I’m just catching up on this thread so I’m a little late to the party, but I hope you’ll allow me to ask a question.
I’ve found the moral argument to be a compelling one. I have also read some atheistic responses to it. Which of its premises do you not agree with? If you want to point me to an article that you’ve found that you believe defeats or weakens the argument I’d be interested to read it.
I’m fairly sure there isn’t one singular Argument from Morality, but a number of similar arguments. It would therefore help for you to specify which one you have in mind.
Good question. I didn’t think to be specific. Let me do so now. The two I’ve read are those from C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. I’d have to re-read Lewis to see how his may coincide with that of Craig.
Craig’s argument, briefly stated, is this:
I realize that this is a bit tangential to the original thread so perhaps we could spin this off if you wanted to discuss it in any detail.
For reference I like to use this other site (https://infidels.org) (decidedly not Christian) to see how people respond to Craig and others. I mention this only to say that I try to approach these issues with my eyes open.
That’s an invalid syllogism. The problem lies in the first premise. Can you justify it? How do you deal with the Euthyphro dilemma? The second premise also seems problematic, but there’s no reason to get that far.
Yeah, I can’t imagine what it would take to justify even provisionally accepting the first premise, which basically seems completely bizarre. And both the first and the second premises present the insuperable problem of defining “objective morality” and doing so in a way which allows its existence to actually be ascertained.
This is my main issue with this form of the argument.
I have yet to see an argument for their existence that even raises doubts in my mind that they may exist, let alone that is compelling.
Like @John_Harshman, I also have issues with the first premise, but I see that issue as a more complex argument and therefore not as clear cut (though others may well disagree with me on that point).
Hi John.
I think a response to the dilemma is to indicate that those values and duties are constituted by and grounded in God. I know however that this response is not without its own objections. I’ve found this discussion (which I have yet to watch) on the topic.
I am an armchair, not academic, philosopher, so I’m likely to quickly get out of my depth here. Perhaps after I’ve watched this video I can better respond.
My problem with that response is that it appears not to mean anything. What do “constituted by” and “grounded in” mean? How can we know whether God does whatever those mean unless we have a standard of values to judge by?
This Wikipedia section may also provide a stepping off point for finding various viewpoints on this argument.
Wouldn’t this amount to Divine command theory? I think you may find that many here find that viewpoint even more objectionable than the Argument from Objective Morality.
@thoughtful might be like Kurt Wise (Dawkins’s so-called “honest creation scientist”). I understand that Wise is on record as saying something to the effect that even if all science contradicted the Bible, he would still reject the science and accept the Bible.
But in this dialog, Valerie (who is NOT a scientist) is at least trying to engage in the discussion. And, yes, sometimes it is painful and frustrating to watch. But she perseveres, acts honestly, shows good grace and a sense of humour, and is trying to keep her eyes wide open. For all of that she deserves to be cut some slack.
So far as the hypothesis is concerned, @John_Harshman asked about a specific scenario, and (IMHO) Valerie was responding to that specific remark when she said she would have to think about it. Of course, she needs help - she’s not a scientist (and nor am I) but there’s nothing to be gained by being unkind.
Which is why I said your question was irrelevant. It had nothing to do with what I am discussing.
Scientists don’t generally waste time testing hypotheses that are stupid. And that even those who believe in the creation hypothesis don’t bother to test it is itself good reason to conclude it is a stupid hypothesis.
I think you mean to say it is unsound. The syllogism is valid.
Hi John.
Yes of course, those things require explanation. I was just summarizing them for those who are familiar with the argument as formulated by Craig. I didn’t really want to express the argument in full.
Hi Tim.
Yes, it would. I’m just stating the argument as presented by Craig who would (as best I know) go that route. Perhaps he has since revised or changed his position but I cannot say.
Thank you for the wikipedia link. I’d also like to thank you for mentioning the second premise. To be honest that is the one I’d be most interested in discussing in a forum such as this.
I realize I’ve opened a bit of a Pandora’s box by asking my question earlier. While I still subscribe to theism (and Christianity in particular) I do sincerely want to understand how an atheistic worldview attempts to answer the kinds of questions we are all generally interested in. Thank you @Tim , @Puck_Mendelssohn and @John_Harshman for sharing some of your objections.
Sincerely,
CL
What I meant to say is that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, however you say that. Socrates is a man; Socrates is mortal; therefore all men are Socrates.
No, the conclusion does follow from the premises. I made the same mistake when I first cam across this argument, but if you think it thru is valid.
It’s the equivalent of:
If Socrates is not mortal, he is not a man.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
She definitely is. That’s not at all what she claims to be like.
By accusing us of acting in bad faith?
By accusing us of filtering evidence while she simply filters out all evidence in favor of hearsay she likes?
In your opinion, was she acting honestly when she wrote this in the dialog occurring simultaneously?
That’s not what someone even trying to keep her eyes wide open thinks.
She’s been cut plenty of slack.
Was the paragraph quoted above written by someone who thinks she needs help?
Is there something to be gained by avoiding the evidence while claiming to be interested in it? Is pointing someone to the evidence kind? Is pointing out afterward that someone isn’t looking at the evidence kind or unkind?
This. At the level of taking scientific action, they are obviously aware that their hypothesis is not worth testing. However, doing cargo cult science brings in the $ and helps tamp down the massive cognitive dissonance they must be experiencing.
And it is true that actions (or in this case, the lack thereof) speak more loudly than all those words they write.
I would say that “worldviews” ought to have nothing to do with it. If I ever suspected that anything I employ by way of reason was the effluence of an “atheistic worldview” I would despair at my own folly and try very hard to stop doing that. I come at this stuff as a seriously interested inquirer after evidence. I don’t have an “atheistic worldview” in any sense, so far as I know, and wouldn’t like to acquire one. I do have atheistic opinions and conclusions, but these are the result largely of consideration of the evidence, not of some sort of “worldview.”
Simple answer: if there is such a thing as objective morality, God cannot be its justification, and the Euthyphro dilemma shows that, and theists and atheists have equal and identical justifications. If there is not such a thing (which is almost certainly the case), theists and atheists are equally bereft of it. There in fact seems no difference. You may ask yourself why X is right and Y is wrong, but “Because God said so” is not a useful answer.
Quite right. My bad.