Botching the moral argument

[jlmagee]

Larry Taunton from Fixed Point, a group that organizes Christian v. atheist debates, was on John Stossel tonight. His topic was morality. He started off by summarizing the moral argument. He stated that men like Polpot, Hitler, and Stalin were evil because of their atheism. Christians were moral.

Atheists have no fear of consequences in the after life while Christians know of judgement.

Just as the Crusades hijacked Christianity, Eugenics hijacked atheism.

"All men are created equal" can only be reasonable in light of a Creator.

Essentially, the moral argument is along these lines:

If common objective moral values exist then there must be a Giver of the common objective moral values.

Common morality exists.

Therefore, a giver exists.

Of course, this means that the values are wired within us.

This is why we know that murder, stealing, adultery, etc. is wrong. The Ten Commandments do not instill this in everyone, but reinforce them to the readers.

The moral argument is a very compelling part of a best explanation case for the God we worship. Why is it that this is so often missed by well-schooled

 

[Enlite]

Larry Taunton from Fixed Point, a group that organizes Christian v. atheist debates, was on John Stossel tonight. His topic was morality. He started off by summarizing the moral argument. He stated that men like Polpot, Hitler, and Stalin were evil because of their atheism. Christians were moral.

Atheists have no fear of consequences in the after life while Christians know of judgement.

Just as the Crusades hijacked Christianity, Eugenics hijacked atheism.

"All men are created equal" can only be reasonable in light of a Creator.

Essentially, the moral argument is along these lines:

If common objective moral values exist then there must be a Giver of the common objective moral values.

Common morality exists.

Therefore, a giver exists.

Of course, this means that the values are wired within us.

This is why we know that murder, stealing, adultery, etc. is wrong. The Ten Commandments do not instill this in everyone, but reinforce them to the readers.

The moral argument is a very compelling part of a best explanation case for the God we worship. Why is it that this is so often missed by well-schooled

Why does a give of moral values have to exist

 

[jlmagee]

Why does a give of moral values have to exist

Essentially, if objective moral values exists, those moral values come from somewhere. In my view the Giver of objective moral values would come from God as our Creator.

 

[jelboss366]

I agree. Morals are what separate us from animals. There are people in prison now that don't have any. I used to be one. I would agree that they could come from somewhere other than God, except for one thing. I already had the prompted conditioning from man, and it had no effect whatsoever. I remember where, when, how, and why I ended up with the morals I now have. They were given to me by God.
666...simply means man without God's morality, is an animal.

 

[seeingeyes]

Common morality exists.

Does it? That might be as hard a case to make as one for 'common sense'.

 

[jlmagee]

Does it? That might be as hard a case to make as one for 'common sense'.

Yes, it still does. I may not put as many things on the list as I once would, but there are still many things that God put in our heart as a natural law.

People know that it is wrong to:

kill with no reason (even in a rage, most do not kill)
steal from others
rape
molest children.

People know that monogamy is the correct way of relationship.
We know that it is right to care for our young.

There are others. Right now, we are in a paradigm shift that makes it hard to push a case for much more. Objective morality may have been rationalized or desensitized out of the culture norms. If the culture shifts back, the case can be made that those values are part of the moral code breathed into our souls from God.

 

[seeingeyes]

Yes, it still does. I may not put as many things on the list as I once would, but there are still many things that God put in our heart as a natural law.

People know that it is wrong to:

kill with no reason (even in a rage, most do not kill)
steal from others
rape
molest children.

People know that monogamy is the correct way of relationship.
We know that it is right to care for our young.

There are others. Right now, we are in a paradigm shift that makes it hard to push a case for much more. Objective morality may have been rationalized or desensitized out of the culture norms. If the culture shifts back, the case can be made that those values are part of the moral code breathed into our souls from God.

If it's possible to 'rationalize or desensitize' objective morality out of cultural norms, then how can we say that it is objective? There have been cultures that allowed all the things on your list at one time or another.

And if the list of 'objective morals' shrinks as the culture changes, then surely that's a sign of subjectivity. Otherwise, those things that are 'clearly wrong' would be clearly wrong in all cultures around the world throughout history. But that is not the case.

 

[Cuddles333]

Yes, it still does. I may not put as many things on the list as I once would, but there are still many things that God put in our heart as a natural law.

People know that it is wrong to:

kill with no reason (even in a rage, most do not kill)
steal from others
rape
molest children.

People know that monogamy is the correct way of relationship.
We know that it is right to care for our young.

There are others. Right now, we are in a paradigm shift that makes it hard to push a case for much more. Objective morality may have been rationalized or desensitized out of the culture norms. If the culture shifts back, the case can be made that those values are part of the moral code breathed into our souls from God.

'...kill for no reason,..'

Well, we used to kill indians for being 'savages' which isn't much of a reason. With relative morality it would (in some places) mean that the killing would be morally right or wrong depending on just who it was that you killed. Was the victim in the lower caste system? Was the victim an enemy of your people? Was the victim just someone who had an abundance and you had near nothing...pirate,etc.

Jesus expanded the morality of caring for and extending mercy to those of your immediate family, to include everyone around us. An example of 'objective' morality.

 

[jlmagee]

If it's possible to 'rationalize or desensitize' objective morality out of cultural norms, then how can we say that it is objective? There have been cultures that allowed all the things on your list at one time or another.

And if the list of 'objective morals' shrinks as the culture changes, then surely that's a sign of subjectivity. Otherwise, those things that are 'clearly wrong' would be clearly wrong in all cultures around the world throughout history. But that is not the case.

As a Christian, you have had the Holy Spirit convict you of you need for Jesus? There are those who reject that call. They rationalize it or reject it to the point that it is baely felt.

I am not so sure that everything on the list was normalized. Child sacifice was commonplace in many cultures. This came up out of desparation of trying to appease their god. It seemed to work at times. This is often seen inour culture through the utilitarian philosophy that too many accept, for example, torture the terror leaders 10 year old daughter to make him talk.

There are cultures that lose their way. The Islamic radicals who do heinous things as punishment. Hussein, Hitler. Many monarchies throughout the ages. But, cultures that look to thrive accept similar core moral principles.

I stated that I have shrunk my list over the years. I stated something akin to if some of those that have dropped out come back, it is evidence that it is a moral law from God.

There are three basic ways to explain morality in the culture:

1) Laws that we become conditioned to follow,
2) Naturalistic genetic change in which those who accepted the rules stayed with the community therefore survived, or
3) God wrote a natural/moral law into our nature.

It could be wrong. However, that is the way the moral argument is stated when implemented in a best explanation argument for God. That is actually my purpose in the thread is to demonstrate how Taunton and othes clearly drop the ball when using it. He knows better; he has seen Craig use it too many times.

 

[jlmagee]

'...kill for no reason,..'

Well, we used to kill indians for being 'savages' which isn't much of a reason. With relative morality it would (in some places) mean that the killing would be morally right or wrong depending on just who it was that you killed. Was the victim in the lower caste system? Was the victim an enemy of your people? Was the victim just someone who had an abundance and you had near nothing...pirate,etc.

Jesus expanded the morality of caring for and extending mercy to those of your immediate family, to include everyone around us. An example of 'objective' morality.

Just because God instilled a moral law does not mean it was always followed. The systematic massacre of the Native Americans is an instance of rationalization. Manifest Destiny? This ideology is still alive today. American Exceptionalism? The ideology was that God gave the Euros the continent to subdue it. Anything in the way; overcome it.

God's will for the Jews was to care for their weak members of their nation as well as travellers. Jesus did fulfill and further that as you stated. Was that part of the moral law imputed by God to those He created in His image?

 

[seeingeyes]

It could be wrong. However, that is the way the moral argument is stated when implemented in a best explanation argument for God. That is actually my purpose in the thread is to demonstrate how Taunton and othes clearly drop the ball when using it. He knows better; he has seen Craig use it too many times.

I'm just not sure the moral argument works at all.

 

[bugkiller]

Is moral something more than demanded behaviour patterns of people by certian groups? I have seen many things declared immoral only by people with agendas. Most usually it is based on so and so said ....

bugkiller

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm.

I don't think that the existence of morals necessarily entails a moral law-maker.

Humans are a certain type of gregarious animal, given to making families, communities and societies. That is our nature, and morality, which is essentially the suppression of selfish interests in favour of group interests, arises naturally out of that. If you want to stretch the meaning of the word, you could even suggest that morality 'evolved' alongside of us. Where you would find evidence for this defeats me, but you could suggest that tribes with morals might persist because they were advantaged over tribes without morals. It would seem to be a sensible sort of suggestion.

I'm not sure I go along with the idea of 'natural law' being written onto our psyches, like some kind of divine trade-mark. So many societies have had such different moral systems that I think the notion owes more to wishful thinking than reality. But a genetic tendency towards selflessness, reinforced to a greater or lesser extent by culture? There may be some mileage in that idea, and if there is, bestowing morality directly would be superfluous.

All that said; my inclination is to believe in God, and to believe that morality is a path towards Him. I just think that the processes God invoked to create us and our moralities were considerably more complex and subtle than a facile, literalist reading of the Bible might allow.

Cheers, 2RM.

 

[juvenissun]

Why does a give of moral values have to exist

Because you and I exist.

 

[DPMartin]

It sounds like a load of horse dump to me, the most effective arguers against the legitimacy of morals in the Christian view is Christians like this guy.
　

If common objective moral values exist then there must be a Giver of the common objective moral values.

Common objective moral values doesn’t exist, only in the context of a group that agree. You always have the us and them scenario, just as there is the Light and darkness and those who are in the Light agree with the Light and those who are in darkness agree with the darkness. Two sets of morals that are not common, but relative to their place in Light or darkness.

Common morality exists.

Nope, some concerns for the ability of people to live on the same land, require an agreed peace. In order for the Lord God to dwell with His People there has to be a agreed peace, a covenant, an agreement, or contract, that both parties, the Lord God, and the Children of Israel agree that should or will be fulfilled. But again, this was between God and His chosen through Abraham, and not the rest of the world or nations.

Therefore, a giver exists.

Though a "giver" exists, the Ten Commandments don’t prove it, especially to an atheist, not even to a theist for that matter. The plagues on Egypt, the parting of the sea, the pillar of fire by night and smoke by day. All of Israel hearing in there own ears the Lord God Almighty speak the Ten Commandments to them in the mist of a mountain full of smoke and fire proves to those God wanted to believe and have faith. As in His revelations to them proves there is a Giver of the Law to them, that is God Almighty, and their witness to their descendants in this case, and that it wasn’t something Moses made up.

Of course, this means that the values are wired within us.

No self interest is hard wired in us, which can become mutual interests by coming into agreement with those around you. Or at the lest perceive that those around you should see you as "one of them" for your own interest.

This is why we know that murder, stealing, adultery, etc. is wrong. The Ten Commandments do not instill this in everyone, but reinforce them to the readers.

No, if some one you love is killed by a stranger for something you don’t value, then you perceive that is "wrong" "bad" "evil" not in your own interest, or in the interest of one you might care about. No religious experience needed, to know that, is there?

The moral argument is a very compelling part of a best explanation case for the God we worship. Why is it that this is so often missed by well-schooled

　
That’s because the well-schooled wether they believe there is a God or not, or that the God we worship is the true God or not, they are not morons. They know there is no such thing as objective morals, and morals are relative to the follower or the agreed thereof. Note the simplicity of the morals they follow are not the morals you follow. And its always the idiot that calls himself a Christian that's going to prove something, that just isn’t so.

Things like, and especially the Ten Commandments are relative to the Lord God’s view, (note from who they are), and those who in today’s era that come into agreement with the Lord God in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[Harry3142]

Missionaries have gone into areas where no other outsider has been before their arrival, only to find there a set of moral laws which are strictly enforced by the native population. The Code of Hammurabi, which predates Torah by centuries, also clearly forbade adultery, theft, murder, and other immoral acts which the Torah also forbids. So moral values are not unique to Judaism or Christianity, which is where we find our set of moral values, but instead 'came together' in the first five books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Torah, with those which Jesus considered as important for us to observe being reiterated in the New Testament.

However, even Hammurabi credited the deities he worshiped with enlightening him as to what to include in his laws. Anthropologists are starting to realize that it was not the coming together of a people, with the consequent making and enforcing of a set of moral laws, which ultimately led to religious belief, but rather that it was religious belief and the set of moral laws built on that belief which led to the coming together of people to form a society.

Interestingly, this was recognized at least 50 years ago by those who wanted to tear down any perception of moral values as being objective. In 1964 I was a student in a philosophy class where the lecturer stated on the first day, "By the time this quarter is over 1/3 of you will be agnostics, and another 1/3 of you will be atheists." Then he proceeded to attack and ridicule all religious belief for the first 2/3's of the quarter.

The reason for his attacks became apparent near the end of that quarter. His 'pet' philosophy was Hard Determinism, which teaches that we are all nothing more than automatons 'programmed' to behave in certain ways due to our genetic makeup, our familial environments, and our societal environments. We are powerless to act in any manner other than the manner that has been 'programmed' into us by these influences.

Under this philosophy we were not to accept that morality existed in any form whatsoever. Instead, what we mistakenly saw as morality was in reality the biases of those who were in power. So we were to accept that Adolph Hitler, Adolph Eichmann, and Heinrich Himmler were just as moral as Albert Schweitzer, Jonas Salk, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., due to their following their 'programming'. We were also to see homosexuality, adultery, and other acts which are clearly identified in Scripture as violations of moral law, as instead to be seen as equally acceptable behavior to that dictated by Scripture.

 

[DPMartin]

Under this philosophy we were not to accept that morality existed in any form whatsoever. Instead, what we mistakenly saw as morality was in reality the biases of those who were in power. So we were to accept that Adolph Hitler, Adolph Eichmann, and Heinrich Himmler were just as moral as Albert Schweitzer, Jonas Salk, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., due to their following their 'programming'. We were also to see homosexuality, adultery, and other acts which are clearly identified in Scripture as violations of moral law, as instead to be seen as equally acceptable behavior to that dictated by Scripture.

I don’t get where this God’s Law is objective Law or "Objective Morals". Scribes and Pharisees refer to the same Law of Moses in the case of the adulterous woman which is in your terms objective. But the Lord tells them otherwise with the same Law. The Law, Torah, set of Morals, are relative to the Lord God who gave them. It is His agreement with the Children of Israel that He called a covenant (agreement).

You live in this western society, what is perceived as "moral" is what is agreed to by the ones who agree something is moral. If two agree to rob a bank and split the winnings evenly, of which nether has a moral issue with the robbery, could be because the bank robed them. So the one rips the other off, then in their view especially the one who was denied fulfillment of the agreement sees that as immoral. Because of the agreement he trusted the other party for the fulfillment of the agreement. Not because of some objectivity that doesn’t exist.

What is truly the establishment of the concept "moral" in western culture is a book written about the Book of Job by St Gregory the Great, a pope some where around the 500's that reestablished some integrity in the Roman Catholic Church when it was experiencing corruption. Except for the most recent translations of scripture, the word "moral" is not in the Bible. It is technically a Roman Catholic Church concept, or even theology.


Jesus came to fulfill the Law, the agreement, scripturally called covenant. And the interpretation of the fulfillment of that agreement is Jesus Christ, which is to God the Father’s satisfaction. Therefore no matter how you want to view the Law or Ten Commandments, its written in accordance to the Lord God's view of His expectations of us, of which no one could fulfill untill Jesus came.