Moral argument for the existence of God?
- Thread starter beej6
- Start date
- Status
aleksanderpolo
Puritan Board Freshman
And consider that most Atheist we encounter will use the "existence of evil" argument, the moral argument is a power in-your-face punch.
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you click on the link to my blog, you will find the first post is an article by Russell M. Manion called "The Other Side: Metaphysics and Meaning". I think it is the best article on the subject. It starts out as a moral argument, then turns into an epistemological argument. The whole point of the argument is that if you want to be a consistent naturalist, then you must swallow the reductio, and accept that morality and even reason itself to be just an arbitrary and unnecessary function of reality. I have even had an atheist comment that it was “Vastly better than the posts by moralistic "atheists" - really, holier-than-thou closet Christians - that I see on these various blogs.”
This atheist commentator then goes on to add, “but the question arises: whence the need for justification and for finding such "truths"? Why does such "truth" confer value? A problem arising with the value of life is a form of illness, and a lack of wisdom on the part of a philosopher who should see that we cannot stand outside of life and ask "For what end, life?" Life simply is and we, little bugs hopping about on a tiny rock in space for a brief moment of time, do not leap any higher on this point than any other form of life. Do we speak of a cockroach whose life was as it ought to be?”
In doing so he seems to concede the point that apart from a “metaphysical wild-card” there can be no morality and no meaning to rationality. This is evident in his next quote, “The end of the essay was extremely weak following on from the same basic metaphysical need and error.” He then goes on to quote Nietzsche and his philosophy of “Eternal Recurrence” which “utilizes the standard of metaphysical truth to posit becoming as true (becoming eternally returns, therefore is the same eternally, therefore has being and is "true")”. Which to me sounds like gobblety gook. I like to call this the “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)” philosophy.
Nietzsche suggests that the notion of declaring nature to be immoral and meaningless is to react in the opposite extreme and suggests that this is a result of,
“the psychologically necessary affect once the belief in God and an essentially moral order becomes untenable.”
Nietzsche then suggests that the “moderate” solution (notice how the great Nietzsche himself cannot dispose himself of terms that have objective value to them) is the one that just accepts whatever comes down the pike. The next quote from Nietzsche seems to summarize this position well,
“Let us think this thought in its most terrible form: existence as it is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness: "the eternal recurrence." This is the most extreme form of nihilism: the nothing (the "meaningless"), eternally!”
This is just a regurgitation of stoicism, or what I like to call the “like it or lump it” philosophy.
So in essence, if a Christian becomes well-versed in the moral argument, he ought to be able to force any unbeliever that wants to use any moral against Christianity to either provide a world-view that makes sense of morality, or relinquish using those arguments. In other words,, you must force the unbeliever to accept moral and epistemological nihilism or leave the stage. This is one of the beauties of the presuppositional apologetic, it defends the Christian faith against all opposition.
This atheist commentator then goes on to add, “but the question arises: whence the need for justification and for finding such "truths"? Why does such "truth" confer value? A problem arising with the value of life is a form of illness, and a lack of wisdom on the part of a philosopher who should see that we cannot stand outside of life and ask "For what end, life?" Life simply is and we, little bugs hopping about on a tiny rock in space for a brief moment of time, do not leap any higher on this point than any other form of life. Do we speak of a cockroach whose life was as it ought to be?”
In doing so he seems to concede the point that apart from a “metaphysical wild-card” there can be no morality and no meaning to rationality. This is evident in his next quote, “The end of the essay was extremely weak following on from the same basic metaphysical need and error.” He then goes on to quote Nietzsche and his philosophy of “Eternal Recurrence” which “utilizes the standard of metaphysical truth to posit becoming as true (becoming eternally returns, therefore is the same eternally, therefore has being and is "true")”. Which to me sounds like gobblety gook. I like to call this the “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)” philosophy.
Nietzsche suggests that the notion of declaring nature to be immoral and meaningless is to react in the opposite extreme and suggests that this is a result of,
“the psychologically necessary affect once the belief in God and an essentially moral order becomes untenable.”
Nietzsche then suggests that the “moderate” solution (notice how the great Nietzsche himself cannot dispose himself of terms that have objective value to them) is the one that just accepts whatever comes down the pike. The next quote from Nietzsche seems to summarize this position well,
“Let us think this thought in its most terrible form: existence as it is, without meaning or aim, yet recurring inevitably without any finale of nothingness: "the eternal recurrence." This is the most extreme form of nihilism: the nothing (the "meaningless"), eternally!”
This is just a regurgitation of stoicism, or what I like to call the “like it or lump it” philosophy.
So in essence, if a Christian becomes well-versed in the moral argument, he ought to be able to force any unbeliever that wants to use any moral against Christianity to either provide a world-view that makes sense of morality, or relinquish using those arguments. In other words,, you must force the unbeliever to accept moral and epistemological nihilism or leave the stage. This is one of the beauties of the presuppositional apologetic, it defends the Christian faith against all opposition.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Carl the Covenant Keeper
Madeline the Covenant-breaker
Carl: Shall we move on to our next discussion, that of ethics and morality?
Madeline: Yes, that will be a welcome change.
Carl: I will go ahead and state my position. Given what I believe about God’s revelation above, I believe that God’s moral law transcends humans and cultures and binds humans and cultures everywhere. In short, I reject all forms of relativism.
Madeline: Can you define relativism for me?
Carl: Yes, relativism is the belief that different moral codes can be equally authoritative to different peoples at the same time.
Madeline: And why do you reject that?
Carl: I reject it because it is internally and externally contradictory.
Madeline: What makes you say that?
Carl: It is internally contradictory because it says that moral values are not absolute and transcendent while at the same time saying that culture A’s values bind those on culture A. Thus, it demands an absolutism while denying absolutisms. Because of that, it is externally contradictory. Let's say Person A's society says that adultery is wrong. Person B's society says it is right. Let's say that man from A has sex with woman from B in society C, the latter saying that the previous two are wrong. Which society is correct in their ethical claim, and why?
Madeline: Good point. But you still need to address the fact that different cultures do have different standards, and those standards apply to those people in those cultures.
Carl: Why should I respond? That statement is borderline absolutist. You have just admitted to me that relativists hold to a form of absolutism while denying it. You want the benefits of a transcendent moral order without the claims of such an order.
Madeline: Ok, but aren’t absolutist societies totalitarian societies? I mean, you even admit that your view imposes its morality upon the unwilling, sometimes by force?
Carl: To the contrary, I would maintain that absolutist moralities, particularly the Moral Law of God, is the only logical barrier to tyrannical government.
Madeline: What do you mean? Relativism wants everyone to live without coercion. Relativism respects all values. Relativism equals freedom in the public square.
Carl: I will refute that proposition in two different ways, both logical and existentially.
Madeline: Go ahead.
Carl: Logical. Consider, if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then it is impossible to objectively punish men from committing wrong actions.
Madeline: But relativists do punish criminals. We would punish absolutists like you!
Carl: Precisely, and that is what I was going to say. You do have a code of morality, and it is enforced by threat of coercion. That is absolutist. And that is true totalitarianism. When crime is not viewed as an offense against the moral order of God, it becomes viewed as an offense against the arbitrary power of the state. If no higher law is adhere to, then the law of man is absolute; there is no logical barrier to stop such a state from becoming totalitarian. When the state's will is substituted for God's will, then the only real crimes become crimes against the State. Men die for resisting the arbitrary will of the State, then, and not for crimes against a holy God. There is no appeal beyond the State and its rulers when God's law is put aside.
Madeline: So what are you saying?
Carl: Simple. If all values are relative, then what is to prevent a Hitler from coming in and saying “Well, my value is genocide against the Jews and I have the army to back me up”? And my second point, my existential point…
Madeline: But we know Hitler was wrong?
Carl: I do plan on getting to my second point, but how do you know Hitler was wrong? I would suggest that you know this because, as the bible says in Romans 2:15, you have the law of God written on your heart and it testifies against you. You know some things are wrong because you were wired that way.
Madeline: What is your second point?
Carl: You consider yourself progressive, right? You seek to undo many of the wrongs committed by the white male in the past?
Madeline: Yes, very much so!
Carl: So it is safe for me to assume that you look up to men like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi?
Madeline: Of course.
Carl: Why?
Madeline: Because they are social prophets who testified against evil.
Carl: Indeed, they are known as cultural prophets, calling the evils of a society to account. But do you see the problem? If a society is the source and norm for values, and a society determines what is right and wrong (like slavery and the oppression of women), then who is the prophet to blame them? All of the cultural prophets have assumed a moral law to which society must be judged. This moral law, obviously, is absolutist. In fact, these two men are wrong, given your standards, because they would have gone against the relativism of your society.
Madeline: But my society is progressive! We would have seen through such barbarisms and would have welcomed such moral prophets.
Carl: You used the word “progressive.” I find that interesting. What are you progressing to?
Madeline: What?
Carl: The notion of progress demands an absolutist standard. If there is no absolute standard, and values are relative, how can a society make progress? To what is it progressing?
Madeline the Covenant-breaker
Carl: Shall we move on to our next discussion, that of ethics and morality?
Madeline: Yes, that will be a welcome change.
Carl: I will go ahead and state my position. Given what I believe about God’s revelation above, I believe that God’s moral law transcends humans and cultures and binds humans and cultures everywhere. In short, I reject all forms of relativism.
Madeline: Can you define relativism for me?
Carl: Yes, relativism is the belief that different moral codes can be equally authoritative to different peoples at the same time.
Madeline: And why do you reject that?
Carl: I reject it because it is internally and externally contradictory.
Madeline: What makes you say that?
Carl: It is internally contradictory because it says that moral values are not absolute and transcendent while at the same time saying that culture A’s values bind those on culture A. Thus, it demands an absolutism while denying absolutisms. Because of that, it is externally contradictory. Let's say Person A's society says that adultery is wrong. Person B's society says it is right. Let's say that man from A has sex with woman from B in society C, the latter saying that the previous two are wrong. Which society is correct in their ethical claim, and why?
Madeline: Good point. But you still need to address the fact that different cultures do have different standards, and those standards apply to those people in those cultures.
Carl: Why should I respond? That statement is borderline absolutist. You have just admitted to me that relativists hold to a form of absolutism while denying it. You want the benefits of a transcendent moral order without the claims of such an order.
Madeline: Ok, but aren’t absolutist societies totalitarian societies? I mean, you even admit that your view imposes its morality upon the unwilling, sometimes by force?
Carl: To the contrary, I would maintain that absolutist moralities, particularly the Moral Law of God, is the only logical barrier to tyrannical government.
Madeline: What do you mean? Relativism wants everyone to live without coercion. Relativism respects all values. Relativism equals freedom in the public square.
Carl: I will refute that proposition in two different ways, both logical and existentially.
Madeline: Go ahead.
Carl: Logical. Consider, if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then it is impossible to objectively punish men from committing wrong actions.
Madeline: But relativists do punish criminals. We would punish absolutists like you!
Carl: Precisely, and that is what I was going to say. You do have a code of morality, and it is enforced by threat of coercion. That is absolutist. And that is true totalitarianism. When crime is not viewed as an offense against the moral order of God, it becomes viewed as an offense against the arbitrary power of the state. If no higher law is adhere to, then the law of man is absolute; there is no logical barrier to stop such a state from becoming totalitarian. When the state's will is substituted for God's will, then the only real crimes become crimes against the State. Men die for resisting the arbitrary will of the State, then, and not for crimes against a holy God. There is no appeal beyond the State and its rulers when God's law is put aside.
Madeline: So what are you saying?
Carl: Simple. If all values are relative, then what is to prevent a Hitler from coming in and saying “Well, my value is genocide against the Jews and I have the army to back me up”? And my second point, my existential point…
Madeline: But we know Hitler was wrong?
Carl: I do plan on getting to my second point, but how do you know Hitler was wrong? I would suggest that you know this because, as the bible says in Romans 2:15, you have the law of God written on your heart and it testifies against you. You know some things are wrong because you were wired that way.
Madeline: What is your second point?
Carl: You consider yourself progressive, right? You seek to undo many of the wrongs committed by the white male in the past?
Madeline: Yes, very much so!
Carl: So it is safe for me to assume that you look up to men like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi?
Madeline: Of course.
Carl: Why?
Madeline: Because they are social prophets who testified against evil.
Carl: Indeed, they are known as cultural prophets, calling the evils of a society to account. But do you see the problem? If a society is the source and norm for values, and a society determines what is right and wrong (like slavery and the oppression of women), then who is the prophet to blame them? All of the cultural prophets have assumed a moral law to which society must be judged. This moral law, obviously, is absolutist. In fact, these two men are wrong, given your standards, because they would have gone against the relativism of your society.
Madeline: But my society is progressive! We would have seen through such barbarisms and would have welcomed such moral prophets.
Carl: You used the word “progressive.” I find that interesting. What are you progressing to?
Madeline: What?
Carl: The notion of progress demands an absolutist standard. If there is no absolute standard, and values are relative, how can a society make progress? To what is it progressing?
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is a short YouTube video by W.L. Craig on objective moral values. It's only 3:24 and he basically uses a RAA (Reductio) to God's existence. I liked it.
Craig on OMV
Craig on OMV
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Good stuff coming from Craig, he must have polished up on some Van Til and Bahnsen before delivering that argument. I need to get the transcripts on this one.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It was part of my apologetics assignment for Frame's class. I will give you the other half on epistemology later. (Yes, I made it up).
- Status
