An argument that I have personally heard atheists make all the time is the ‘all powerful contradiction’, which they think somehow disproves the existence of God.
Their argument goes something along these lines:
- If God is all powerful then he can prevent all suffering
- If God is good then he must prevent all suffering
- Suffering exists
- Therefore, God does not exist
This argument is logically valid in its structure, however because two of the premises are demonstrably false, the conclusion 'God does not exist' does not follow. If the atheist wants to use this argument, they must firstly prove why the first and second premises are true.
"If God is all powerful then he can prevent all suffering"
This premise recognises that God is all powerful. That is, He is omnipotent. However, the atheists fail to remember that omnipotence has historically always been defined as 'being able to do everything that is logically consistent'. So that means, God cannot create square triangles or God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The logical progression in this premise is that God 'can prevent all suffering', however that it is not true because it would be logically impossible for God to do that. I'll explain.
From a Biblical worldview we see the explanation of why there is evil and suffering in the world. The Bible says: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1), and this world was free from evil and suffering. It was a world that was perfect. Then into this perfect world God placed man and woman. This man and woman were told that they could do anything they want, except for one thing, and that was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now, since God created this world, He is in charge, and He makes the rules. It comes with being a Sovereign. And, one would think that if Adam and Eve truly loved their Creator, then they would do as He asked. Yet, they didn’t, they rebelled against God, and ate of the tree. So because of this one act of rebellion, sin, death, evil and suffering all entered into the world.
God was not the author of this suffering, but rather man’s own rebellion, and man’s own free choice caused suffering enter into the world (Rom. 5:12). For it is impossible for God to make a free creature do something forcefully. Otherwise, the creature would not be truly free.
"If God is good then he must prevent all suffering"
Yes, God is good. However, that does not mean He must prevent all suffering. Suffering is not always a bad thing. Such when a child does something wrong and the parent discipline's the child, that temporal suffering is actually beneficial for the child. It is because the parent loves the child that they discipline them.
But someone might object by saying, what about those instances of apparently gratuitous evil, that is, pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result? However, what position are we in to say that God has no morally sufficient reason for permitting suffering? In order for this premise to be plausibly true, someone needs to know that God has no such reason.
In fact, the Bible says that persecution has the benefit of producing perseverance, character and hope (Rom. 5:3). The book of Hebrews even lays out that "the Lord disciplines the one he loves" (Heb. 12:6).
Evil Proves God's existence
Ironically, the existence of evil in the world is actually a proof of God's existence! The argument is outlined as follows:
- If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
- Objective moral values do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
When I say 'objective moral values', I mean that things that are moral or immoral independent of whether someone believes that they are or not. So I can say the Holocaust was objectively evil, even though Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Or even if Nazi Germany won World War 2 and brain-washed the rest of the world into believing what they did was right, it would still be objectively wrong.
The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,
"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory."
However, objective morals do exist, and even this argument from evil that atheists bring up acknowledges that objective morals do exist. They are relying on the premise that there are actually evil things in the world in order to disprove God's existence. But their argument failed and evil is evidence for God because the argument I presented is logically valid and the premises are plausibly true, so thus the conclusion is necessary and inescapable, that God exists.
1. Why cant objective morals exist without God? Seeing as we are all genetically similar you would expect our brains to operate in similar ways - morality etc.
ReplyDelete2. What are these objective morals? The concept of absolute morality is wishthinking. Setting out what those morals are is a little more difficult.
3. Can you prove that they are absolute? I assume by saying there is a moral standard you assume it crosses all people, places etc. Just because they appear to be "objective" to you does not mean they would to another person. Furthermore, perhaps you could explain how morality exists when there are no humans around? Does it just sit in the air, or even in the ether of the universe? lol.
Lol - your arguments are silly, nonetheless I commend you on having a crack at the argument from benevolence and putting forward an alternative.
I am a little tired now but I will try and address you statement in full tommorrow - its 3 in the morning after all.
Regards
"I am a little tired now but I will try and address you statement in full tommorrow - its 3 in the morning after all."
ReplyDelete3am! We left you in the city at 1am, you must really love us if you have to rush home to comment on the blog.
No - I stuck around and played some World of Warcraft at the internet cafe and then looked at your blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the internet at home.
"What are some objective morals?"
ReplyDeleteWell, torture, rape and murder are examples of things that are objectively evil. While love, compassion, kindness, and honesty are objectively good.
"Can you prove that they are absolute?"
I am not contending that everyone believes that these things are moral or not, but rather these things are moral or immoral independent of what people believe.
"Why cant objective morals exist without God?"
On a purely naturalistic view, morals are just a by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Nothing on an atheistic position would make these morals that homo sapiens have objective.
So what is wrong with rape? On the atheistic position there shouldn't be anything wrong with it because we are just animals and there are many animals who forcibly copulate with other animals to reproduce. Or when a Lion kills a Zebra, it kills it, but it doesn't murder it. These things are not evil for animals, so why would they be evil for us if we are just animals as well?
Why think we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes these moral obligations upon us?
It is hard for us to see that this morality is not more than just subjective expressions arising and in-grained by societal and parental conditioning. Certain actions such as incest and rape may not be socially and biological advantageous, but that does nothing to show that incest and rape are really wrong. Such behaviour goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. On the atheistic view, the rapist is not doing something objectively evil, but is just being unsociable or doing something unfashionable. So that is why if there is no moral law giver, there must be no moral law which we must obey.
However on a theistic position, there is a basis for morality which flows right out of God's nature.
And there are things that are objectively evil. If you deny it, then you can't use the 'Problem of Evil' argument because that assumes that evil does actually exist. Additionally if you deny objective morals, what is wrong with raping and murdering a child for fun? You may say, it hurts the child. But what is wrong with hurting someone? No matter what the response the atheist gives to these questions, if the 'why?' question is continually asked, they will have to resort to saying, 'It simply is just wrong.' And that shows that there are things that are objectively wrong.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou are a funny guy and clearly you like to labour the point, but:-
1. I agree with you that torture, rape and murder are immoral. But that is just the opinion that you and I share.
Of course that doesnt prevent the US government from instituting the death penalty or using torture on inmates at Camp X-ray, which it has justified as moral. Also seems a bit odd that the old testament is full of murder in God's name, but I guess thats ok right? Furthermore, its odd that a christian considers murder and torture as immoral if your saviour was totured and murdered to give you salvation. Seems to me that in that particular instance you dont have any problems with it.
2. Glad to see that you agree that morality is not absolute.
3. I agree that "Nothing on an atheistic position would make these morals that homo sapiens have objective". In fact, throughout history we have seen the complete bypass of the moral principles that you and I adhere to in the course of religion as well as society as a whole. My point is that they only become uniform to us because of the current moral zeitgeist, that is, the collection of individuals morals.
It is strange that you refer to rape. I dont see where rape of your wife would be outlawed in the Bible. Certainly not in the ten commandments.
I think the problem you have is that you do not recognise there is no atheist position in relation to morality. Atheists are only bound together by one characteristic, we do not believe in a personal God. That does not mean we do not have morality - just that our morality is not uniform. Personally, I am a humanist - that is - I derive my morality from using my empathy with respect to other people (see Kant and the deontological liberals). Accordingly, I know that rape is the violation of a woman against her wishes and accordingly, it is immoral. There are other types of atheists, but I don't impose, nor follow, their ideals. But thanks for trying to create a strawman, it was amusing.
Re Lions and Zebras. Has the Lion enough empathy to forgo its dinner? I had Hungry Jacks on the weekend, does that make me a monster?
And there are things that are objectively evil. If you deny it, then you can't use the 'Problem of Evil' argument because that assumes that evil does actually exist.
Actually thats fallacious logic. All that this means is that God cannot be as moral or benevolent as a person that holds certain things to be evil, ie murder, rape, torture. Both you and I agree these things are evil. Accordingly, the "Problem of Evil" argument can still be used unless you are prepared to accept that we are more moral than God. Thus, do you accept that God is not omnibenevolent?
The problem with the bible (as with all law) is that it can only be consistent with the known circumstances at the time of writing. If new circumstances arise, the moral implications can only be the result of interpretation - in which case, is it the Bible or the interpreter that is creating the law?
I have answered your why question above. Please answer my question:-
perhaps you could explain how morality exists when there are no humans around? Does it just sit in the air, or even in the ether of the universe?
"Accordingly, I know that rape is the violation of a woman against her wishes and accordingly, it is immoral."
ReplyDeleteWhy is it immoral to go against a woman's wishes? If morals are not objective, then what is wrong with that? It happens all the time in the animal kingdom, and if we are just animals then what is wrong with it?
"Actually thats fallacious logic."
Firstly, please show me which fallacy I committed in my reasoning. Secondly, my point was that if you are saying that there is no objective evil, then you cannot say 'because there is evil in the world, God does not exist'. You cannot have it both ways.
But rather, I've shown that there are things that are objectively evil, so thus my original argument and its conclusion still stands, that God exists.
"perhaps you could explain how morality exists when there are no humans around? Does it just sit in the air, or even in the ether of the universe?"
God is the standard of Morality. So if you wanted to know what is moral, just look at God.
Why is it immoral to go against a woman's wishes? If morals are not objective, then what is wrong with that? It happens all the time in the animal kingdom, and if we are just animals then what is wrong with it?
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out with the parable of the Lion and the Zebra, I have empathy, an animal does not (empathy being a virtue bestowed by our big brains and cerebral cortex). Accordingly, I can empathise (put my self in the position) with a woman being raped. Thats where my conscience resides. It is not some God given ability. It is a studied characteristic of the human brain. It is the same characteristic which meant that our (homo sapien) ancestors buried or disposed of the remains of their dead rather than leave them to rot like our (homo erectus) ancestors.
But rather, I've shown that there are things that are objectively evil, so thus my original argument and its conclusion still stands, that God exists
No boy, you have only shown that you can determine where evil exists. It is not objective. Accordingly, the problem of evil is dependent on the viewer and on that basis it is within each viewer that the problem is created. Thus, your conclusion would only hold fast where the person making the query could find nothing in the world was evil. I do not think there is such a person, but here is a possible candidate:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Berdella
It remains possible to say that evil exists so long as you consider there is evil and the person you are talking about agrees. As we both agree that evil exists (rape, torture, murder) then we can both criticise God for allowing that activity. Are you saying that God does not consider the things we agree as evil (rape, tortue, murder) to be evil? It does not matter that they are not objective, only that God does not care about them and allows them to happen despite his omnipotent power to stop them (which he doesnt use).
God is the standard of Morality. So if you wanted to know what is moral, just look at God.
Again, silly. Where is this God?
In the bible? Then we are not looking at God (directly at least) but rather at the bible.
Can you show me a direct link between me and God whereby my morality is being informed by him? If such a link does not exist then neither does my connection to morality and yet I share the same morals with you regarding evil (rape, torture and murder). How is this possible, unless I am my own moral authority?
DO you seriously think that a person is only moral because of God? Are you seriously contending that a human cannot act morally without being informed by God?
Again, where is your evidence for morality existing outside of human beings?
I have empathy, an animal does not
ReplyDeleteSo what? Even if you have empathy, what makes the act of rape wrong if there are no objective morals?
"It remains possible to say that evil exists so long as you consider there is evil and the person you are talking about agrees. As we both agree that evil exists (rape, torture, murder) then we can both criticise God for allowing that activity."
But the point you are missing is that even if two people agree that it is evil to do a certain act, if there are no objective morals, then that act is not actually evil! Another person might class an act such as 'kindness' to be evil, could they say, "Look, kindness exists, which is evil, therefore God does not exist"? Of course not. So Alex, you cannot have it both ways. Additionally, I've already shown why two of the premises in the argument from evil are false.
So what? Even if you have empathy, what makes the act of rape wrong if there are no objective morals?
ReplyDeleteI think that I am clearly pointing out that, as a human with empathy, I can figure out what constitutes evil for myself.
Saying that rape is wrong is not objective, its subjective and localised in me. You also agree, as does (hopefully) all of society.
The "objectivity" that you refer to is an illusion based on the agreement between the majority of individuals of what constitutes a "wrong". It is not technically objective, but it appears to be when enough individuals agree to it. (read Rousseau's social contract for an idea of what this means - ps, this is why democracy works and not a dictatorship - because we argue about what is right and wrong rather than just "know").
But the point you are missing is that even if two people agree that it is evil to do a certain act, if there are no objective morals, then that act is not actually evil! Another person might class an act such as 'kindness' to be evil, could they say, "Look, kindness exists, which is evil, therefore God does not exist"? Of course not. So Alex, you cannot have it both ways. Additionally, I've already shown why two of the premises in the argument from evil are false.
You are sort of chasing your tail (circular argument) here.
1. Even if we do not accept that each individual has a divergent moral compass then we can still accept that each of those individuals will consider something to be evil (whether uniform and objective or not),
2. The problem of evil will continue to be valid so long as God shares the moral compass. Thus,
3. If we consider something to be evil (say murder) and God does not prevent that thing then, either:-
4a. God does not agree with us that thing is evil or
4b. He is unwilling to prevent that thing from happening
5. Lets apply - do you consider murder to be evil (does not matter where you think you get your morality from)? If yes, does murder ever happen (must be accepted)? If yes then God does not prevent murder because:-
6a. God does not consider Murder to be evil (This is destroyed by the Ten Commandments isnt it - or are you saying we have no knowledge of God?), or,
6b. God is not omnibenevolent (does not prevent evil wherever he can), or,
6c. God is not omnipotent, or,
6d. God does not exist.
Its a simple choice and it all follows. The result is that, the problem of evil does still work in relation to the atheist point of view (such that objective morality does not exist) - but it provides us with further information as to God's morality in relation to our own. This is not necesary because we are considering the God that (any given) Theist is describing.
Furthermore, this is not necessary when considering the atheist point of view because you must first believe that there is no God, in which case, your objection appears to be silly.
However, it is interesting to observe (and break the circle) that you consider morality is objective because if it is not then God's morality must necesarily come into question (which is not possible if he is omnibenevolent). Can you see why you are arguing this point now?
Lawlz - are you seriously saying that "kindness" can fall within the definition of "evil"? You do understand that words have meaning or have you lost it completely while chasing your tail?
PS
ReplyDeleteRyan - just to clarify
You are going to have to accept that the problem of evil does bgin with
"If God exists then"
If God does not exist then there is no problem of evil is there. So therefore, your objection can only hold if we start from a position that God does not exist. If we accept that position, an objection to God existing is pretty silly.
Get it now?
"The "objectivity" that you refer to is an illusion based on the agreement between the majority of individuals of what constitutes a "wrong"."
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not what I mean when I say 'objective'. Because remember, it is independent of what people believe is right or wrong. It is rather based upon the character of God and what He said is right or wrong.
"You are sort of chasing your tail (circular argument) here."
Please show me how.
Now the 'expanded' problem from evil you presented is simply illogical because point six poses a false quad-lemma. That is, there is a fifth option that is possible and you have omitted it, so thus your argument is not logically valid. And that other option is the one I addressed in my original article, that God does have morally sufficient reasons for letting evil occur in the world.
"the problem of evil does still work in relation to the atheist point of view (such that objective morality does not exist)"
No it doesn't. If there are no objective morals then how would you know what is actually good or evil? It would be impossible. If one person thinks that murder is good and while another thinks it is evil, who is right? You would not be able to differentiate between what is actually good and what is in fact evil. Not only that, the atheist is assuming an enormous burden of proof that would be impossible for him to bear because he would not know that if God were to exist, what things God would think are good or evil. The argument from evil thus cannot be used if you believe there are no objective morals.
Since there are objective morals and if God did not exist there would be no objective morals, the conclusion that God exists is necessary and inescapable.
"are you seriously saying that "kindness" can fall within the definition of "evil"?"
No, of course not. I gave that as an example to show the absurdity of morals not being objective.
"You are going to have to accept that the problem of evil does bgin with 'If God exists then'"
How? Are you reading some other argument or something? Because that definitely wasn't mine. In no way was my argument circular because it does assume that God exists first. But rather, it is actually one of the proofs for God's existence.
I find arguments of logic fascinating but I think you will agree that they don't often convince anyone. The apostle Paul explained the problem with using man's wisdom; it can put our faith on the wrong basis:
ReplyDelete1Co 2:1 And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 so that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
As we have seen neither the atheist nor the Moslem is convinced by argument, they are too 'sold out' to their philosophy or faith. Paul recognized, no doubt from his experience of preaching the gospel, that what really grabbed peoples attention was a miracle (see the early chapters of Acts). It is a shame that the Church seems to be divided into two camps (in my opinion both in error) the 'Todd Bentley' group and the 'miracles have ceased' group. It is time that the Spirit and the Word came together and we had accurate preaching of the gospel in the style of 'Way of the Master' coupled with the expectation of the miraculous on the lines of Acts i.e. in your face, obvious, verifiable miracles of healing happening in the street. Imagine the convicting power of the Holy Spirit when the gospel is preached in truth coupled with the demonstration of the power of God to heal. All the arguments of man will be blown away.
Again: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Chris Jackson
Ryan
ReplyDeleteSince there are objective morals and if God did not exist there would be no objective morals, the conclusion that God exists is necessary and inescapable.
Keep saying it mate and maybe - through some form of magic - it will become true. Lol. There are no objective morals, you havent provided any evidence of it.
Effectively, an objective moral standard would exist when humans (or some other sentient being, conscious of its own existence and the existence of others) are not around - can you show such a standard? Where is it? Ive asked you 3 times now, you return to God (that is circular, an argument about God on which your sole evidence is God is accordingly circular).
I know you want to assume that there are certain things that are always moral/immoral. Its just not the case, this is proven by the fact that anything considered immoral has been identified. It means that someone has done it - hence, at least one person did not find it immoral when they first appraoched the issue and thus morality is not objective.
Your objection to the argument from evil where morality is subjective is laughable because you are actual saying that if morality is subjective then God has no morality. Technically, all sentient beings have some idea of right and wrong (even if it is only in a survival sense) accordingly, your objection only works if you accept there is no God.
Then, contrary to your objection, your stipulate that there must be an objective morality, without any evidence etc. In which case, the argument from evil continues to operate.
Your second objection that God has some morally sufficient reason for causing evil, however, is accepted in that it destroys the notion of omnibenevolence (required in the argument from evil) - because, in spite of his greater reasons, God is not good all the time. You would have us believe that a 'net good' exists which is diametrically opposed to omnibenevolence which is an absoute good.
Furthermore, you prove that morality is subjective by saying that because God can decide when something is good or evil independent of an objective standard because of the circumstances (his morally sufficient reasons may be good for him, but what about the individual affected?). Accordingly, for the reasons above, morality is subjective and thus - there is no God.
You have actually proven my argument, thanks, I never thought about it that way.
I could sit around all day while you say "there are objective moral standards". Kepp shouting it, keep yelling it. It doesnt matter, the truth is more vicious than that. There are no objective moral standards - we must be eternally vigilant to ensure that decency and civility are accepted and undertaken by society in general. But at the end of the day, that benefits us as individuals. Morality is informed by the thoughts of the collection of individuals - there is no sky-god required.
"can you show such a standard? Where is it?"
ReplyDeleteYou are once again bringing in your fallacious presupposition that you can only believe in things that are physical. It is a self-refuting position.
"It means that someone has done it - hence, at least one person did not find it immoral when they first appraoched the issue and thus morality is not objective."
It shows that you do not yet understand what objective morals are. I am not proposing absolute morals, that is, everyone has the exact same morals. But rather, something is moral or immoral independent of what people believe.
"Your objection to the argument from evil where morality is subjective is laughable because you are actual saying that if morality is subjective then God has no morality."
I am saying that if morality is subjective, how can you know what God's standard of morality might be? That is an enormous burden of proof that I think is impossible for you to bear. So if there are no objective morals, you simply cannot use the argument from evil.
"Then, contrary to your objection, your stipulate that there must be an objective morality, without any evidence etc."
By showing that there are things that are really wrong, shows that objective morals exist. Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if our morals just developed by societal pressures, then we would think that acts of compassion should be seen as less valuable than selfishness. But it is opposite in the world today.
Also going back to the example of rape I used early and I asked you what is wrong with it, you mentioned you can imagine what it might feel for the victim. So what? That's not you, is it? You are propagating your DNA, which is your exact purpose of being on the evolutionist point of view. So then, what is really wrong in committing rape if morals are not objective?
"in spite of his greater reasons, God is not good all the time"
So when a parent disciplines a child for running onto the road in front of car, is that act of discipline bad? Of course not.
"that because God can decide when something is good or evil independent of an objective standard because of the circumstances"
No, God will never act contrary to who he is. He will never act in an evil way. It may appear evil to an individual because they lack sufficient experience/knowledge about why it is occurring, but it is never really evil. Just like a parent confiscating a knife off their little child, the child may think their parent did something bad because they liked playing with the knife. But once the child has the full knowledge and experience that a knife can really kill them, they'll acknowledge that the confiscation was actually a good thing.
"You have actually proven my argument"
Keep dreaming. :)
"There are no objective moral standards"
You are relying on the presumption that naturalism is true. But do you actually have any proof that either naturalism or subjective morals are true?
Lol, I dont think you have ever read any books about evolution for this statement:-
ReplyDeleteEvolution is survival of the fittest, so if our morals just developed by societal pressures, then we would think that acts of compassion should be seen as less valuable than selfishness. But it is opposite in the world today.
No, as social animals we do not succeed on our own. We are reliant on the group for survival (IE, close social bonds with 2 or 3 other males is very useful if you are hunting or confronted by a male from another tribe).
Altruism is in our genetic code. Image a male whose mate and child is being harrased by a lion. The male that leaves his mate and child to die is less likely to pass his genes to the next generation because he has lost the opportunity he has already spawned and must start again - whereas, a male that throws himself at the lion (in an act of suicide) will give his mate and child an opportunity to survive - thus passing on his genes.
There is also the issue or altruism to individuals with similar genes to yourself, which you should also read about before making silly statements.
Also going back to the example of rape I used early and I asked you what is wrong with it, you mentioned you can imagine what it might feel for the victim. So what? That's not you, is it? You are propagating your DNA, which is your exact purpose of being on the evolutionist point of view. So then, what is really wrong in committing rape if morals are not objective?
Do you think a woman who is raped is more or less likely to keep the child? The DNA is still half hers, but it is more likely she will abandon it. Furthermore, rape is a relatively new crime - didnt the amorite women face the same situation at the hand of Israelite soldiers in order to propogate their DNA? Mass rape and ethnic cleansing is a well known activity in human behaviour even in the modern day (See serbia, rwanda, Japan's pleasure women or Nazi sex slaves).
But tell me, do you think that a woman that you rape is likely to hang around you? The answer is no, she may try and escape. In which case that male cannot protect the child and it is less likely to grow to maturity and pass along the rapists genes.
I dont think you understand anything about evolution (or humans for that matter). Perhaps you should read about these issues. I am going to give a copy of the blind watchmaker to Josh this weekend, have you read it yet? Im sure you can share it (being social animals and all).
If you want me to destroy this argument I will:-
1. If morality is objective then all humans can reason their way to the same objective standard.
2. Humans cultures do not share the same standard of morality
3. Therefore, there is no objective standard of morality.
On the other hand,
1. All humans share the same basic genetic code
2. The human genetic code allows for the development of altruism and empathy (and other emotions).
3. Humans use altruism and empathy (and other emotions) to determine the difference between right and wrong
4. Because all humans are different individuals they use their abilities to make different determinations in different circumstances.
5. Accordingly, morality is subject to the decisions of the individual which are subjective.
In order for a moral code to be subjective you must prove/establish that there is a connecting factor between all human beings which informs their morality. Otherwise, two individuals can possibly have two separate moral standards. Thus each individuals moral standard is subjective to their experience and not objective.
Do you actually believe that if all humans think about a certain moral issue then they will all come to the same conclusion (objectivity).
That second last para should say:
ReplyDeleteIn order for a moral code to be objective you must prove/establish that there is a connecting factor between all human beings which informs their morality.
oops.
"We are reliant on the group for survival (IE, close social bonds with 2 or 3 other males is very useful if you are hunting or confronted by a male from another tribe)."
ReplyDeleteBut whoever the person is that we have compassion for, it doesn't matter. If the person is in Africa and we never see them, or even if the person hates you and wants you dead, the act of compassion toward that person is good, while murdering that person would be wrong.
"Do you think a woman who is raped is more or less likely to keep the child? The DNA is still half hers, but it is more likely she will abandon it."
So what? You still were able to propagate your DNA and you got the pleasure you were looking for. So again, if there are no objective morals, what is wrong with committing rape or any other evil?
"1. If morality is objective then all humans can reason their way to the same objective standard."
Premise one in your argument to show why there are no objective morals is plausibly false. Why would it be that everyone would come to the same exact moral standards? On a Biblical worldview, the heart of people is wicked, so it is not surprising if people make their moral standards that would allow them to commit the evil they like to do. Especially the people who believe that there is no God who they would be accountable to.
The state torterers in Communist prisons in the Soviet Union understood this all too well. Richard Wurmbrand says, "The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners."
So in conclusion, you cannot use the argument from evil if you believe that there are no objective morals. Additionally, you are yet to show why subjective morals are true because your premises were unjustified.
Why would it be that everyone would come to the same exact moral standards?
ReplyDeleteDo you know what objective means? There are many definitions, but this one is pretty accurate:-
existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
You have never shown morality existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. I have asked you to show me where this morality resides when humans are not about - you cannot give me any evidence of same. Accordingly, you have no evidence to support your hypothesis of objective morality. Thus we cannot say that it is true. It remains, only, a hypothetical statement. Or, as hitchens would say "An argument that is not supported by evidence can be defeated without evidence".
I see your quote about atheist torturers and raise you one from the Spanish Inquisition:-
The torturer entered with his assistants and tied the prisoner's hands behind his back. Then he had him raised up by means of a pulley attached to the roof of the house, which was very high. After the prisoner had hung there for an hour the rope was released suddenly. The idea was that, broken by the intense pain, he would be defeated and confess that he had once been a heretic. After he had been raised and suddenly dropped many times they asked whether he would confess that he was or had been a heretic. He replied, I'm a faithful and catholic Christian, always have been, and always will be.. If I said anything else to you shouldn't believe me, because I would only have said it to escape the torture.. Let this be my perpetual confession to you, because it's the truth. Anything else would be a lie extorted by torture."
That inquisitor, although he was a learned man and of noble family, was so demented by fury that he began to inflict torture with his own hands. When one of the brothers who was to be tortured devoutly recommended himself to Christ, he was so insane with anger that he struck the man on the head and neck. He hit the man so hard that he drove him to the ground like a ball. For days afterward the man's neck and head hurt and his ears rang. Another brother had his head bound in the inquisitor's presence, and the binding was tightened until the torturers heard the bones in his head crack, after which they ended the torture and took him away for dead.
The argument put forward is that where an afterlife does not exist then people can torture, maim and kill each other. On the other hand, Fr Angelo Clareno (the above inquisitor) had a fervent belief in the afterlife and still committed gross acts of torture.
So where is your argument? In the toilet I think.
Regarding subjective morality - I think we both accept that individual humans do make their own decisions as to what is right and wrong. How else do you account for their being a divergent range of morality across the ages. If that is the case, the burden is then on you to show there is some objective morality overarching the system we have described. So far, you have failed to do that. Its not my fault the world isnt how you want it to be - thats your problem.
The problem of evil stands.
Alex, you are grasping at straws. You are trying to maintain that there are no objective morals, yet you are relying that objective morals exist in order to disprove God. Which way do you want to have it?
ReplyDelete"I have asked you to show me where this morality resides when humans are not about"
I have shown already in this discussion why morals would be objective. Morals itself are not physical. But you have the false presupposition that you can only believe in things that are physical.
Also you neglected to answer me again as to why rape is really wrong. Not only that, you did not respond to my last post regarding why compassion would be morally better than murder on the atheistic worldview.
"The argument put forward is that where an afterlife does not exist then people can torture, maim and kill each other. On the other hand, Fr Angelo Clareno (the above inquisitor) had a fervent belief in the afterlife and still committed gross acts of torture."
It seems that you neglected to read what I actually wrote. I used that quote to show that premise one in your argument is false. If objective morals existed then everyone would not necessarily have the same moral standards.
But if you are trying to say because of what Fr Angelo Clareno did, Christianity is wrong, then you would be making an illogical argument. I could then point to the Atheist dictators of the 20th century to say, "Look, atheism is wrong". But that isn't a legitimate argument, so I won't.
"I think we both accept that individual humans do make their own decisions as to what is right and wrong"
Yes, but how does that prove that morality is just subjective? If morality was objective, the exact same would occur.
So in conclusion, the argument from evil cannot be used to disprove God because it has numerous false premises. Secondly, objective morals do exist and the fact that you have not responded to the proof I have given for objective morals shows that you cannot refute it. So if objective morals exist then my argument stands solidly and the conclusion that God exists is necessary.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI have responded to your statements by quote and response method because it appears that you cannot read unless the responses are clearly set out for you:-
I have shown already in this discussion why morals would be objective. Morals itself are not physical. But you have the false presupposition that you can only believe in things that are physical.
Wow, the theists believes in things he cannot prove - big suprise. Again, if there are objective morals - using the definition of objective set out before - then where do these morals reside when there are no humans around? I am making the point that morals have only ever been experienced and exhibited by sentient beings (like humans). Thus, you have not been able to show that such things exist independent of the subjective state of individual humans. (logically, you couldnt do this anyway because you are, yourself, an individual human being).
Also you neglected to answer me again as to why rape is really wrong. Not only that, you did not respond to my last post regarding why compassion would be morally better than murder on the atheistic worldview.
As pointed out, humans are social creatures. I cannot defeat a lion on my own - I require the aid of my fellow humans (2 or 3 socially compatible males). Why does compassion work in modern society? - well life is more complex now. I cannot be a lawyer without (tailors to make my clothes, farmers to grow my food, carpenters to build my house, secretaries to do my work, paper millers to provide my paper etc etc) other people. It is neccesary for me to rely on other people in order to have my high standard of living. Accordingly, if I were a tyrant (ps these guys did exist through history, you are aware?) then those others would be less inclined to share their particular skills with me. Accordingly, it is economically necesary. Furthermore, I am an empathic creature (my brain evolved so that I can understand other sentient beings because this makes social cohesion [and the above economic benefits] more easy to establish). Accordingly, I have emotional connection to all other sentient beings - being nice to people is written into my DNA.
Thus, there are 2 reasons (among many thousands more) whish support an altruistic worldview from my (I do not represent all atheists) worldview.
Of course, there is no magic involved so I doubt you will be satisfied - so there is one more reason, I was also cursed as a baby when I fell into a vat of happy juice. The curse means that I am now only able to be nice to other people - damn, my free will has ebbed away in the niceness ;).
It seems that you neglected to read what I actually wrote. I used that quote to show that premise one in your argument is false. If objective morals existed then everyone would not necessarily have the same moral standards.
No, but everyone would be able to find those standards because they were objective - and yet you present no evidence for finding those standards. Again, you can't show there are objective morals without giving an example where morality comes from anything but a sentient human source. (PS, I would include the bible as coming from a human source - you havent figured that out yet which is why you won't let this argument go).
But if you are trying to say because of what Fr Angelo Clareno did, Christianity is wrong, then you would be making an illogical argument. I could then point to the Atheist dictators of the 20th century to say, "Look, atheism is wrong". But that isn't a legitimate argument, so I won't.
No, I think you should. By doing so, you are accepting that in spite of human belief (whether theist or atheist) there is still a potential for immoral action, which is because belief does not inform morality - rather, morality comes from the individual. This is further evidence for my subjective morality point of view.
Yes, but how does that prove that morality is just subjective? If morality was objective, the exact same would occur.
No it wouldnt, individuals would be able to determine the relative morality of their actions in comparison to this objective standard. They don't. They only comapre their actions in hindsight with the moral zeitgeist of the era. Thus, where a judge once considered transportation or hanging for a thief was moral in the seventeenth century - today he would be considered a monster.
I will make a whole new post for destroy your argument - seeing as that will be the only way to highlight the problems of it to you.
I have set this out simple in respect to the article. I should have done it in the beginning, rather than ask rational questions as it has allowed Ryan to continue to deny destruction of his original article. Nonetheless, this should be instructive:-
ReplyDelete1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
This is inductive logic and can only be shown where you have knowledge of everything in the universe - thus the argument fails on point 1. I do not even have to put forward a second suggestion because it relies on a. evidence for God (of which there is none) and b. evidence of objective morality (of which there is none).
Of course, I will show below with respect to his commentary that what he has termed objective morals are actually a false description.
2. Objective moral values do exist
Not proven - definition insufficient for testing. Point 2 fails.
3. Therefore, God exists
Again, based on an unproven assumption.
So, why has ryan made a mistake
Firstly, he has made a massive leap into the inductive world. We know that such arguments are prone to failure and should not be relied upon.
Secondly, he has put in a definition of 'objective morality' which is not technically objective. Such that his evidence for objective morality given in part based on the statement of Michael Ruse does not fit in with his point 1.
Point 1. would only work if God is the one that created the "objective morality" and yet in the definition given by Michael Ruse, a completely different cause is given:-
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.
So did God give us this "objective morality" or was it a response to the environment? Furthermore, Michael Ruse accepts that the morality sourced in this way is a response to the individual's needs for survival:-
Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory
Because each individual has a different survival pressure put upon them, they will neccesarily develop a morality that is "subject" to their own circumstances - accordingly, Michael Ruse is saying that morality is subjective based on identifiable causes.
Is this what Ryan meant in line 1:-
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
No, it isnt. Why? Because those survival pressures exist independent of God. Thus morality is independent of God, based on the very evidence that Ryan brings to this argument.
If Ryans standpoint is to be adopted then we would have to say that all humans when faced with the same survival pressures (or any other situation) would react in the same way. They do not, we have countless examples (including Ryan's own statement regarding Hitler). Why do individual react differently? Because they are different.
To ryan - I am sorry mate, you are wrong. But that was fun ;).
"I require the aid of my fellow humans (2 or 3 socially compatible males)."
ReplyDeleteRemember what I said: Whoever the person is that we have compassion for, it doesn't matter. If the person is in Africa and we never see them, or even if the person hates you and wants you dead, the act of compassion toward that person is good, while murdering that person would be wrong. On the naturalist position, that does not make sense.
"where do these morals reside when there are no humans around?"
Once again, you are relying on the false presupposition that you can only believe in things that are physical. I have already defined what I mean by 'objective morals'.
And once again, you neglected to answer why rape is really wrong if there are no objective morals.
"By doing so, you are accepting that in spite of human belief (whether theist or atheist) there is still a potential for immoral action"
I agree that both theists and atheists can be immoral. But that does nothing to disprove that objective morals exist.
"This is inductive logic and can only be shown where you have knowledge of everything in the universe - thus the argument fails on point"
Lol, oh wait, is that what Atheists do? Oh yeah that's right. Atheists, even though they do not know everything about the universe say there is no evidence for God (how do they really know?). Evolution is also believed because of inductive reasoning and history as well. Most things we know is discovered through inductive reasoning. But Alex, you must understand that inductive reasoning is valid to know whether something is plausibly true or false. My argument just shows that it's more plausible that God would exist or not. And that is a valid way of arguing.
"Such that his evidence for objective morality given in part based on the statement of Michael Ruse does not fit in with his point 1."
The Michael Ruse quote was not supporting that objective morality exists, but rather to show that if God does not exist then no objective morality should exist. But objective morals do exist, so thus God must exist.
"If Ryans standpoint is to be adopted then we would have to say that all humans when faced with the same survival pressures (or any other situation) would react in the same way."
Err, why? Now that's a straw man.
But it seems this discussion is going round in circles now, so let's just let the reader decide what position is the more plausible one.