The Moral Argument for God's Existence
A few weeks ago, I presented an argument for God's existence, namely, the kalam cosmological argument. Now I present another argument, one that may have a bit more rhetorical bite and persuasive power. It's called the moral argument for God's existence.
The moral argument seeks to show that objective moral values depend for their existence upon the existence of God. That is, the only way that we can make sense of morality is by accepting the proposition that God exists. The moral argument may be summarized as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Are There Objective Moral Values?
What about premise (2)? It simply affirms that there are objective moral values. There really is such a thing as right and wrong. We may not be able to give a knock-down argument to prove this to any and all people. Nevertheless, I believe that we know it's true. We know it intuitively. We can just see that some things are right and some things are wrong. And if some odd person claims that they can’t see it, that is no reason to doubt the existence of these values any more than the fact that a color blind person cannot see the colors we see gives us reason to doubt those colors exist.
The Bible confirms our belief that human beings have an innate awareness of objective moral principles. In Romans 2:14-15, Pauls says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." So, both the Scriptures and conscience confirm the existence of objective moral values.
Moreover, we can defend the existence of objective morality by pointing out the unacceptable implications of the contrary. Moral relativism, the view that morality is a matter of personal or culture preference, implies that we could not say that Hitler did anything wrong. It means that moral progress (e.g., our getting better as a society when we abolished slavery) is a myth. It means that moral reformers like Martin Luther King, who buck the moral consensus of a society, would be immoral by definition. So, we have very good reason to believe that objective moral values exist.
Does Morality Depend on God?
It is worth noting at the outset that premise (1) of the moral argument has been widely accepted in the course of history by both theist and atheist alike. The great Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who was himself a Christian, once wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." And J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century agreed. He said, "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them."
Let’s look at it this way: given that there are objective moral values, how do we best explain their existence? Which worldview—naturalism or theism—best explains objective morality?
Naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values. According to atheistic, evolutionary naturalism, the universe sprang into existence by pure accident, for no rhyme or reason. And human beings are the result of blind, evolutionary forces--natural selection. there is no reason of purpose for our being here. We are here because we happened to be luckier than other now-extinct species.
Given this picture of the world, what basis is there for affirming the existence of objective moral values? In order to attribute objective, moral value to anything, whether it be human beings or dandelions, we have to have some reason to believe that something has intrinsic value—that something is valuable for its own sake. That is, if we are going to be able to say that it is wrong to take human life without a just cause, then we have to have some reason to believe that human beings are special—that there is something intrinsically valuable about human beings that sets them apart from dirt or dandelions or cockroaches (things that we see no moral prohibition against killing or destroying). But, on what basis may we affirm that some action is right and another is wrong? It seems there is no such basis given naturalism.
So, in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for objective moral values. Theism, however, does provide such a basis. On theism, the world is no accident. It was created by intelligent design for a purpose. And human beings were created by God with intrinsic value, with purpose and meaning. In a theistic universe, life, especially human life, is sacred. Theism posits the existence of a personal, omnibenevolent, all-wise law-giver whose very character grounds the existence of obejctive moral laws and principles.
So, we have reason to believe our first premise as well. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. But, as we have seen, there are objective moral values. Hence, God exists.
The moral argument seeks to show that objective moral values depend for their existence upon the existence of God. That is, the only way that we can make sense of morality is by accepting the proposition that God exists. The moral argument may be summarized as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Are There Objective Moral Values?
What about premise (2)? It simply affirms that there are objective moral values. There really is such a thing as right and wrong. We may not be able to give a knock-down argument to prove this to any and all people. Nevertheless, I believe that we know it's true. We know it intuitively. We can just see that some things are right and some things are wrong. And if some odd person claims that they can’t see it, that is no reason to doubt the existence of these values any more than the fact that a color blind person cannot see the colors we see gives us reason to doubt those colors exist.
The Bible confirms our belief that human beings have an innate awareness of objective moral principles. In Romans 2:14-15, Pauls says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." So, both the Scriptures and conscience confirm the existence of objective moral values.
Moreover, we can defend the existence of objective morality by pointing out the unacceptable implications of the contrary. Moral relativism, the view that morality is a matter of personal or culture preference, implies that we could not say that Hitler did anything wrong. It means that moral progress (e.g., our getting better as a society when we abolished slavery) is a myth. It means that moral reformers like Martin Luther King, who buck the moral consensus of a society, would be immoral by definition. So, we have very good reason to believe that objective moral values exist.
Does Morality Depend on God?
It is worth noting at the outset that premise (1) of the moral argument has been widely accepted in the course of history by both theist and atheist alike. The great Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who was himself a Christian, once wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." And J.L. Mackie, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century agreed. He said, "Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them."
Let’s look at it this way: given that there are objective moral values, how do we best explain their existence? Which worldview—naturalism or theism—best explains objective morality?
Naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values. According to atheistic, evolutionary naturalism, the universe sprang into existence by pure accident, for no rhyme or reason. And human beings are the result of blind, evolutionary forces--natural selection. there is no reason of purpose for our being here. We are here because we happened to be luckier than other now-extinct species.
Given this picture of the world, what basis is there for affirming the existence of objective moral values? In order to attribute objective, moral value to anything, whether it be human beings or dandelions, we have to have some reason to believe that something has intrinsic value—that something is valuable for its own sake. That is, if we are going to be able to say that it is wrong to take human life without a just cause, then we have to have some reason to believe that human beings are special—that there is something intrinsically valuable about human beings that sets them apart from dirt or dandelions or cockroaches (things that we see no moral prohibition against killing or destroying). But, on what basis may we affirm that some action is right and another is wrong? It seems there is no such basis given naturalism.
So, in an atheistic universe, there is no basis for objective moral values. Theism, however, does provide such a basis. On theism, the world is no accident. It was created by intelligent design for a purpose. And human beings were created by God with intrinsic value, with purpose and meaning. In a theistic universe, life, especially human life, is sacred. Theism posits the existence of a personal, omnibenevolent, all-wise law-giver whose very character grounds the existence of obejctive moral laws and principles.
So, we have reason to believe our first premise as well. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. But, as we have seen, there are objective moral values. Hence, God exists.
5 Comments:
"Moral relativism, the view that morality is a matter of personal or culture preference, implies that we could not say that Hitler did anything wrong."
That is completely false. Even if moral values are based on personal or cultural preferences, that does not imply that there does not exist an action that is wrong according to those moral values. The source of a set of moral values is irrelevant when it comes to judging whether a given action is right or wrong according to that particular moral view. You greately mis-characterize moral relativsm in your statement.
"It means that moral reformers like Martin Luther King, who buck the moral consensus of a society, would be immoral by definition."
How the heck do you arrive at that conclusion? Again, the high moral values brought on by MLK and other reformers do not need to come from God for them to be influential and considered right by society.
Your argument that objective morals exist because "it feels like it to me" is also completely bogus. The fact that some moral values feel "natural" to you is precisely why you believe there are objective. However, simply feeling that does not make it true. In any case, come back with some proof about statement number 2) that is based on more than just pure speculation and "feeling".
j said, responding to my statement that we couldn't say Hitler did wrong, if relativism is true...
That is completely false. Even if moral values are based on personal or cultural preferences, that does not imply that there does not exist an action that is wrong according to those moral values. The source of a set of moral values is irrelevant when it comes to judging whether a given action is right or wrong according to that particular moral view. You greately mis-characterize moral relativsm in your statement.
I don't think I have mischaracterized moral relativism, though, there is a point I made that may need clarification. Of course, you are right that a cultural relativist, let's call him Bob, who believes that morality is defined by and for one's culture can judge that a person within his own culture has done something wrong according to that culture's moral standards. He can even say that Hitler, a member of another culture, say, has done what Bob's culture would consider wrong.
But all of this is completely beside the point. What Bob cannot say is that Hitler has done anything wrong according to Hitler's cultural standards. For in Hitler's culture is was good and right to kill Jews and invade other nations for personal gain, and who is Bob to say that Hitler and the people in his culture acted wrongly?--This is the point I was trying to make. If moral relativism is true, then (to quote philosopher James Rachels) no one can judge another culture's behavior to be inferior to one's own.
j goes on...
"It means that moral reformers like Martin Luther King, who buck the moral consensus of a society, would be immoral by definition."
How the heck do you arrive at that conclusion? Again, the high moral values brought on by MLK and other reformers do not need to come from God for them to be influential and considered right by society.
It is very easy to arrive at this conclusion. If moral relativism is true--that is, if morality is defined by and for one's culture--then it follows that what is right and wrong within a given culture is determined by a consensus of the majority. Therefore, if anyone questions or challenges the consensus of the majority (as MLK did regarding the Jim Crow laws of the South), then he is automatically and by definition immoral by the standards of that culture. It follows from this that moral relativism rules out the very possibility of a moral reformer. What could be more simple to understand? Can you show me that my argument is flawed?
And when you refer to the "high moral values" of MLK, it is hard to see how your statement avoids being incoherent. What makes MLK's moral standards "high"? If relativism is true, then one culture's standards cannot be higher or lower than the standards of another. Maybe MLK's standards were higher by his own estimation, but not by the standards of the culture he was challenging.
Your argument that objective morals exist because "it feels like it to me" is also completely bogus. The fact that some moral values feel "natural" to you is precisely why you believe there are objective. However, simply feeling that does not make it true. In any case, come back with some proof about statement number 2) that is based on more than just pure speculation and "feeling".
I never said that objective moral values exist because it "feels like it to me." My feelings don't have anything to do with it. I know that objective moral values exist by what philosophers call rational intuition. I can see that, e.g., torturing children for fun is morally wrong.
Such intuition is not unlike the operation of our sensory faculties. For example, suppose I see a flower that on one petal has a distinct shade of blue that I have never seen before and I tell my friend Bob to come and look. Bob looks and reports that he cannot see the shade of blue. All the petals look the same to him. Do I conclude that I don't see that shade of blue? Or do I conclude that Bob is defective (i.e., color blind)? Likewise, if someone cannot see what I know to be true about core moral values, it is rational for me to conclude that he is defective in some way. And keep in mind that I am NOT saying that we can know all correct moral judgments in this way, only basic, core, moral values--the same moral values that are shared by most cultures around the world.
My position here is not purely subjective, either. It can be confirmed in various ways. One way is by pointing out the bizarre and unacceptable consequences of moral relativism as I did in my main post. That, BTW, is the answer to your last demand. I know that premise 2 of my argument is true because moral relativism is intolerable and irrational. We all know that moral reformers like MLK are heroes--even you seem to acknowledge that. And we know that Hitler was a really bad guy. But the only way to make sense of these intuitions is if there are some objective moral values that transcend culture.
Let's go back to the Hitler example. You say that under moral relativism there is no way to conclucde that what he did was wrong under HIS moral views. Of course that is correct. Under his moral views what he did was certainly good or at least acceptable - that however does not diminish the uglyness of his actions and does not much us wrong to say the he was wrong - we did not agree with what he was doing and we decided to step in (too late for many, unfortunately). We all obviously consider what he did wrong under our own moral standards - the question is that we disagree with where those standards come from. The only problem with moral reltavism it seems is that under it there is no judgement of one's actions after their death. But so what? After all, that's sort of why we have a justice system here in this world.
And then you say that you do not have a "feeling" that moral objectivism is true, but rather it is "rational intruiition". That, however, is just another feeling that your brain experiences. At some point rational intuition led poeple to believe that the Earth is flat or the cneter of the Universe, but obviously that's not the case. My point is that retionality itself is not objective but based on apriori knoweledge which might be correct or might be wrong.
In any case your arguments are all safe and sound when it comes to philosophy (perhaps, I am not a philosopher to decide). But I am a scientist and I never assert anything to be absolutely true unless I have extensive evidence to support the claim, and I simply do not see you offering that kind of verifiable evidence. That is great difference between our ways of thinking and I doubt we would ever reconcile it.
Your analogy about the flower sounds nice but again it offers no evidence whatsover. People are capable of experiencing various details about the world that others cannot, yet that does make their experience any more "correct" than that of those others (such as Bob). When a person takes LSD, they obviously see things that sober people would not, yet that does not make the sobers person's view of the world any more wrong or flawed.
But even if as you say moral objectivism is true, where is the proof that that objectivism is based solely on the Biblical version of God? I am not a biblical scholar so obviously I am not qualified for real debate on that issue - but I have read the Bible and what I can conclude is that we cannot take every single passage literally and that clearly some later passages must over-rule earlier ones. Once we start doing that, however, it is subject to pure individual interpretation and it is clear from the wide variety of denominations out there that even people who consider themselves Christians do not all agree on what the right interpretation is.
j said. . .
Let's go back to the Hitler example. You say that under moral relativism there is no way to conclucde that what he did was wrong under HIS moral views. Of course that is correct. Under his moral views what he did was certainly good or at least acceptable - that however does not diminish the uglyness of his actions and does not much us wrong to say the he was wrong - we did not agree with what he was doing and we decided to step in (too late for many, unfortunately).
Why wouldn't it diminish the ugliness of his actions? Sure, by OUR standards, he would have done wrong if he had been a member of our culture. But, by adopting moral relativism (by which you admit that an action is right or wrong depending on whether or not a particular culture says it si right or wrong), your forfeit the "right" to say that a person from another culture has done wrong as long as he acts consistently with the standards of that culture. Moral relativism--by any definition that I have seen--simply is the view that rightness and wrongness are culturally defined and therefore one culture cannot stand in judgment over the actions of people in another culture. We may not like what someone in another culture does, but our not liking it would not make it wrong. So, again, if moral relativism is true, we could not say that Hitler did anything wrong.
By the way, it is precisely moral relativism to which many of the top Nazi war criminals appealed to try to escape judgment at the Nuremburg trial. They said, "Morality is relative to culture. In our culture, killing Jews was a good thing. So, who are you Americans and Britishers to come in here and impose your morality on us!?"
We all obviously consider what he did wrong under our own moral standards - the question is that we disagree with where those standards come from. The only problem with moral reltavism it seems is that under it there is no judgement of one's actions after their death. But so what? After all, that's sort of why we have a justice system here in this world.
No, the problem with moral relativism, as I have been arguing, is that there is no judgment of one's actions period!--at least not cross-culturally. I think you are confusing moral relativism with naturalistic ethics. There are some atheists/naturalists who are moral objectivists--i.e., they believe that there are objective moral values, and yet they don't depend for their existence upon God. These people would agree with the second premise of my moral argument that there are objective moral values (i.e, they, like me, reject moral relativism), but they think my first premise (if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values) is false. But, as I agued in my original post, such naturalism cannot give us any basis for believing that there are such objective moral truths.
And then you say that you do not have a "feeling" that moral objectivism is true, but rather it is "rational intruiition". That, however, is just another feeling that your brain experiences. At some point rational intuition led poeple to believe that the Earth is flat or the cneter of the Universe, but obviously that's not the case. My point is that retionality itself is not objective but based on apriori knoweledge which might be correct or might be wrong.
How do you know that 2+2=4? How do you know that green is not white? Is it just a "feeling"? If so, then maybe my basic moral knowledge is some kind of feeling after all, but that wouldn't by itself call it into question. Rational intuition is not a feeling. It is an "internal sense" if you will, by which we can simply see that some propositions are true, propositions like "Every event has a cause," or "Justice is good."
BTW, what I am calling rational intuition did not make it possible for some people to believe in a flat earth. Though out-dated now, people in earlier times had arguments and objective evidence that led them to believe the earth was flat.
But I am a scientist and I never assert anything to be absolutely true unless I have extensive evidence to support the claim, and I simply do not see you offering that kind of verifiable evidence. That is great difference between our ways of thinking and I doubt we would ever reconcile it.
Here you may have to define what you mean by "verifiable evidence." If by "verifiable" you mean empirically verifiable, then I won't be able to accomodate you much--except, again, to point out the horrible consequences of relativism. But, there are other kinds of verification, other kinds of evidence (e.g., philosophiical arugments).
More imporatnly, however, it is evident to me that you have a naive view of science. You say that you never assert anything to be true unless you have extensive evidence to support it. Really? What evidence do you have that there is a mind-independent external world? In other words, what evidence do you have that you are not right now in the Matrix and all of your current sensory experience is a computer-generated illusion? What evidence do you have that there are other minds besides your own? Let me help you out so that you don;t waste too much time: you have absolutely zero evidence for either of these things that I suspect you believe very strongly.
It is important for "scientific" people to realize that science itself rests upons several assumptions and presuppositions that science is utterly incapable of establishing (e.g., there is a mind-independent world, there are real cause and effect relationships, honest reporting of experiments is objectively right, etc.). The scientist has to take these things on blind faith or else look to philosophy to provide some kind of non-empirical justification for them.
When a person takes LSD, they obviously see things that sober people would not, yet that does not make the sobers person's view of the world any more wrong or flawed.
I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you saying that the LSD taker's experience has as much claim to being "real" as the sober person's?
But even if as you say moral objectivism is true, where is the proof that that objectivism is based solely on the Biblical version of God? I am not a biblical scholar so obviously I am not qualified for real debate on that issue...
I never said that objective morality is based soley on the biblical version of God. What I am defending here is simply a basic theism--the view that there is a personal God who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, etc. The moral argument establishes that the moral properties that exist depend for their existence upon a supremely good and personal law-giver--a thesis that is consistent with theism and inconsistent with naturalism. We can debate the finer details of what this God is like and whether he matches more precisely the Bible's view of God some other time.
These discussions are very convaluted. I think a more simple direct approach proves a valid point. If a decision is made only because of an extenernal consequence, eg. fear of punishement by parents, teacher, or GOD, then one cannot claim to be moral.
Morality is determined by ones own beleifs, no matter how the were instilled. There is no good or bad morality. It is a personal value system based on individual experiences.
So, to claim to Christians are on the moral highground is simply false, for the driving factor behind their decisions is fear of judgement by god. Athiests/agnostics make decisions basesd on a cultural compass and their personal moral conscience. This is closer to true morality.
You teach your kids right and wrong. When they grow up, if you still have to pay them to clean their house, clearly you have failed at developing personal responsibility. Same idea; god is controlling your behavior, therfore you are not in control, and cannot take credit for this imposed morality.
Post a Comment
<< Home