The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Cephus]

I know that God is not relative because it has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit of God, which is essentially revelation from God. Not some figment of my own imagination. I have tested it all my life. When I defy the teachings of God, it is always the same result: I always end up miserable. When I apply them to my life, I succeed in many ways and find general peace and happiness, even among my hardships.

In other words, you're being delusional. You have no way of demonstrating any of that to be actually true, nor do you have any way of testing your conclusions. And your claims are entirely subjective and non-demonstrable. Personally, I've never been happier than when I gave up belief in an imaginary man in the sky.

 

[Cephus]

I can demonstrate the changes that have occurred in my life in correlation with my striving to live the teachings of God. So you're saying "good" is completely relative?

Correlation is not causation. Now show that God is actually responsible. I'll wait.

 

[stevevw]

So when some talk about something being the truth what do they mean. By the fact that they say they are right and that what they say is true is acknowledging that there must be a truth. Truth itself states that there has to be one truth. There can't be many truths as that would contradict truth. So when you say that something is incorrect you are stating that you know what is true. There has to be an ultimate truth in the matter otherwise no one can claim to be right and we would be in chaos. We are always making judgements on what is right and wrong in society even if many disagree with it. Sometimes its for our own good or to keep things under control.

When we leave it up to subjective views we are undermining ourselves by allowing many different ideas to come in and challenge what is right and good. As long as you can make a good argument then you can have your view of what is right and good. It leaves the truth to be bought and corrupted. So long as you have enough power, position , money or influence you can have an affect on what is right and accepted in society. It isn't as simple as just leaving it to the general consensus as by doing this you also have to allow many other influences to come in. There maybe a general agreement that something is right. But that doesn't stop others from challenging this and if they have enough influence they can make a good go at taking over with what ever they want to promote.

We see this with the pot debate. I think most think that its not a good idea to legalize pot straight out. Medical pot maybe OK. But the powerful people behind the movement want full legalization as its a bonanza for making big profits. So they are putting a lot of money behind the campaign and wining and dining the right sort of people to get it legalized. In the end it will be legalized and we will have more problems. This happens over and over again. But if we had a clear set of morals or guidelines we could then have something to use a s a judgement about what is good and what is bad. It would be obvious who was right and who was wrong. Humans are weak and susceptible to making mistakes even when we agree on something. We are fallible and mess things up. So we cant be trusted to know what is the best thing for us. Thats why its important to have an outside judge of things that can be depended on.

 

[asier9]

For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship.

If the Triune God exists, something you absolutely can't know doesn't, then people aren't choosing a morality they are only choosing the good over the bad. Moral laws are simply a consequence of God's own existential encounter with Himself and are every bit as real and objective as physical laws. In fact Truth and Love turn out to be, in such a case, exactly the same thing... Having said this I am going to guess that we find this same problem throughout the rest of your argument: namely that you argue from an ignorant premise and then draw a valid but false conclusion. I also wouldn't be too surprised if your ignorance turned out to be intentional so you can safely arrive at your chosen destination. It is so much easier to believe what we want when can remain ignorant of the facts and don't have to take on real arguments. It is also noteworthy that Hitchens saw love as a dictatorship. Of course he didn't in practice so we see that what Hitchens rejected in the abstract he accepted in the concrete. Even he surrendered to the "celestial dictatorship" when it came to what he valued as the good in life.

But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society.

Again you are taking as a starting premise that God does not in fact exist. He may not, but you can't know this. It is merely a belief. A belief that as you go on to show leaves us in self refuting contradiction.

So sure if God really didn't exist and you are just choosing a manmade belief system then yes no objective moral truth could said to truly exist. This however is just a tautology which actually establishes the original point you dispute. If God doesn't exist then you are right there is no objective morality and so of course the corollary would be that if He does exist then morality independent of all the things you mention.

So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or don't [sic] which really means the difference is moot.

Nice bit of circular reasoning. Yes you have already established that if God does not exist then there can be no objective morality, and the boot to the face is ultimately with what you are left.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

Again because you simply believe through what might be reasonably termed blind faith that God doesn't exist that morality that has developed in Western Industrial societies wasn't the result of Judeo-Christian morality and supernatural reality. You specifically site Leviticus in ignorance of its context and seemingly also the realization that it was the lessor law given because of the "hardness of their hearts".

Ultimately, however, you are just arguing for the boot to the face. Which is great when we are speaking of stopping rape. Something, in fact that might incidentally be an objective moral right. Violence against a person who is actively objectifying another person and in turn causing violence to them may in fact be morally right, but then that would have us agreeing with Leviticus in principle. Ultimately the purpose of even the lessor law was train the persons under it not to objectify each other. Man was from the point of view of the author of Leviticus made to be live in communion, i.e. real community, with each other. Other persons are meant for relationship and not to be objectified as if they were merely objects.

Ironically something not possible if we assume materialism as a worldview--there is simply no way to avoid the objectification of other persons. At best we can just make such an objectification extraordinarily subtle. An older generation of atheists, than to which Hitches belonged, use to take this problem of true relationship seriously. However the so called new atheists like to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too, through exactly the type of fallacious arguments you are engaging. What I really believe is that the objectification has become so subtle that you can pretend it doesn't still exist. However this isn't the same thing as real relationship and actual community. And from a Judeo-Christian perspective--where man (made both male and female) was made in the image and likeness of God as a person, not an object--still every bit as evil.

You may object to my use of the term God as you believe there are many to choose from. However, the God I invoke is first and foremost the logically necessary category of Being needed if we are to explain contingent reality in a consistent manner. albeit as the case for an objective truth that is not itself arbitrary also depends on such a ground for being, itself, being Triune in nature. The appeal I make to the Judeo-Christian God that appeared in history it turns out is actually singularly unique, and I would agree without this God then nothing I said would actually have followed.

At the end you post amounts to nothing more than your personal belief that such a God doesn't in fact exist and then reasoning around it in a circular way.

 

[serp777]

If the Triune God exists, something you absolutely can't know doesn't, then people aren't choosing a morality they are only choosing the good over the bad. Moral laws are simply a consequence of God's own existential encounter with Himself and are every bit as real and objective as physical laws. In fact Truth and Love turn out to be, in such a case, exactly the same thing... Having said this I am going to guess that we find this same problem throughout the rest of your argument: namely that you argue from an ignorant premise and then draw a valid but false conclusion. I also wouldn't be too surprised if your ignorance turned out to be intentional so you can safely arrive at your chosen destination. It is so much easier to believe what we want when can remain ignorant of the facts and don't have to take on real arguments. It is also noteworthy that Hitchens saw love as a dictatorship. Of course he didn't in practice so we see that what Hitchens rejected in the abstract he accepted in the concrete. Even he surrendered to the "celestial dictatorship" when it came to what he valued as the good in life.




Again you are taking as a starting premise that God does not in fact exist. He may not, but you can't know this. It is merely a belief. A belief that as you go on to show leaves us in self refuting contradiction.

So sure if God really didn't exist and you are just choosing a manmade belief system then yes no objective moral truth could said to truly exist. This however is just a tautology which actually establishes the original point you dispute. If God doesn't exist then you are right there is no objective morality and so of course the corollary would be that if He does exist then morality independent of all the things you mention.




Nice bit of circular reasoning. Yes you have already established that if God does not exist then there can be no objective morality, and the boot to the face is ultimately with what you are left.




Again because you simply believe through what might be reasonably termed blind faith that God doesn't exist that morality that has developed in Western Industrial societies wasn't the result of Judeo-Christian morality and supernatural reality. You specifically site Leviticus in ignorance of its context and seemingly also the realization that it was the lessor law given because of the "hardness of their hearts".

Ultimately, however, you are just arguing for the boot to the face. Which is great when we are speaking of stopping rape. Something, in fact that might incidentally be an objective moral right. Violence against a person who is actively objectifying another person and in turn causing violence to them may in fact be morally right, but then that would have us agreeing with Leviticus in principle. Ultimately the purpose of even the lessor law was train the persons under it not to objectify each other. Man was from the point of view of the author of Leviticus made to be live in communion, i.e. real community, with each other. Other persons are meant for relationship and not to be objectified as if they were merely objects.

Ironically something not possible if we assume materialism as a worldview--there is simply no way to avoid the objectification of other persons. At best we can just make such an objectification extraordinarily subtle. An older generation of atheists, than to which Hitches belonged, use to take this problem of true relationship seriously. However the so called new atheists like to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too, through exactly the type of fallacious arguments you are engaging. What I really believe is that the objectification has become so subtle that you can pretend it doesn't still exist. However this isn't the same thing as real relationship and actual community. And from a Judeo-Christian perspective--where man (made both male and female) was made in the image and likeness of God as a person, not an object--still every bit as evil.

You may object to my use of the term God as you believe there are many to choose from. However, the God I invoke is first and foremost the logically necessary category of Being needed if we are to explain contingent reality in a consistent manner. albeit as the case for an objective truth that is not itself arbitrary also depends on such a ground for being, itself, being Triune in nature. The appeal I make to the Judeo-Christian God that appeared in history it turns out is actually singularly unique, and I would agree without this God then nothing I said would actually have followed.

At the end you post amounts to nothing more than your personal belief that such a God doesn't in fact exist and then reasoning around it in a circular way.

Are you entirely sure that you're responding to the same post that I wrote? Because you're demonstrating a number of strawmans and completely misunderstanding the argument. The argument, in fact, has nothing to with whether God exists. Even if some God does exist, then it is just your interpretation that you think you know the mind of God. Its just your interpretation that you think his objective moral values aligns with your faith. So on what authority do you claim to be able to know the mind of God and a perfect understanding of his morals without ambiguity or subjectivity? Saying "the bible", as I've explained in other posts, is a cop out answer because you've presupposed that the bible accurately reflects the mind of God and that all other religions like Islam are invalid. You've also then proposed the bible is correct which is a false assertion too.

There's no way of avoiding subjectivity. You are subjectively determining what you think the mind of God is, and what morality he subscribes to. Subjective interpretation cannot lead to objective truth or morals. Our morals have changed vastly from ancient times when God supposedly intervened in human affairs, reflecting moral relativism.

I also wouldn't be too surprised if your ignorance turned out to be intentional so you can safely arrive at your chosen destination.

This is amusingly ironic considering you're religious, and religion requires you to presume the answer. You simply asserted to yourself that you ended up at the correct destination and that the other religions were incorrect. And you asserted you know the mind of God enough to know objective moral values without any subjectivity. I submit that if you were born in Palestine during the bronze age, your morals would be vastly different than they are now. So you don't have the special powers of knowing God's mind or will. It depends on the society you were brought up in, thus undermining your entire argument. Clearly if morals are a function of the time period and society, they aren't objective at all. They're dynamic and unknowable since God didn't lay out the perfect moral system for us to strive towards.

So sure if God really didn't exist and you are just choosing a manmade belief system then yes no objective moral truth could said to truly exist. This however is just a tautology which actually establishes the original point you dispute. If God doesn't exist then you are right there is no objective morality and so of course the corollary would be that if He does exist then morality independent of all the things you mention.

if God exists then you are just assuming you picked the system that reflects God's objective morals. You're also assuming you can interpret the supposedly correct faith accurately. The argument was never that God doesn't exist and therefore objective morals don't exist. The argument was that subjective interpretation determines morals regardless of God. I don't accept the axiom that you can correctly interpret an ambiguous book which may or may not be God's true word. Its possible God does exist but that the bible was constructed fraudulently. This would be the deistic worldview. So you're inventing positions for me and putting words in my mouths.

Nice bit of circular reasoning. Yes you have already established that if God does not exist then there can be no objective morality, and the boot to the face is ultimately with what you are left.

Well it actually wouldn't be circular, it would be redundant. And this is redundant from you because you have already incorrectly established the strawman that my position is that God does not exist, and in conclusion there is no objective morality.

You specifically site Leviticus in ignorance of its context and seemingly also the realization that it was the lessor law given because of the "hardness of their hearts".

Hardness of their hearts? you can't be serious. Context isn't enough to justify the disgusting and morally reprehensible stories in those immoral doctrines. But anyways, who are you to say the people in Leviticus, or exodus, or the old testament did not reflect the moral doctrine of God? On what authority do you think you know better than them since you accept Christianity clearly? How can you propose you know that God doesn't support slavery, or genocide, or rape and genocide, or just rape, or stoning homosexuals? Your subjective interpretation determines that. Therefore your argument is completely illogical and inconsistent.

Ultimately the purpose of even the lessor law was train the persons under it not to objectify each other.

In your subjective interpretation, again. Obviously you have to accept this so it doesn't seem like you're saying God justifies murder, genocide, and rape. And apparently Gods morals can now change depending on whether he's training humanity or not? There's nothing objective or absolute about that. Its whimsical, arbitrary, and incomprehensible. And his goal was to train a small group of jews while ignoring the vastly more sophisticated Chinese, or the native Americans entirely? Its not a great plan, especially when some many other incorrect "fraudulent" religions supposedly exist. How does God expect any skeptical person to buy this? I might start finding Christianity reasonable if it emerged independently in various parts of the world.

Ironically something not possible if we assume materialism as a worldview--there is simply no way to avoid the objectification of other persons.

Actually that's not true. People did it before God so obviously its possible. And people do it now without God. The way you do it is through secular analysis and utilitarianism supported by scientific analysis and study of what's best for society while keeping everyone as happy as possible. Objectification would obviously hinder utilitarianism.

You may object to my use of the term God as you believe there are many to choose from. However, the God I invoke is first and foremost the logically necessary category of Being needed if we are to explain contingent reality in a consistent manner.

Yes I stridently object to how you're just able to pick the God that aligns with you best. And I don't presume the God you invoke is either logical or necessary. In fact I would describe it as thoroughly unnecessary as well as illogical. Why you ask? Because if the deists are right, for instance, and God is removed from human affairs, or God doesn't exist, i don't claim to know, then everything becomes quite clear. There are so many religions because humans are looking for power and explanations. It was our first attempt at philosophy and reasoning. Pattern seeking mammals frequently make type 1 thinking errors--assuming things are there when they don't exist--because if you think there might be a predator, its better to be on the safe side. Religion has some evolutionary advantages like binding communities and establishing a kind of justice which proclaims punishment even if you're not caught. Everything becomes very logical and reasonable. When you throw in a personal intervening God for the jews, suddenly you have to wonder why there are thousands of religions that are mutually exclusive? Did God do this on purpose to confuse us? Why not just give us all unambiguous moral doctrines personally and describe the consequences exactly. That sounds like a logical being to me, but not you I guess.

 

[RedDragon94]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

But this argument is awful for several reasons. For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship. But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society. So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

I would say that everybody has their version of morality, but is their morality dictated by the one who wrote the book on morality? If it falls short of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." Then it is missing the most crucial component, God. Man knows what God expects of him, that is, to trust in God but he or she would rather try and take the place of God when God is the beginning and end of morality. This is the reason why things like rape happen, people try to be God and operate out of a skewed morality.

 

[Bunyip]

I would say that everybody has their version of morality, but is their morality dictated by the one who wrote the book on morality? If it falls short of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." Then it is missing the most crucial component, God. Man knows what God expects of him, that is, to trust in God but he or she would rather try and take the place of God when God is the beginning and end of morality. This is the reason why things like rape happen, people try to be God and operate out of a skewed morality.

. In Christianity for example there is no commandment against rape. There is however a broad consensus in secular morality that rape is immoral. So if you see rape as immoral, you did not get that from scripture.

 

[RedDragon94]

. In Christianity for example there is no commandment against rape. There is however a broad consensus in secular morality that rape is immoral. So if you see rape as immoral, you did not get that from scripture.

Deuteronomy 22:25 says it's punishable by death.

 

[Bunyip]

Deuteronomy 22:25 says it's punishable by death.

That is only if the woman is engaged to somebody else.

 

[RedDragon94]

If that isn't enough for you, Psalm 72:4 says, "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!"

 

[RedDragon94]

Is rape oppressive?

 

[Bunyip]

If that isn't enough for you, Psalm 72:4 says, "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!"

What is the connection?

 

[Ouroboros]

Deuteronomy 22:25 says it's punishable by death.

Continue to read verse 28-29. Shocking!

 

[Kirran]

Continue to read verse 28-29. Shocking!

That was quite a read. Stonings all round.

 

[Ouroboros]

That was quite a read. Stonings all round.

Well, not in those two verses. People got stoned a lot during that time, that's for sure... But not in these two verses.

Here are the verses, just in case:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

That's God's absolute and objective morality, that if it's a unmarried virgin that's raped, then she has to marry her rapist, and he pays a fee to the parents. Why's that? My guess it's because she was considered a valued property, like an expensive car or the latest iPhone. If you damage my property, then you can keep it, but pay for it. Good morals, isn't it(!)

 

[Kirran]

Well, not in those two verses. People got stoned a lot during that time, that's for sure... But not in these two verses.

I read the whole chunk preceding it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I read the whole chunk preceding it.

Oh.

Yeah. There's a lot of those verses there. Such a cruel way of executing someone too. Inhumane.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thinking about the execution style. Stoning in particular in the Old Testament.

Here we have a God who commands a moral code (supposedly), and one of them is not to kill people, but then, as punishment if someone does something (working on Sabbath), then it's okay to kill them in the most gruesome way. I'm not sure I can follow the moral reasoning there. People can learn to obey commands in other ways. It's hard to learn by being killed. A kid steals candy. Stone him. A woman accidentally touches another man's privates. Stone her. Someone eats bacon. Stone him. I'm not sure this is how a moral God would do it.

 

[Kirran]

It is a tad heavy-handed. But this was mostly written in henotheist times.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Interesting thread!

For me, virtue is its own reward - it simply feels FAR better 2 practice kindness & compassion than to be angry or judgemental.

All the best!