does it mean to say moral values are objective? Do we mean that there are some truths, unchanging and universal, about morality? What are they?
To say that a moral value or duty is objective is to say that it is true or binding irrespective of human opinion (regardless of what anyone thinks). For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that even if the Nazis had succeeded in winning WWII, and brain-washed or exterminated everyone who disagreed with them, so that everyone in the world believed that Naziism was right, it would still be wrong.
1) Why are God and objective moral values inseparable?
But first, you would need to make an argument for 2):
2) What's the argument for the existence of objective moral values?
Now, which premise do you deny? Are you really willing to deny the objectivity of moral values and duties? See my reply to TheMadFool
So you're argument here is that atheists don't believe in objective morality, therefore...what? Again, back to my question: Why are God and objective moral values inseparable?
There are many atheists around these parts who believe in some sort of definable morality, even if they don't choose the word "objective". Dawkins is kind of an atheistic piñata at this point, as far as I'm aware.
Quoting cincPhil
I'm not denying any premise, I'm asking questions about your premises.
Quoting cincPhil
Nowhere have I done so.
I didn't feel accused, I was just clarifying. (Y) No apology needed. I'd still be interested to hear your responses to my questions.
Ok; can you expand on that?
Yes, you're not alone; everyone has done things they regret, and everyone has hurt someone else. It sounds like your shame for having done those things is leading to you questioning God's existence; yes/no?
For instance, I think what you mean is "if I believed that God did not exist, then I would embrace my animal instinct". From your theistic perspective, the prospect of God's non-existence presents a nihilistic void where animal instinct reigns. So your belief is what's determining the factors here. On the other hand, regardless of the existence of God, there are morally upright atheists and agnostics who exemplify moral behavior, regardless of whether their views are grounded metaphysically in something substantial. Social context forms moral positions; a metaphysical reality doesn't. That doesn't discount the possibility of a metaphysical moral reality existing. Hope that makes sense...
Quoting cincPhil
I'm a theist, so I won't speak for them.
On atheism, it is as you say, that morality is a product of socio-biological evolution. But let me be clear: I'm not arguing that belief in God is necessary for people to be good. I agree that atheists often live good and decent lives–lives that would put mine to shame. I'm arguing that if God does not exist, then morality is just an evolutionary spin-off. It's a kind of herd morality, but it's not really true in any objective sense. As a theist, don't you see God as the foundation of objective morality?
I'm not saying that; I'm saying environment determines our specific moral positions. Atheism or theism doesn't come in to play yet because whether an objective morality exists or not doesn't come into play yet. I'm just making a simple acknowledgement of how environment determines our disposition towards morality.
Quoting cincPhil
So far you've only asserted that; you haven't made an argument for that yet.
Also, herd morality and evolution is just what the atheist espouses. Think about premise (1). If atheism is true, then how can morality be objective? That's the question.
I'm trying to highlight that it's not either/or; begin with experience: experience tells you your environment determines some amount of your moral beliefs. That has nothing to say about whether or not an objective morality exists.
I want to believe that there's objective morality. Your Nazi example makes the point well. Indeed, what the Nazi's did and a lot of our ancestors did were, are and will be bad. But, that's from our present perspective. Do you see no possibility that moral values will change with time? There are precedents - your views on the Holocaust are evidence of that.
I don't know how to answer your question but I'll try...
Love is generally accepted to be good but I'm sure you must've heard of the expression ''love hurts''. If ''love hurts'' is true you lose the leverage of happiness in your moral equation and that, I think, is a fatal blow to moral theories based on happiness (I think they call it Hedonism). If your moral theory isn't based on happiness I'd like to know more.
1:
The conditional seems like a non sequitur, and requires justification.
Some define God as a mind, implying that morals are subjective.
(Barring special pleading and word magic (trying to define things into existence).)
2:
Requires justification.
We can assume that anyone likes freedom by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
We can assume that anyone dislikes harm by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
Liking and disliking are subjective.
Thus, morals are subjectively informed (in part at least).
Moral awareness is a prerequisite for moral action.
Awareness is (part of) mind.
Thus, morals are subjective.
3:
Objective versus subjective morals is misleading, possibly irrelevant.
Also, I'm aware of the Euthyphro dilemma. The question is: is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? If the theist says that God wills something because it is good, then Plato is right, and moral values are independent of God; they are not based in God. On the other hand, if you say that something is good because God wills it then that would seem to make good and evil arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good; then we would be morally obligated to hate one another, which is insane. Some moral values like love seem to be necessary, and therefore, there is no possible world in which hatred is good. So the claim is that this shows that the good is not based in God.
I think this is clearly a false dilemma because the choices are not of the form "A or not-A", which would be inescapable. The alternatives are of the form "A or B". In that case you could simply posit a third alternative C, and escape the horns of the dilemma. I think there is a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. God himself is the paradigm of all goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is by his very nature good, loving, fair, kind, generous, etc. Therefore, he could not have willed hatred to be good. That would be to contradict his own nature.
So God's commands are not arbitrary, but neither are they independent of God. Instead, God himself is the paradigm of goodness.
Well, I'd like to know what your moral theory is based on, if not happiness.
Suppose I see someone about to hurt a child; it is clear that he is attempting to kill or capture that child. I don't have a weapon, and I'm not totally sure I can subdue him with my bare hands. But I know that if I step in, the child will at least get away; the child will be spared. Should I let the child die because I dislike pain, and I want to live? Similarly, should I let the child be captured beacuse I do not wish to relinquish my own freedom?
Then, if I don't conceive of any such being, your argument doesn't get off the ground. Nothing comes to mind when I hear this definition.
I don't want to try to describe a complete set of ethics. I am open to examples of what is good and what is right. The question I would put to anyone is what basis do we have on atheism for believing that goodness and rightness have any meaning at all? On atheism, it seems me, we are just animals, and anything goes. You don't try to read morality into the animal world. For example, lions kill each other, mate with their relatives, and kill cubs when they take over a pride. However, no one is making a moral judgment that lions are bad, incestuous, child murderers, are they? Or take the example of child torture. Forgive the extreme example, but did you know that certain cultures practice ritual genital mutilation of children? On atheism, it seems to me, that these people are merely being taboo, but why believe that there is anything inherently wrong with that? Animals do all kinds of things that are taboo to us, so why believe that our morality is superior to theirs? To do so is to succumb to an unjustified bias about our own species. What makes us the seat of objective moral reality? On atheism, we are just an advanced species of primate that evolved relatively recently on a speck of dust called Earth, lost the vast ocean of a dying universe, and yet somehow, we are beset with delusions of moral grandeur. So that is premise (1) in a nutshell.
Premise (2) says, "But wait! Morality really is objective!" Is it wrong to torture a child? Any sane person knows the answer, and I would agree: "Of course it's wrong to torture a child!" We have an objective moral obligation to love children, and to protect them, not to hurt them. Is it wrong to rape, or may I "forcibly copulate" as the male great white shark does? Again, only an insane person would say "I forcibly copulate as the white shark does". Is it wrong to kill my fellow man? The chimpanzee does it. Why not his primate cousin, homo sapiens? Again, it seems obvious to any sane person that each of us has a binding, objective obligation to respect human life, and to not take it just because one feels like it. That is (2) in a nutshell.
Time to get creative. I think I'll be happy as long as you don't posit a flying spaghetti monster.
Quoting cincPhil
Note, though, liking freedom and disliking harm are not opinion, not arbitrary or ad hoc, not mere whims of the moment or discretionary. There are shared, involuntary elements involved.
Quoting cincPhil
It's not just you that like freedom and dislike harm, it's us. Morals are social, and not reducible to self-interest alone. But their existence are dependent on a minimum degree of (individual) moral awareness. Suppose the assailant in your scenario is a lioness, and instead of you a grizzly is present. Then, due to absence of moral awareness, moral action become moot.
I don't know that it's possible to come up with a set-in-stone cost-benefit analysis that would determine what action to take. :) It's simple enough to determine that the child ought remain free and unharmed, however. The trolley problem, for example, seems to show that moral actions in general are not decidable. Implications for the hypothesis that there are objective morals?
Anyway, I'm thinking that an evil mass-abuser in your scenario would find themselves in trouble.
Are moral values really dependent on human beings? It seems to me that would make them subjective. If they are objective, as many philosophers think they are, then they must be independent of human beings; in other words, some things are bad or wrong even if people are oblivious to them. See the Nazi example at the beginning of the discussion.
Your use of lioness and grizzly is quite perplexing to me, as I have said repeatedly that mother nature is morally neutral. However, I think I understand what you mean by "involuntary elements". On naturalism, only natural causes are considered, and naturalists tend to be determinists. As an oversimplification, everything I do, I do either to avoid painful stimuli, or for the survival of my species. So I might face pain to save a child because the child will advance my species, and the need for species advancement overrides my need to avoid pain. But that's just premise (1). On atheism, morality is not objective. It's just a kind of herd morality that arose as a product of our socio-biological evolution.
Quoting jorndoe
I wasn't commenting on how we come to know right from wrong. I was merely trying to give you an example of a situation in which the right action is clear. Of course, it is not always clear. As you point out, the trolley problem serves to illustrate that sometimes the right action is not clear; sometimes all we have are bad choices. Another example of this is the movie, Sophie's Choice, in which a mother at Auschwitz is forced by the Nazis to choose which of her two children will live. However, these situations need not undermine our belief in objective morality. Neither the person on the trolley nor Sophie is morally culpable for his or her actions. At the trolley tracks, who has tied the people to the tracks? At Auschwitz, it's the madman Nazi "doctor" who is guilty of murder. The moral truth in both scenarios is clear: a murder has been committed, but the person who is forced to make the choice is not responsible for its outcome. Now, you could say that the trolley situation was just a coincidence I suppose. You could say that the people on the tracks just happened to be there, but even if that were true, then the situation is at best an unavoidable accident, but it seems to me that there is some sort of ill-will or bad actor behind it. I mean, what kind of person invents a scenario where people are tied to tracks and your only choice is to run them over? Is this the Joker vs. Batman? At any rate, I have asserted that moral values and duties are objective, and therefore, true or binding. And to say that some situations are difficult does not seem to undermine that.
What do you believe? Do you apprehend at least a loose set of objective moral values, such as love, freedom, equality, tolerance, etc? Now, what if society as a whole decided to replace them with greed, narcissism, bigotry, and malice? Does that mean that those things are good? In what possible world is malice good? Don't some values seem necessary, like love for example?
What might you suggest to make "that than which no greater can be conceived" meaningful and coherent?
At first glance, it may look like atheism loses a very strong pillar of morality - divine authority. However, examine God and you'll see it's not really as strong as initially thought out to be (Euthyphro's dilemma). It seems that both theists and atheists are in the same boat.
Quoting cincPhil
Objective morality is something that appeals to me but your post implies that the universe, without humans, is amoral. So, doesn't this defeat your claim that there's an objective morality?
I think we're at an impasse; I'm not arguing from atheism. Are you?
Please see my response to Thorongil...
Quoting cincPhil
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion. On the contrary, objective morality, if it exists, would be independent of humans beings. That's the definition of an objective reality. It's quite plausible to me that moral values could exist in a universe without human beings. Consider other objective realities, such as stars, planets, and cars, the world of physical objects, or truth. Certainly truth and planets could exist without humans. In fact, some philosophers might say that truth exists necessarily. Similarly, philosophers have thought of moral values like love in this way (Plato for example).
Another question: how does a God make morality objective? Is it just His power to punish? But the state has power to punish. Does creation of conscious entity automatically entail the institution of an objective morality?
Let's imagine that there is a God. Let's further assume that everyone knows or believes this. Still further, he tells us what he would like us to do. Perhaps he threatens us only with finite punishment, not eternal flames but only a certain duration and intensity of pure pain varying with the violation.
Do we not still have our terrible freedom? Would we not make the same calculations? All believing in God, we could still debate the legitimacy of his moral authority. If we throw infinite punishments into the mix, then we arguably just have a fearsome tyrant. Moral action would only be "objective" in this case by being undeniably and even immeasurably prudent.
The sense I can make of the lack of an objective morality involves the questionableness of every candidate for this role. Our ability to question and doubt what others forbid and demand seems to be the real issue. Since we are mortal, all punishment and reward is finite. It makes sense that some have wanted to believe and wanted others to believe that authority could reach beyond the grave. This raw ability to question, doubt, and disobey is eerie. Notions of "objective" morality and eternal truths that aren't tautologies are perhaps attempts to get an absolute-permanent-rustproof handle on a fragile and ambiguous situation.
Thanks for the response. You gave me a lot to sift through, but I can appreciate your "ability to question and doubt". My entry into philosophy was spurred by a period of intense doubt. I was a Christian at a very young age, and I believed strongly, but anyone who has been around knows what life can dish out, and after my share of hard knocks, I began to question things. Suddenly, I was hit with the same feeling that probably hit Sartre and Nietzsche: emptiness and despair; the fear of the black void, if you will. I became truly terrified. I sincerely hoped that God existed, but I asked myself, had my last thirty years up to that point been a waste? Had I been following some sort of false hope, or even worse, a lie?
So I immediately started searching for answers. What I found is that, for a sincere seeker of truth, reason leads away from dread or despair, and towards hope, love, and even something beyond all of it.
Now, let me attempt to answer a couple of your concerns:
"All punishment and reward is finite." Yes, that is true on atheism. If atheism is true, then our lives would be limited to the physical, and constrained within our physical bodies; there would be no life after death, and thus no reason to be concerned with any notion of rewards or punishments beyond the grave. Of course, that assumes atheism is true. On the other hand, God's existence would allow for other possibilities; for example, eternal life. If life were to extend beyond the physical world of objects, then reward and punishment might also extend beyond that world.
"How does God make morality objective?" St. Anselm saw God as the greatest conceivable being. Simply put, if one were to conceive of a great being, and you could imagine anything greater or better, then that would be God. So God, if he exists, would need to be maximally great. Classical examples of maximally great attributes would be things like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, moral perfection, and personal existence. If God were indeed morally perfect, then objective moral values would be grounded in his character. By his very nature, he would command what is right, and give what is good. So if God exists, morality would not merely be a subjective set of social conventions produced through socio-biological evolution, but instead, morality would be objectively grounded in the nature and character of God.
Quoting t0m
First, your question is about free will. My argument doesn't even address that. The question I am addressing with this argument has more to do with the nature of morality. It is at least possible that morality exists independently of human beings. Many philosophers (including Plato) believe that moral values could exist as abstract objects. Furthermore, some see certain moral truths as necessary. For example, consider the statement, "malice is good". There is no possible world in which malice would be truly good. Furthermore, there exists a possible world with only moral truths such as "malice is bad", and "kindness is good".
Second, you seem to have confused punishment with morality. Moral values do not always carry obligations. For example, it may be good for you to start a non-profit, but you are not obligated to start a non-profit. It may be good for you to take a humble job, but you are not obligated to do so. Because moral values do not carry obligations to act, consequences are irrelevant, and therefore punishment need not be considered when discussing moral values. Actions come in when we discuss moral duties, but even then, the question is about the nature of those duties, and whether they stem from objectively grounded values, or subjective experiences.
If you are interested, I hope you will refer back to the argument, and read a few of my responses to different people. I believe I have illustrated it fairly well. Thanks again.
It's a good thread, a deep question.
Quoting cincPhil
I've been there. I absorbed a certain amount of religion, then gave it a real go at 15. But thinking about free will, hellfire, the "mechanical" nature of theology/metaphysics, exposure to secular thinkers, etc. "killed" the usual version of God for me.
Quoting cincPhil
I can relate to that. At least I think that "atheism" can touch the "divine." All of these mere words can only do so much out of context. I feel "behind" words in a way that is more conceptual than mystical. Or I'd describe the mystical in terms of feeling. Nietzsche's profound portrait of Christ in the The Antichrist hints at this.
Quoting cincPhil
Respectfully, I think you're accidentally dodging the question. From my perspective I'm pointing at that leap that grounds moral values in His character. Here's the issue for me. What does it mean to say that God is morally perfect? Influenced by Feuerbach, I contend that "moral perfection" is deeply and completely anthropomorphic. The "content" of moral perfection can only be, it seems to me, some version of the ideal (wo)man, even if this (wo)man is immaterial, etc. The "feelings" or "motives" of God must be the kinds of feelings that humans can worship or revere. Otherwise God is just an alien we don't understand --hence my talk of a law enforced by the threat of punishment. God only makes sense, in my view, as an image of that which is highest in human experience --love, wisdom, freedom, etc.
[quote=Feuerbach]
I, on the contrary, let religion itself speak; I constitute myself only its listener and interpreter, not its prompter. Not to invent, but to discover, “to unveil existence,” has been my sole object; to see correctly, my sole endeavour. It is not I, but religion that worships man, although religion, or rather theology, denies this; it is not I, an insignificant individual, but religion itself that says: God is man, man is God; it is not I, but religion that denies the God who is not man, but only an ens rationis, – since it makes God become man, and then constitutes this God, not distinguished from man, having a human form, human feelings, and human thoughts, the object of its worship and veneration. I have only found the key to the cipher of the Christian religion, only extricated its true meaning from the web of contradictions and delusions called theology; – but in doing so I have certainly committed a sacrilege. If therefore my work is negative, irreligious, atheistic, let it be remembered that atheism – at least in the sense of this work – is the secret of religion itself; that religion itself, not indeed on the surface, but fundamentally, not in intention or according to its own supposition, but in its heart, in its essence, believes in nothing else than the truth and divinity of human nature.
[/quote]
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec00.htm
Quoting cincPhil
I can see why you interpreted me that way, but I was really trying to get at the point above. I did go back and read earlier posts. I don't think the absence of objective morality entails a dog-eat-dog mentality. I think we are already social, already moral. On the whole we don't want to be evil, though admittedly we have anti-social tendencies. My theory is that much of morality is "objective" in the sense that we will always find something like a core set of prohibitions/duties in any society. It's a blurry "core" around which lots of less-settled prohibitions/duties are still being established and dissolved. As I see it, the "scientistic" vision of man as an animal is too quickly adopted as the only viable metaphysical flavor of 'atheism.'
Even if we are thrown here into a godless nature, this godless nature is itself a cultural construct --good for predicting and controlling public objects but far from an exhaustive account of being-there or existence in all of its complexity. And of course it's powers of prediction and manipulation are still very finite. I say show me the machine that can predict word-by-word the philosophical masterpiece of the 22nd century. I suggest that humans can only be understood historically, culturally. The image of godless nature is still impotent in that regard. Its superior method in one sense is only superior by severely limiting itself to quantitative prediction and control by means of lifeless, ideal entities. "Nature" is a systematic image that is "pasted" over the world as know. Dazzled by its success in one realm, we are tempted to adopt it as an understanding of existence as a whole. (Yet I personally offer nothing supernatural. My loyalty is to something like phenomenology, going to the things themselves as we experience them. I don't reduce being in love to atoms, for instance. Being-in-love or listening to Erik Satie "is what it is." No ultimately pragmatic predictive-manipulative methodology removes that "is-ness.")
I don't think moral argument can be used as proof for God, but as an observation that points to God.
Problem regarding proof is (2) - that there are objective moral values. I do understand moral values to be objective, but I don't think that one human can prove to another human that they are.
We can imagine atheistic universe where people are living under delusion that moral values are objective. Delusion would come from "evolutionary" processes that condition brain to think certain way regardless if it's true or not, because it's useful for sustaining life.
So although even to an atheist it can very much seem like that moral values are objective, human can't prove it, as I see it.
Quoting Thorongil
In a nutshell, there cannot be anything greater than God. If something or someone greater were to exist, then that would be God. For example, no being could know more, or love more, or have more creative power than God. Now let's bring it back to morality, which is the topic at hand. Is it better to be all-loving or partially loving? God is seen as a being of maximal love. Do we not all apprehend love? Or when there is an absence of love in people? Do you apprehend love at least as clearly as you apprehend your car keys? In other words, do you believe morality is objective? I'm honestly asking.
Why is it "greater" to know, love, and be powerful, than not?
Quoting cincPhil
I do. But that doesn't mean I have to accept, or in this case, will understand, the idea of infinitized great-making properties somehow cohering in a single, immaterial being.
Not exactly. Outside of religion morals serve the purpose of fostering cooperation and cooperation is essential for any social species to thrive. We have a lot of hard-wired system in the brains that are geared towards sensing each other's pain, pleasure, etc. and inflicting guilt when we feel we have violated the integrity of our group. Morality is just the codified extension of what we already have built in us. Fear and stress are usually what drive people to violate these in-built moral functions (for example, the fear of scarcity which is tied to the fear of death leading to the urge to rob another or the thrill of shoplifting as relief from the pressures of restrictive social norms). You don't need a concept of "God" to have a sense of "morality".
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
They exist in the sense that they are a kind of collectively agreed upon contract wherein everyone in the group agrees this is good and that is bad as a means of keeping everyone on the same cooperative page. They are a fairly nebulous series of collective concepts manifested from social-oriented functions in the brains of those in the group.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
God is not needed for "morality" so this is a faulty argument. I am a bit of an "apatheist", so the way I see it if "God" exists things are the way they are, and if "God" doesn't exist things are the way they are. I am okay with either because regardless of which case is true I will do the best I can to be a "good" person and if that is not good enough I accept whatever consequence comes of it.
Not to go on a tangent, but personally while I don't necessarily believe "God" exists in the form of a person-like entity, it is observable even through science that we are connected through all things. I mean, everything we are made of exists on its own out there in the universe. There are precursors to us (if you believe in evolution). Life exists as one big web of things that make up things that make up things. There is a creator there, whether it is the "big bang" (if you believe that theory) or all things collectively as one big existence.
To say it is or is not intelligent is an effort in futility because we only understand intelligence so far as the human mind is capable of understanding intelligence, anything beyond that scope is outside our ability to define. So though I am not really concerned one way or the other when it comes to whether "God" exists, at least observably I can see that there is definitely creative forces at work.
Whatever you would call "objective morality" in atheistic universe is an illusion, since said "morality" would have to ultimately come from non-living unconscious processes, by chance. Basically, it would be a result of a role of a dice, and as such, what's it's inherent value? Plus, there is no known natural law that says that since certain distribution of morality states within human beings is as is today, it has to be like that in the future. Process that comes about by chance is probably going to continue by chance, and change states during time.
Even more so, in an universe where every being ultimately came to existence from unconscious processes, by chance, however such being is, that's fine. Some humans would be rapists and hateful because that's how they feel most fulfilled and driven. Others would be peaceful because that's how they like it the most. And both would be equally "moral", since both ultimately came from what can be described as nothingness, by chance.
Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles[/i]
Right and wrong are primarily established by the group/tribe collectively. It's not a roll of the dice, it is based on what ensures the best cooperation between the group as a whole. We didn't arrive at what is commonly accepted as a general sense of morals (don't murder, rape, steal, etc.) today by accident, they are based on past mediation and arbitration. We collectively came to the conclusion these things are harmful to our ability to cooperate. There is nothing illusory about it.
Yes, morality does change with time, culture, etc. A lot of what is commonplace today was very amoral in the past. Morality changes with society. Social animals have morality as well, in a lot of different species violating the morals of the group/troupe/herd/etc. can result in exile or death.
Morality is strictly about cooperation, it is religion that associates it with divinity. Religion goes the extra step of instead of arbitrating behavior with a physical worldly judge it implies there is also a supernatural judge. Even without religion, you can still experience guilt for carrying out acts that go against the morals of your group. The whole point of guilt as a feeling is likely to keep you cooperating with your group which ultimately is essential to your own survival (and survival as a species).
Then those are not right and wrong but utility contracts. That's why in atheistic universe objective morality is illusion. It's just about utility - don't do harm to me, I won't do it to you.
But some people do like to do harm others, and they are not objectively bad in atheistic universe, they are just bad for people whom they harm. Unless they are harming masochists, in which case they both enjoy it.
On the other hand, what God reveals about morality is not about utility, but about inherent nature of existence. You cannot use secular definition for moral to describe God given morality.
Exactly. That's where what we already understand as virtue comes in.
This move from atheism to 'just animals' is (as I see it) trapped within an unconsidered framework. You basically split the field into theism and scientism, since you seem to be identifying atheism and scientism. There's no more reason for an atheist to take the biological interpretation of the human more seriously than he takes the traditional religious understanding of man. In my view we humans are always still interpreting ourselves and the world we find ourselves in. One could argue that the concept of animal is therefore not even stable.
It's true we don't hold animals to human standards. But that's because their nature seems relatively fixed. We humans however are constantly revolutionizing what it means to be human. We are the 'animal' that largely fashions its own nature --an ascending spiral as opposed to a circle. For this reason the 'animal' conception of man is suspect when applied metaphysically.
Quoting cincPhil
Malice would be good in precisely the world of your hypothetical society, which we arguably find offensive from the perspective of this society. But most of would probably agree that culture can only oppose our social instincts so much and no further. The idea that there is no definite metaphysical ground of our decency or current understanding of virtue can be unsettling. But, as I argued before, God doesn't obviously provide such a ground. The notion of a metaphysical ground is questionable in the first place, as I see it. It sounds better than "it's just the way we do things," I agree. But is this God more than a projection of the society agrees is virtuous in the first place? Is God just the idea of a metaphysical ground? Less solid upon analysis?
You have gestured towards an argument with your references to moral evils, such as the Holocaust. This is a common road to take for those advocating "objective morality," and it generally takes the form of an ad hominem. Now, don't cringe: ad hominem is not necessarily something bad and fallacious; it can be an effective strategy in an argument. In this context it means just this: Suppose you have a contested thesis, such as your premise (2). You then show by way of an argument that rejecting this thesis inevitably leads to accepting some proposition that most people would be loath to accept (e.g. "Perpetrating the Holocaust was not wrong.") Now your opponents face a dilemma: either they concede and accept your thesis or they bite the bullet and accept the unpalatable consequences of rejecting that thesis.
So let's take me for example. I am strongly convinced that the Holocaust was an evil. (And I also think that any person ought to have this attitude, not just me.) At the same time, let's say that I do not believe in "objective morality" (if nothing else then because I don't have a very clear idea of what it is.) But I am not laying any other cards on the table: I am not claiming a commitment to any particular system of morality, nor for that matter any other metaphysical system.
So how am I wrong? Based on what I said above, am I committing myself to some untenable position? Or perhaps I really do believe in (what you take to be) "objective morality" without realizing it?
What are trying to say? Are you trying to defend the claim by an appeal to intuition here?
On this issue I'm coming from a Feuerbachian perspective. 'Intuition' is not the perfect word, but it's not wrong either. God only makes sense as something to worship or revere in terms of his ultimately human predicates. For instance, it would be absurd to worship a powerful alien invader whose motives we could not understand. We might obey and fear, but this would be a sad form of religion.
As far as 'intuition' goes, that connects to how we want to conceptualize the experience of value. I like the word 'feeling' as less metaphysical. Understanding religion in terms of knowledge claims (making it about epistemology) obscures the feeling that gives it whatever life it has --at least as I see it.
You cannot know this. The only way to know it is for it to happen and for you to know that it happened. But it didn't happen, so you can't know it.
All you can say is that you imagine that if you didn't believe in God then you would live without morals. Imagination of counterfactuals doesn't count for much in a philosophical argument.
Also, people have lived with morals and without God since time immemorial.
Also, it might help to know that the argument for God from morals via Nazism has been made by Christian apologists for yonks. It has been rebutted so many times that it's often not even considered worth acknowledging by some philosophers.
In universe that God created, everybody have some morals, regardless of their relationship to God. God gives, or decrees, some morals to everybody, just as everybody gets a heart, brain, air to breathe etc.
In universe that got to exist from basically or literally nothingness, by chance, your opinion about morals is ultimately worthless, serving your personal purpose in life, which is random, since you came from ultimately nothing, by chance, just like everybody else. You are neither morally better nor worse from the rest, you are just living through your randomly given state of existence.
That is a statement of a dogma, not an argument.
You believe it. I don't. Except for where you say that I am morally no better nor worse than anybody else. While I wouldn't put it that way, I believe moral comparisons between people, and especially assertions of moral superiority, are unhelpful, so I'm supportive of your making that claim.
If you believe the rest of it, and that belief brings you joy, more power to you.
So, what do you believe? You don't believe in atheistic big bang and evolution, nor do you believe that those are most probable explanations of how universe got to exist, as far as you can tell? If you believe in it, than you believe that you came from what is essentially nothingness, by chance. And if that would really be the case, your opinion about morals, mine too, would be ultimately worthless.
I understand that God exists, so I do see each of us living morally better or worse relative to inherent nature of reality. Everybody falls short, though.
'atheistic'?!?
Were you aware that the big bang theory was developed by Georges Lemaitre: a Roman Catholic priest?
No need for ?s and !s really. In order to shorten back and forth, which didn't work, I asked if you believe in big bang and evolution as an atheist, because there are people who believe both in God and big bang and evolution, but with different explanations about it. You still didn't say what is it that you believe.
I don't know if you are. I'm asking a question. If you care to answer, answer, if not, don't.
Careful now. Long after LeMaitre’s theory was published, the then-Pope learned about it and formed the view that it was compatible with Catholic doctrine as it appeared to support the notion of creation ex nihilo. However, LeMaitre was embarrassed by this development, as he wished to keep his scientific work strictly separate from his religious faith. He prevailed upon the then Papal Scientific Adviser to the Pope to ask His Holiness to refrain from referring to his work in support of the faith, which he apparently assented to. (This is documented in Simon Singh’s book Big Bang.)
Wikipedia entry on Sir Fred Hoyle
'While many of us may be OK with the idea of the Big Bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.;
Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event, New Scientist.
What such cosmological arguments ultimately attempt to prove is a God of the gaps. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, therefore God did it. Any argument premised on certain contingent scientific theories, however, is easily falsified when those theories are modified or abandoned, which the history of science attests is not out of the ordinary. It could well be that an infinite multiverse exists and that two colliding bubble universes caused the Big Bang. Well, then, so much for the apparent "nothingness" that made it seem as though the Big Bang pointed to creation! Classical cosmological arguments, such as those given by Aquinas, begin with basic concepts like motion, not with contingent scientific theories. This is why they are still lively debated today: they cannot be falsified by any scientific theory.
Furthermore, such arguments ought not to be regarded as scientific hypotheses - they're metaphysical conjecture made on the basis of abductive inference. I can't see why those kinds of arguments are necessarily in conflict with the Thomistic-Aristotelian arguments.
It was once immoral to divorce someone. It was once immoral to have children if you were not married. It was once immoral to be homosexual.
Who decided that these once immoral things were now acceptable? God or mankind? Has God grown more tolerant and accepting or has mankind?
True, it works both ways. The atheist ought not to employ contingent scientific theories to prove his atheism just as much as the theist ought not to employ them to prove theism. Alas, the majority on both sides don't seem to heed this advice.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not saying they're in conflict. I'm saying they're a different kind of argument, since they're based on different premises, and I think such arguments are bad for the reason I gave. Aquinas's cosmological argument is going to be of perennial relevance, whereas some Kalam cosmological argument predicated on the Big Bang is likely not and, unlike the former, ends up with a God of the gaps.
Within reality we can reach, it is impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that God exists.
But it is possible to calculate almost 100% chance that God exists based on available measurements. The more measurements about our reality one uses in calculation, the closer to 100% chance that God exists it gets. It's ironic.
At the same time, issue about evidence for God, case for God, proof for God, is either honestly mistaken one or purposefully misleading one, since no human can provide an evidence that God exists to another human.
A formal fallacy, viz., affirming the consequent.
Premise (1) is doubtful. Why is the existence of God necessary for there to be objective morals and values? Why has naturalism been ignored (not saying I'm a big fan of naturalism), and why does non-naturalism require the existence of God to be coherent?
It's a valid argument. See:Modus Tollens.
P1 defines the existence of god as necessary for the existence of objective morals, and since P2 states that they exist, we can deduce that God also must exist.
The argument is valid, but the premises themselves are terrible. Neither God nor objective morals are defined, and using various mixes of definitions for these two concepts, I cannot find any appealing or persuasive combination that makes the premise seem intuitively or otherwise true.
Premise two is an extension of the assumptions made in premise one (in addition to not being defined whatsoever). If we're going to just assume that objective morals exist why don't we just also assume that god exists and not bother with these supposedly useful deductive arguments for it's existence?
Why not assume God exists and use then modus ponens form to deduce that objective morals exist instead?
Maybe objective morals exist but God does not, or maybe objective morals do not exist but God does. Why is God required for "objective morality" (what's that?) again?
If you can define and substantiate your premises with evidence, that would go a long way to making your argument more persuasive, but proving that "objective morals" require a "god", or that "objective morals" exist is quite the tall order. As it rests your argument is too facile to be taken seriously and hence is unpersuasive to almost everyone.
Lions are not murderers, and I have some very strong moral beliefs. Therefore, objective morality. Therefore, God.
It's still not very convincing.
I got pretty much the same impression: "I can see no objective moral source for my strong and herein un-examined beliefs other than God".
Next he will be deducing the various attributes of god using his own objective moral positions as a starting point...
I disagree with your first premise. Objective moral values and duties do not have to revolve around God or belief thereof. If this were true, then would those that are not yet informed of theism or maybe don’t believe in it, have no moral values or duties? Would these moral values be a specific faith base (Christian?), because if so- not all the people on Earth are informed of the exact same religion or same God or Gods. How does the appearance of objective moral values and duties connect with the presence of God? Why does God specifically create these things that would determine whether or not they were here?
I’d argue that many moral values and duties are humanly created and implemented. Would this mean that the God themselves was putting these ideas into the humans minds? If that were the case, then every single example of a moral value or duty would have to be accredited to God. Is this what you mean?
Interested in learning more.
I am Jewish, but I deny that the Holocaust was objectively wrong because of a moral principle. It was wrong for the Jews, it was a crime against humanity, it was wrong as a possible pilot project for future genocides; but I deny that the Holocaust, as inhumane as it were, broke some moral rule. THE HOLOCAUST WAS BAD. IT WAS A HORRIBLE CRIME. I wish it had never happened, and many of my past relatives suffered and / or died in this horrible experience. But not morally wrong according to some objective moral principle.
If there is or was indeed an objective moral principle that you, @cincPhil, can name that the Holocaust violated, then please I ask you to name it.
Being bad for an oblivious human being is not being independent of an oblivious human being.
How about no.
Invalid argument.
(3) does not follow because (1) contains a hidden premise: 'objectivity presupposes (undefined term) God' and (2) has not been demonstrated.
Read Kant's CPrR. :eyes:
In fact, some people became quite famous based primarily on their views about this.
It's not a view I agree with, but many people are going to balk at the first premise, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."
And even though I disagree with Objectivism a la Rand, even though I'm an ethical subjectivist, I also think this first premise is false logically. God is not logically necessary for objective morality to exist. (And in fact, if God literally has a mind and morality is a product of his mind, then even with God existing and issuing moral edicts, morality is not objective. Objectivity has to be independent of minds, period, not just human minds.)
Obviously as an ethical subjectivist I think that the second premise is false as well.
The premise 1 equals if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. If so, objective moral values and duties are necessary for God’s existence. For now, I admit that they are necessary for God’s existence. Given that they are necessary, it’s still questionable how the existence of moral values and duties can entail the existence of God. In other words, their existences are not sufficient for God’s existence. There are plenty of other reasons in total which justify or are sufficient for God’s existence.
Consider the following two arguments:
Argument One
1. If my parents exist, then I exist.
2. My parents exist.
3. Therefore, I exist.
My parents’ existences here are necessary for my existence. Here, my parents’ existences are necessary but not sufficient for my existence. They had to make a decision to have me and other reasons would have to be take into account.
Argument Two
1. If my body exist, then I exist.
2. My body exists.
3. Therefore, I exist.
Here the existence of my body is necessary but not sufficient for my existence, supposed that dualism is true. The fact that my body exists cannot entails I exist, given that my body is not the only part of my personal identity.
To conclude, premise 1 is false. Therefore, the argument is not sound.
I'll try to provide the alternative argument for this based on the instances of religions in particular Judaism and Christianity.
(1) If God exists, God provided moral values and duties to humans
(2) Humans wrote canonical texts based on God's instructions
(3) Canonical texts demonstrate the moral values and duties provided by God (1,2 HS)
(4) People shared the canonical texts to spread the moral values and duties provided by God
(5) These canonical texts, moral values, and duties exist now (3,4 HS)
(6) God exists now (1,5 HS)
This argument can work for God's existence as well as the problem of evil goes against the existence of God. Moreover, the argument is extremely vulnerable to religious pluralism as it uses religions as the foundation and many religions and their denomination have emerged in different time periods. Hence, I hope the arguments is just one of the arguments for God's existence.
That is not formal logic and the none of the consclusions follow. And, to top it all of, (2) is just circular. You might as well just say:
1) If canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist, then God exists.
2) Canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
Quoting KrystalZ
Nope. This is not "Objective moral values and duties exist.? (iff/if and only if) God exists." Those are different things. Let us examine the first premise again:
"If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."
Let's say "God does not exist" is "P" and "Objective moral values and duties do not exist." is Q.
Since this is an "if" statement, we have the following truth table:
Possible Truth Values
P: 1 0 0
Q: 1 1 0
If this statement is true, you could not have "God does not exist" to be true and "objective moral values do not exist" to be false at the same time but the other possibilites can still be true. That is literally what this statement tells you. You could have God exist but objective moral values can still not exist.
Coming back to the original argument, the only logical and possible moves by the atheists seem to be:
1- Showing that "God does not exist" can be true but "Objective moral values do not exist" would have to still be false. It would mean that whetever objective values exist or not does not depend on God.
2- Not accepting the second premise.
3- Showing that there is an objective moral value while assuming god does not exist.
I argue against premise 2 in your argument by claiming that objective moral values and duties do not exist, and are in fact subjective. I think it is false to claim that there are objective moral values and duties that exist in our world because morals are all based on perspective. If I can show that objective morals and duties do not exist, then that will defeat the conclusion that God exists.
One person's “good” and “Evil” might be completely different from another person's good and evil elsewhere in the world. You claim that there are objective moral values and duties that exist in our world, but I would like to see just one example of an objective moral or duty that cannot be refuted. I don't think one exist. For every evil action one could claim is objectively wrong, there could be a whole bunch of reasons and ways to spin it as not objective but simply subjective. Perhaps someone might say that murder/ death is always wrong, I agree with this but for arguements sake we can show that this is not objective. Murder seems wrong, yet we practice putting criminals to death when someone does something that we percieve as needing the death penalty. Is this wrong? Some might say that murder and death is always wrong but we have evidence that others say death is the only just and right thing to do in some situations. When looking at duties and if they exist, some might say that one objective duty is to do good or live a good life. I think that this can be refuted by claiming that there are people that don't share the action of wanting to live a good life or do good. I believe that this is evident in certain cases of psychopathy.
For my own sake, I am going to begin by restating your argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Let me start by saying that there are a lot of responses to your post and I tried to skim through as many of them as I could. Nevertheless, I apologize if I am saying something that has already been said, but I wanted to weigh in on this argument as I have just cultivated my own view on this subject.
With that being said, I take issue with this argument, especially the second premise. Upon recent personal contemplation and one response in particular that you had to someone who commented on this post, it seems to me that objective morals and values do not exist. Rather, I believe they are a human construct that does not necessarily warrant the existence of God. They have evolved through centuries of societal conditioning that has been a product of religion, yet still does not prove the legitimacy of God or Christianity. The particular response that you provided to one comment that was made on this post was about animalistic nature. You claimed, rightfully so, that when a lion kills a zebra or a whale forcibly copulates with another whale, neither of these is considered objectively morally wrong as they would be by humans who would deem them as murder and rape respectively. Therefore, it seems that, if human society and religion had not developed as it has today, we would’ve retained our animalistic nature and so-called “objective moral values/duties” would be nonexistent.
Another counterexample that I would offer against the existence of objective moral values/duties is the idea that murdering one’s slave was not considered illegal or even moral wrong in early America. Traditionally, greater society considers not killing another human being the most significant and uncontested objective moral value/duty. However, as evidenced by American history, this view has evolved over time into what it is now, indicating that objective moral values and duties are constructs of human society and organized religion.
If you in the middle of an important discussion with someone here, please continue, but I won’t be checking back. Thank you to everyone who participated! I received many helpful comments. Keep seeking the truth, and be loving and kind to one another—just in case morality is objective. ;-)
I think that this argument has good potential, but there are a few points that I would like to critique, specifically regarding P1 and P2.
P1 states that there is a link between the existence of God and the existence of objective moral values. This is an acceptable claim, but I think it would be strengthened if you demonstrated exactly what that connection is. In your response to the user "Noble Dust," you said that you're arguing that "if God does not exist, then morality is just an evolutionary spin-off." Are you implying that God created morality and objective moral values? If so, it might serve the goal of your argument to actually state that.
P2, which states, "Objective moral values and duties exist," could benefit from a separate argument to support it. From my view, I can think of supporting examples for this: humans from infancy onward regard harming another as "bad," kindness is regarded as morally good, most people would consider events like the Holocaust to be objectively morally wrong, and so on. Still, I think others might question this assertion: can't widespread views of morality change with time? Is there always an objectively morally right or wrong course of action, or objective moral values that transcend differences in situations? I'm not denying the existence of objective morality, but I think that your presentation of this argument would be stronger if insulated against those types of questions.
Further, I'm not sure that P1 or P2 support your stated intention with this argument: to show that morality is a product of evolution if God doesn't exist. You've asserted that, but your argument doesn't support or fully address it; instead, it focuses on linking the existence of morality to the existence of God. That claim could be a good basis for you to use to develop this argument and expand on it in order to reach your point about evolution. For example, if our morality is a product of evolution, what are the odds that it would be both evolutionarily productive and objectively morally right? If our morality is objectively right, doesn't it make sense that it is the product of an all-knowing Creator? These points are related to the stated purpose of your argument, but I don't see that the argument you chose to present supported your intended conclusion as clearly as it could have.