Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Davian]

I thank you for that, but what does it have to do with my post? I referenced all appropraite quotations and websites.

A portion of your post:
"J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii

And if Ruse is right, then our strong intuitions that rape, selfishness, discrimination and hate are objectively wrong, even outrageously immoral, are just delusions. So, unfortunately for the atheist, there is no basis for objective morality in a universe without God.

As the Russian author Dostoyevsky put it, "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."ix"

From Is There Any Real Right or Wrong?

"J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii

The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness
of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a
biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone 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."
​

But if Ruse is right, then our strong intuitions that rape, selfishness, discrimination and hate are objectively wrong, even outrageously immoral, are just delusions. So, unfortunately for the atheist, there is no basis for objective morality in a universe without God.

As the Russian author Dostoyevsky put it, "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."ix"

If you did provide a reference for Michael Horner's web site for the text in your post, it was certainly not clear. Even if you are Michael Horner, the site rules would require the reference.

I love you too Davian. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Any sincerity in that statement is lost in the manner that you conduct yourself elsewhere on this site.

 

[Davian]

Yes it shows itself in the real world. Any student of history can tell you that the most destructive ideologies were based on godless worldviews.

Another of your "unsubstantiated quips", as you call them.

Examples, please.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally deficient? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

Meta-ethically, I'm an ethical naturalist, which also makes me a moral realist and a cognitivist. Please see this video for clarification of the terms, with a handy chart to see their relations:

Metaethics - YouTube

Note that I do not subscribe to the cherry-picked evolutionary ethics that you have presented here, which I regard as reductively materialistic due to the over-emphasis on "bodily" needs, such as hunger. This is why I had approved when you had noted that naturalism can accept the existence of emergent phenomena, such as ideas, and isn't limited to the vulgarly "physical". Note that I don't see our ideas as "programmed" into us by evolution, though we may have natural moral capacities such as empathy that are at our disposal in ethical reasoning, but which do not themselves determine right and wrong.

An ontological naturalist can take a variety of approaches in creating an ethically naturalistic ethics, and can regard psychological functioning as relatively more important than "bodily" needs. My specific ethical approach is virtue ethics, which places centrality of focus on the character of the actor rather than the acts or their outcomes.

As such, my view is that the Nazis had objectively poor moral character. They had malfunctioned and acted unskillfully as human beings.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Belk]

Of course.

It shall be dialectical in nature.

Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?

Yes or no?

If you say no, then what you are saying is that there is at least one instance in which it would be justifiable or "right" to torture and abuse a 15 month old child.

How does appealing to my subjective opinion on a matter of ethics give evidence for objective morality?

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course.

It shall be dialectical in nature.

Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?

Yes or no?

Depends on whether or not you take Psalm 137 as proscriptive or descriptive, I guess.

 

[Elioenai26]

A portion of your post:
"J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii

And if Ruse is right, then our strong intuitions that rape, selfishness, discrimination and hate are objectively wrong, even outrageously immoral, are just delusions. So, unfortunately for the atheist, there is no basis for objective morality in a universe without God.

As the Russian author Dostoyevsky put it, "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."ix"

From Is There Any Real Right or Wrong?

"J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them."viii

The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness
​

of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a
biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone 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."
​

But if Ruse is right, then our strong intuitions that rape, selfishness, discrimination and hate are objectively wrong, even outrageously immoral, are just delusions. So, unfortunately for the atheist, there is no basis for objective morality in a universe without God.

As the Russian author Dostoyevsky put it, "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."ix"

If you did provide a reference for Michael Horner's web site for the text in your post, it was certainly not clear. Even if you are Michael Horner, the site rules would require the reference.


Any sincerity in that statement is lost in the manner that you conduct yourself elsewhere on this site.

I still love you, but you do not have to accept it. That is what love is. Love can be accepted or rejected. If I did not love you and care for you, I would care less whether or not you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior. But since I do care, I speak as I do. You have to understand, I am human too. Speaking the truth to you is one way my love is demonstrated towards you. You can accept it or reject it. If you reject it, that does not mean I love you any less.

 

[Elioenai26]

Depends on whether or not you take Psalm 137 as proscriptive or descriptive, I guess.

This is a red herring, for it in no way addresses either of the two premises of the moral argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

How does appealing to my subjective opinion on a matter of ethics give evidence for objective morality?

The evidence would be in the form of your confession that objective moral values and duties exist. For if you say that it is wrong to abuse and torture a little child (for example....a 15 month old) regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes, then you affirm premise (2). As long as you hold premise (2) to be true, you, on pain of irrationality, would have to offer a good argument against premise (1) to avoid the conclusion of the moral argument. But since you admit that without God, there is no basis for any objective moral values and duties, you necessarily believe (1) to be true. Therefore, for you, (3) follows logically, God exists.

 

[Elioenai26]

Meta-ethically, I'm an ethical naturalist, which also makes me a moral realist and a cognitivist. Please see this video for clarification of the terms, with a handy chart to see their relations:

Metaethics - YouTube

Note that I do not subscribe to the cherry-picked evolutionary ethics that you have presented here, which I regard as reductively materialistic due to the over-emphasis on "bodily" needs, such as hunger. This is why I had approved when you had noted that naturalism can accept the existence of emergent phenomena, such as ideas, and isn't limited to the vulgarly "physical". Note that I don't see our ideas as "programmed" into us by evolution, though we may have natural moral capacities such as empathy that are at our disposal in ethical reasoning, but which do not themselves determine right and wrong.

An ontological naturalist can take a variety of approaches in creating an ethically naturalistic ethics, and can regard psychological functioning as relatively more important than "bodily" needs. My specific ethical approach is virtue ethics, which places centrality of focus on the character of the actor rather than the acts or their outcomes.

As such, my view is that the Nazis had objectively poor moral character. They had malfunctioned and acted unskillfully as human beings.



eudaimonia,

Mark

So you affirm premise (2) as being more plausibly true than its denial? In other words, you affirm that objective moral values and duties exist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The evidence would be in the form of your confession that objective moral values and duties exist. For if you say that it is wrong to abuse and torture a little child (for example....a 15 month old) regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes, then you affirm premise (2). As long as you hold premise (2) to be true, you, on pain of irrationality, would have to offer a good argument against premise (1) to avoid the conclusion of the moral argument. But since you admit that without God, there is no basis for any objective moral values and duties, you necessarily believe (1) to be true. Therefore, for you, (3) follows logically, God exists.

Why must he accept (1) if he accepts (2)? You haven't given any reason for why (1) should be accepted at all.

 

[yasic]

As you requested this discussion be brought to a new thread, let me post things to catch anyone up on discussion (note I did not yet read through all 15 pages, this is just me bringing over threads.

First you, Eli, posted the same OP and we had a lot of (mostly fruitless) back and forth until I made the following post:

Eli, many of the points you raised to me were answered by other posters with answers I agree with. If there are any you wish me to address directly please post them and I will answer them personally.

To continue with the discussion at hand:

To reiterate your argument consists of two premises:
1. 'Objective morals do not exist without God'
2. Objective morals do exist.

To date the only evidence you offered is for point two in the form of some naturalistic/atheistic philosophers giving quotes that seem to support some kind of objective morality.

If I am incorrect in my summary, stop me here as anything beyond this needs revision if I am incorrect.

In this thread there have been 4 types of morality systems presented:
A) Divine command morality - Morality is defined by what God says.
B) Non-Divine Object morality - Morality exists in the universe and is independent of God.
C) Universal/Biological morality - Morality does not exist as an objective force but most humans share or should share one general moral view either due to philosophy or instinct. (My personal view)
D) Arbitrary morality.


It is my understanding that you are arguing for A type morality exclusively here based on your posts. If you are not please inform me.


To which my reply is:

Your point 1) is tautologically correct, Divine based morality cannot exist without a Divine.

However the evidence you presented for point two breaks apart here. By being atheists or naturalists, the philosophers by definition do not support divine based morality and must necessarily either support non-Divine morality or Universal morality.
As such to proceed you would need to present evidence for point 2: 'Divine based morals exist'

To which you replied with:

Originally Posted by yasic
Eli, many of the points you raised to me were answered by other posters with answers I agree with. If there are any you wish me to address directly please post them and I will answer them personally.

To continue with the discussion at hand:

To reiterate your argument consists of two premises:
1. 'Objective morals do not exist without God'

Since you misquoted me here, the rest of your post was aimed at a strawman.

To which I replied:

Is your only gripe that I did not use the exact same wording as you, or do you claim that 'Objective morals do not exist without God' is not logically or substantially the same as 'If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.'?

Please do continue from here.

 

[yasic]

I have read a lot of this thread, and analyzing logic followed the argument made in the OP I have come to make the following summary of the discussion in this thread:

Eli first posted his argument

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

The general consensus of people here asked Eli to provide evidence for point 2.

Eli has (and I admit I am having trouble putting it in summary) replied with two answers: (note these are not quotes but my attempts to summarize)

1. If you do not believe raping children is objectively wrong I do not wish to discuss with you.
2. Raping children is objectively wrong thus Objective moral values exist.


If this is not the proper summary from how you replied to the requests made at you (and I fully admit I may have summarized wrong), I would like you to summarize in one or two sentences your reply to the request for point 2, and if possible provide a link to the post in which you did so as so I can address it.

Thank you for your assistance in helping me understand your argument.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you affirm premise (2) as being more plausibly true than its denial? In other words, you affirm that objective moral values and duties exist?

Yes, though not necessarily for the same reasons that you do, or with precisely the same content of moral advice, and I utterly reject premise (1).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, though not necessarily for the same reasons that you do, or with precisely the same content of moral advice, and I utterly reject premise (1).


eudaimonia,

Mark

Excellent!

There is indeed the possibility of fruitful dialogue then between you and I. Of course, I do not expect anyone to relinquish long held values and beliefs after being presented with a philosophical syllogism, but I believe it is nontheless a good means of establishing common ground for fruitful amicable dialogue.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why must he accept (1) if he accepts (2)? You haven't given any reason for why (1) should be accepted at all.

This is quite simple, and easily understood when seen in the proper light. I will explain...

You see, to the best of my recollection, and I need to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think any non-theist here will deny premise (1). For most atheists that I have talked with here say that there are not any objective moral values. People like Belk, Jade Margery, Gadarene, JGG, Jro, Yasic, Davian, Lord Emsworth and several others have made it very clear that they do not believe there is any basis for objective moral values. In fact, morality is usually defined roughly by non-theists, at least those here, as having its ontological foundation in the general consensus of what the majority of people feel are beneficial to society, and this, as a result of evolutionary theory regarding what is best for the survival and reproduction of a species.

Now, Paradoxum has advanced a sort of Atheistic Moral Platonism, which I will address later on, but on the whole, atheists themselves tend to affirm premise (1) when they claim there are no objective moral values or duties.

You see, implicit in premise (1) is the idea that there is no rationally justifiable basis for objectively grounding moral values and duties in a purely naturalistic view of reality.

Look at it this way:

An atheist has to affirm the veracity of premise (1) for either one of several reasons:

1. Atheists lack belief in God and if God cannot be appealed to in their ontological explanation for moral values and duties, then there necessarily must be something other than God that they appeal to as an explanation for moral values and duties.

2. Since this "something other than God" is what must be appealed to by the atheist, then it follows reasonably that this explanation is not supernatural but rather natural. The current consensus among evolutionary theorists and ethicists is that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the existence of our concept of morality. Of course there are divergences of views within this field of study, but the general consensus among those knowledgeable in the arena of moral ontology is that morality is a result of evolution in some way shape or form.

Now:

As many atheists will tell you, since they maintain that the theory of evoltion by natural selection is their explanatory endorsement, then moral values and duties must necessarily be subjective, not objective. Once again, I cannot even recall all of the names of the people on these very forums who are atheists who will agree with what I have just said regarding the existence of subjective moral values and duties. So atheists themselves affirm (1).

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but you have yet to provide an argument as to how objective moral values and duties can be rationally and justifiably accounted for under atheism. Combined with the fact that the general consensus among atheists is that outside of some ultramundane standard to appeal to, morality must be subjective, atheists themselves affirm (1).

You see the confusion lies in distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology. We are not dealing with epistemology here, but rather ontology. You see, there are atheists that live "morally good" lives. They give to the poor, help the homeless, feed the hungry, donate money to charities, and a host of other charitable things. We are not saying that atheists cannot be good, that is not what the argument is about at all whatsoever. Nor are we saying that one has to believe in God to be good or to do good. This is not the argument. The argument deals with the reality of objective moral values and duties which is an ontological issue, not an epistemological one because epistemology deals with the knowledge of said values and duties.

The argument does not state that belief in God is necessary for there to be objective moral values and duties, nor does it state that God is necessary for our knowledge of said values and duties.

All the first premise states is that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Purely ontological here.

So the argument is powerful in that prominent new atheistic thinkers must necessarily hold (1) to be more plausibly true than its denial, and they cannot deny (2) without looking like a moral reprobate. Why? Well I shall let the outspoken atheist Sam Harris conclude here.

Harris inveighs against what he calls "the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist" and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls.1 Citing Donald Symons, he rightly declares, "If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, … the only question would be how severely that person should be punished."2 What is not in question is that such a person has done something horribly, objectively wrong.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/navigating-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape#ixzz2GkO0lRSu

 

[Elioenai26]

Eli has (and I admit I am having trouble putting it in summary) replied with two answers: (note these are not quotes but my attempts to summarize)

1. If you do not believe raping children is objectively wrong I do not wish to discuss with you.
2. Raping children is objectively wrong thus Objective moral values exist.


If this is not the proper summary from how you replied to the requests made at you (and I fully admit I may have summarized wrong), I would like you to summarize in one or two sentences your reply to the request for point 2, and if possible provide a link to the post in which you did so as so I can address it.

This is an incorrect summary. I have provided my actual statements below for you to check against your summary:

To all of those who reject the moral argument for the existence of God, I would ask you all this question:

What are your views regarding what the Nazi's did to the Jews, Pole, Soviets, Romanies the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally deficient? Some estimates reach as high as 17 million who were killed.

I am only concerned with dialoguing with those who see what they did as being bad, and wrong, and evil.

Thank you.

As you can see from the above, due to a shortage of time, I only want to discuss the particular issue with people who are going to be intellectually honest. If someone on this forum would like to maintain that what the Nazis did was good, right, and not evil, then that is their choice. I just do not feel the need to discuss the issue with such a one as that.

I am interested in dialogue, just not with you. You already have my reasons.

This was written in reply to Archaeopteryx after a series of tit for tat back and forth exchanges that were becoming increasingly unfruitful.

Thank you for your assistance in helping me understand your argument.

Aww... I am glad to help!

 

[MoneyGuy]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

You're saying that morals can't exist without God? I disagree. I don't think your argument proves God at all.

What's a logical fallacy?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I am a believer in the existence of God but do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Therefore your syllogism does not seem to be very convincing as evidence of God's existence. I ask you to explain to me how moral values can exist outside of God's own subjective determination. Since God always existed and pre existed any possible morality how is it then possible that any morality that comes into existence does not simply exist due to the subjective will of God. If morality is binding i.e. in order for something to be considered good it must be moral, is not God , in order for Him to be considered good, bound by it as well and is not God then limited by it? If so then unless morality is subjective and God has put limits upon Himself there exists something (objective morality that God has not created but exists outside of God's will) that has the ability to put limits on God.

Why is the below not just as valid a reasoning process?

God exists and is the author of all creation. -First assumption
Morality is a part of creation. -Second assumption
Ergo God created morality. - justifiable conclusion after accepting assumptions 1 and 2

Now here's the next step

Whatever God creates He decides to create.- Third assumption
All decisions are made subjectively- Fourth Assumption
God created morality. - Previous conclusion
Morality is God's subjective creation- Conclusion supported by 4 assumptions and one other conclusion.

It is not a convincing argument for those that do not accept my assumptions any more than for those that reject either of your assumptions. You cannot prove God's existence by using reason because to get there IMO you always have to in some way assume He exists.

 

[Elioenai26]

You're saying that morals can't exist without God? I disagree. I don't think your argument proves God at all.

Premise (1) states that: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

In post #155, I answered your question, which is the question most people have when looking at this argument for the first time. The answer is provided below:

"You see the confusion lies in distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology. We are not dealing with epistemology here, but rather ontology. You see, there are atheists that live "morally good" lives. They give to the poor, help the homeless, feed the hungry, donate money to charities, and a host of other charitable things. We are not saying that atheists cannot be good, that is not what the argument is about at all whatsoever. Nor are we saying that one has to believe in God to be good or to do good. This is not the argument. The argument deals with the reality of objective moral values and duties which is an ontological issue, not an epistemological one because epistemology deals with the knowledge of said values and duties.

The argument does not state that belief in God is necessary for there to be objective moral values and duties, nor does it state that God is necessary for our knowledge of said values and duties.

All the first premise states is that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Purely ontological here."

What's a logical fallacy?

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Elioenai26]

I am a believer in the existence of God but do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Therefore your syllogism does not seem to be very convincing as evidence of God's existence. I ask you to explain to me how moral values can exist outside of God's own subjective determination.

I never said that moral values could exist outside of God's own determination. I think this is simply a misconstrual of what I wrote. Nor would I call His determination "subjective". If any term is appropriate it would be objective, not subjective for you no doubt agree, that God is the locus, paradigm, or source of morality.

Since God always existed and pre existed any possible morality how is it then possible that any morality that comes into existence does not simply exist due to the subjective will of God.

No. For you are separating the two. Morality cannot be separated from the very being and essence of God, for God is the locus, or source or fountainhead of morality. In other words, the two are not distinct entities as if God is over here, and morality is over there. No no no, this is quite incorrect. God's very essence and nature is omnibenevolence, which means morality issues forth from His very nature and is one of His many attributes.

If morality is binding i.e. in order for something to be considered good it must be moral, is not God , in order for Him to be considered good, bound by it as well and is not God then limited by it?

Once again, this argument is based on a misconstrual of the relationship of moral values to God. Objective moral values stem from the very essence and being of God and are not divorceable or divisible.

Why is the below not just as valid a reasoning process?

God exists and is the author of all creation. -First assumption
Morality is a part of creation. -Second assumption
Ergo God created morality. - justifiable conclusion after accepting assumptions 1 and 2

Once again, God does not "create" morality as if it is something outside of Himself. He is the paradigm of morality, not the creator of it.

Now here's the next step
Whatever God creates He decides to create.- Third assumption

True...

All decisions are made subjectively- Fourth Assumption
God created morality. - Previous conclusion

False for the aforementioned reasons.