Here is the argument from morality in laid out deductively:
- Objective moral values cannot exist other than in the mind of god
- Objective moral values really do exist (and we all know it)
- :. God exists. QED.
While the argument is valid in form, it is unsound because neither of its premises have been established. The second premise involves an implicit move from “We can all agree that certain actions are never morally justifiable” to “Moral values therefore exist apart from human minds.” How this move (from inter-subjective consensus to non-subjective reality) may be made is never made clear, it is merely assumed that the first premise implies the second. Perhaps there is a rational argument to be made here, but from what I’ve seen, neither W.L. Craig nor C.S. Lewis (who popularized an earlier form of this argument) have ever bothered to do so. It must be noted here that no amount of dramatic hand-waving about horrific atrocities should be considered an argument in support of premise two, however much it stirs the heart.
The first premise is even more troublesome, as it assumes firstly that objective moral values are a coherent concept, and that they must exist (if at all) in the mind of some sort of transcendent being. Here we run into two objections each of which may be avoided by reading one’s Plato. The first is that you become irreversibly impaled upon one of the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma as soon as you assert that moral truths are objectively true in the same sense as mathematical truths, as Craig does. Such an assertion commits you to the view that morality is non-contingent upon the desires and values of any particular deity, however powerful and transcendent it may be, and thereby implies that Craig first premise is necessarily false. In order for that premise to work, “objective moral values” must mean “whatever moral values are subjectively preferred by god” which is sophistry of the highest order.
The second problem with the first premise is that there is not necessarily a logical contradiction to be had in the concept of moral propositions subsisting in something like the Platonic realm of the forms in which ideas exist independently of minds. Skeptics may object that ideas simply cannot exist apart from minds, but this is an objection rooted in induction from everyday experience, not unlike the observation that minds do not exist apart from brains. Once you start arguing in favor of transcendent, timeless and bodiless minds, you forfeit the ability to object based on our own (material and spatiotemporal) experience of how minds and ideas really work for us down here on Earth.
10 comments:
Euthyphro is no dilemma at all, actually. Things are good b/c God has decreed that they are good. Take it one step further, ask why He decreed they're good, and we find it's b/c they are in line with His character, which is an objective and final standard for discovering what is good/evil.
Interestingly, did you notice that in the recent Biola Hitchens debate, Craig significantly changed his moral argument? In every debate I've heard from him, he used the formulation you quote here. Yet with Hitchens, he said sthg more like:
1) If God doesn't exist, there are no objective moral values.
2) If there are no objective moral values, all we have is a morass of subjective, competing ideas, w/o any foundation for judging between them.
It's much more like the arguments I usually employ, and I found it interesting that he swapped out. I happen to find this recent reformulation more powerful, actually, so I was happy to see it, but I wondered why.
Peace,
Rhology
[Divine decrees] ... are in line with His character, which is an objective and final standard for discovering what is good/evil.
Suppose that God's character was such that He was more like the hypothetical Cartesian evil demon, a sadist who enjoys more than anything else the process of deceiving humans and making them suffer, especially if situational irony is involved. Would His character be any less objective and final as a moral standard?
Check this out for your answer.
I did not see a good answer to the possibility of a deceptive deity in the OP, and it will be awhile before I've time to get through ~50 comments.
Let me reframe the question: How could limited human rationality discern between:
(G-d) an all-powerful good (and thus honest) being who has unknown reasons for allowing some evil
(B-d) an all-powerful evil (and thus deceptive) being who has unknown reasons for allowing some good
AFAIK, we cannot formulate any empirical test which allows us to rationally choose one of these over another...
Perhaps God's character really "is an objective and final standard for discovering what is good/evil" but if my hypotheitical (B-d) is true, then we might well expect the deceptive all-powerful deity to reveal different codes of ethics (and other core beliefs) to the Aztecs, Buddists, Christians, Druze, etcetera, and then watch with sadistic glee as different groups fought and died over their ideological differences, often on the pretext that heresy is a worse fate than death.
I'd have to take issue, however, with saying "allowing some good". I don't grant that "good" exists independently of God, so I don't grant we can speak that way.
I'd probably reply that there is no reason to believe this, much like there is no reason to believe that atheism is true, if atheism is true.
If God is an evil trickster god or whatever, whether I believe in him makes no difference. Same thing with atheism - if atheism is true, the thought "atheism is true" is nothing more than a chemical reaction in my brain, much like "I love my wife", "I hate Jews", "I want Chee-tos", "I am about to rack up $50K in credit card debt". And my eventual fate is the same either way. So there's no good reason to believe either.
You might say "But that's self-deception!" but that would be forgetting that any placement of any value whatsoever on anything is self-deception too, since there is no Absolute Value out there. So YOU might think that it's silly to self-deceive like that, but your opinion has no more weight than mine does.
I'd have to take issue, however, with saying "allowing some good". I don't grant that "good" exists independently of God, so I don't grant we can speak that way.
I'm tempted to reply that you are not entitled to your own language, especially since English usage does not reference any deities in the common definitions of the term. Let's try this again, though, with slightly different terms:
(G-d) an all-powerful human-loving (and honest) being exists, who has unknown reasons for allowing some human suffering
(B-d) an all-powerful human-hating (and dishonest) being exists, who has unknown reasons for allowing some human thriving
(N-d) no all-powerful beings exist which have any significant concerns regarding human beings
Given your lowly epistemic status as a mere mortal man, how do you determine which of these hypotheticals is more likely to be true? Would it not matter to you personally which one of these is true?
If God is an evil trickster god or whatever, whether I believe in him makes no difference...
Of course it does. If you spend your life vainly trying to follow the dictates of an evil trickster, then "Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins."
...if atheism is true, the thought "atheism is true" is nothing more than a chemical reaction in my brain...
I must assume that you admit to actually having chemical reactions in your brain (even as you read these words) and so there is nothing particularly wrong with that. You imply, though, that chemical reactions are somehow incapable of doing performing any useful neurological work. Is there any scientific basis for such a claim, or is this Plantinga-style speculation with no evidential basis?
You might say "But that's self-deception!" but that would be forgetting that any placement of any value whatsoever on anything is self-deception too, since there is no Absolute Value out there.
You seem to be saying that in the absence of "Absolute Value" there really is no point in valuing anything at all. If there is no transcendent cosmic force who cares for us personally, why bother loving our kids, parents, pets, or enjoying such things as pizza, iPods, etc. Why bother searching for truth instead of falsehood? Why bother with anything at all, if our efforts do not have cosmic significance which lasts evermore?
I must assume I've misunderstood your point here, and that to demand either ultimate cosmic meaning or refuse to have any meaning at all is merely a straw-man of my own creation. I'll not impute such a non-sequitur to you in the absence of clarification.
I'm tempted to reply that you are not entitled to your own language, especially since English usage does not reference any deities in the common definitions of the term.I'm sorry that doing a little homework doesn't appeal to you. "Good" isn't like "puppy". It requires a little more fleshing out. That's my conclusion after seeing all alternatives fail. Feel free to provide an atheist theory of good.
how do you determine which of these hypotheticals is more likely to be true? More likely?
G-d, since the God of the Bible has actually revealed Himself.
B-d is a figment of your imagination, made up on the spot.
N-d can't ground the concept of "good", can't bridge the is-ought gap. I can't believe you're unfamiliar with Hume's writing on this issue; Hume is generally you guys' homey.
If you spend your life vainly trying to follow the dictates of an evil trickster, then "Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins."Right, and no matter how I live my life, I end up in the same place - eternal trickster torment or whatever.
And no matter how I live my life on N-d, I end up in the same place - eternal unconsciousness, and nothing I've done or said will matter.
Only on G-d does it matter.
I must assume that you admit to actually having chemical reactions in your brain Well, of course, but that's not ALL that goes into thinking, on Christianity.
On atheism, that IS all. And there's little reason to trust chemical reactions of the BRAIN over those of the liver, penis, gall bladder, stomach, can of Dr Pepper, etc, w/o just putting blind, unprovable faith in the brain. Which you deny you do, I should think, b/c you really really like your claim to being totally rational and all that.
Is there any scientific basis for such a claim, or is this Plantinga-style speculation with no evidential basis?Haha, what "scientific basis" could you marshal to overturn such a claim? Prove your thoughts correspond to reality. If you smack a chair with your palm like your friend Chris did in Yukon, I'll simply reply that you might well have THOUGHT you smacked a chair with your palm, THOUGHT it made a sound, THOUGHT you have a hand, THOUGHT you were standing in a church, etc. But you weren't necessarily. You can't prove it one way or the other. It's a useful illusion to you. That's atheism's final destination.
Not so, fortunately, for the Christian.
You seem to be saying that in the absence of "Absolute Value" there really is no point in valuing anything at all.Right. Including valuing the thought that in the absence of "Absolute Value" there really is no point in valuing anything at all. NOTHING matters.
If there is no transcendent cosmic force who cares for us personally, why bother loving our kids, parents, pets, or enjoying such things as pizza, iPods, etc. Why bother searching for truth instead of falsehood? That's an oustanding question, and that's my question to you. Got an answer?
See here for more clarification of what I mean. I'm taking your position to its logical conclusion. The conclusion is *supposed* to scare you. And when and if you don't turn away from it in disgust, it proves you're not a seeker of truth at all, but rather you're married a priori to your atheism and don't particularly care for truth at all. You just say you care to look good.
"Good" isn't like "puppy". It requires a little more fleshing out. That's my conclusion after seeing all alternatives fail. Feel free to provide an atheist theory of good.
I would say it is generally good to provide help and to avoid harm. Indeed, it is difficult for me to think of any moral actions which do not ultimately boil down to these principles.
G-d, since the God of the Bible has actually revealed Himself.
To a handful of illiterate itinerant peasants a couple milenna ago? Sounds fishy.
B-d is a figment of your imagination, made up on the spot.
I would think Descartes deserves the credit, or perhaps the Zoroastrians.
N-d can't ground the concept of "good"
I do not recall claiming that the concept of good requires transcendent grounds. That is your assumption.
Only on G-d does it matter.
Sure - if "matter" is defined as "having eternal significance" rather than in its usual sense. This strikes me as terribly demanding of you to assume that your life must have cosmic and eternal meaning, or else no meaning at all.
Well, of course, but that's not ALL that goes into thinking, on Christianity.
Which particular aspects of your mind are happening apart from electrochemical reactions in your brain?
And there's little reason to trust chemical reactions of the BRAIN over those of the liver, penis, gall bladder, stomach, can of Dr Pepper, etc.
I trust that the brain, liver, penis, gall bladder, stomach, etc. will all continue to function in the way that such things normally do, or else I go to the doctor. Thanks to methodological naturalism, we've some sense of how these things work nowadays. It is nothing even remotely like blind faith to conclude that modern advances in understanding human phylogeny and physiological based on scientific evidence.
You can't prove it one way or the other. It's a useful illusion to you. That's atheism's final destination.
Not so, fortunately, for the Christian.
You need not assume that the external world is really there, complete with such things as chairs? I'd think we are in the same boat on this one. Even doubting Thomas has to assume that Jesus was really standing there.
NOTHING matters.
Can you show how "nothing matters" follows deductively from "nothing matters eternally"???
Got an answer?
Loving our kids, family, and pets is beneficial for all concerned, and even more satisfying than arguing online. Also, it makes other people happy. In terms of the aforementioned good, acting loving helps people and avoids harm.
Post a Comment