Objective moral truth exists and comparative worldviews

[panta dokimazete]

I’d like to discuss this proposition as it relates to comparative worldviews - here’s the framework:

Axiom 1 (A1): Reality is all things that logically exist, both material and immaterial, independent of human observation

Axiom 2 (A2): Objective Truth (OT) (I.e., that which logically comports with reality) exists

Axiom 3 (A3): Human life has inherent value

1. The proposition “Objective (aka Absolute) Truth exists” is axiomatic

2. Any truth claim can be examined for alignment to 1

3. “Objective Moral Truth (OMT) exists” is a truth claim

4. The axiom “Human life has inherent value” is an OMT claim

5. OMT exists

This necessarily begs the question “What or Who is the source of OT, OMT, and inherent human value?”

The Biblical Christian position is clear:

OT, OMT, and inherent human value exist because there is an ultimate truthful, logical, and moral source, the Biblical Christian God. Human value is inherent because we are *imago Dei*.

What is the position of an atheist that is naturalistic?

I don’t think it can be “Nature”, because there is objectively and ultimately no natural inherent value to human life, therefore to hold to A4 as an OMT would be cognitively dissonant, as well as *any* subsequent OMT. (E.g., valueless killing is evil, valueless pain is evil, etc.)

In fact, I’m not sure there’s *anything* that can be categorized as inherently and objectively valuable from a naturalistic framework.

Interested in your thoughtful consideration.

 

[No Other Name]

Seems you have "OT exists" as both an axiom and also Proposition 1 which seems redundant unless I am missing something.

 

[No Other Name]

P2 is just a truism - a simple and unnecessary re-statement of the logical reasoning process.

3-5 is a mess and does not construct a valid argument as I recall from my studies in logic.

This seems incoherent as a whole.

But it's been a long while since I have played with logical constructs so I may be missing something.

 

[panta dokimazete]

It’s more of a discussion framework than a formal logical proof.

 

[No Other Name]

It’s more of a discussion framework than a formal logical proof.

Just curious, but since most discussion frameworks are written up as a paragraph or two, why wouldn't you just write a couple of paragraphs or more instead of mask a non-proof in the trappings of a formal proof?

Even if you do not intend the post to be a formal logic proof, you are still open to the correct criticism of wielding propositions as axioms as in P1. And also you are still missing any valid construction - which you need regardless of your intended framework.

Also also, as a byproduct, your conclusion is unwarranted within your setup. Suppose I was a Nazi soldier in charge of a camp in WW2 or a Chinese Red Guard serving under Mao and I come upon your conclusion:

What is the position of an atheist that is naturalistic?

I don’t think it can be “Nature”, because there is objectively and ultimately no natural inherent value to human life, therefore to hold to A4 as an OMT would be cognitively dissonant, as well as *any* subsequent OMT. (E.g., valueless killing is evil, valueless pain is evil, etc.

these atheists would agree and feel vindicated because their killing is not "valueless" rather it serves the greater good in their view: the Fatherland, the Dear Leader, the State etc.

So when you jump here next:

n fact, I’m not sure there’s *anything* that can be categorized as inherently and objectively valuable from a naturalistic framework.

it feels premature. Now I - of course - agree with your view.

But in my experience with atheists/humanists/"skeptics", they argue that each individual is inherently and objectively valuable because they imbue themselves with value and this is incontrovertible due to the demonstrable existence of themselves - unlike our "imaginary God" who has to be appealed to upon faith.

They would counter that you are dealing in an ontological shell game by defining "value", "OT", "OMT", et al in order to smuggle in your unproven God hypothesis to justify to yourself your faith when objectively you don't need to. You need only to put forward your view alongside everyone else and either win by having such a persuasive argument that gains the majority of the population or the majority of those who hold most power, control, authority etc.

Another example would be the Marxist socialist college professor who agrees with your A1 - A3 but only a posterioi or "after the fact" of being constructed by collective humanity throughout our millenia of cognitive development. This view serves to not only allow OT but also exalts the human collective as having god-like power and prepares the way for veneration - worship even - of the collective elite for the purposes of immediate acceptance of current decrees and forthcoming decrees from the collective years and decades from now.

TL;DR?

I agree with the claims made in your framework, but if it was in book format I would not buy this due to its not being particularly useful or helpful in the ongoing arena of apologetics directed at atheists/agnostics/naturalists/materialists et al.