William Lane Craig: Objective morality

[Agnostic75]

As many people know, William Lane Craig is one of the most distinguished Christian apologists in the U.S. He has Ph.D. in philosophy, and a Th.D. in religion. He is an excellent debator. Some of his debate transcripts are at the Internet.

Consider the following:

The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality

.......if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us?

Even though I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and do not promote creationism or naturalism, I wish to comment on what Craig said.

If naturalism is true, then what is the foundation for moral values? Well, if naturalism is true, I believe that it would be reasonable to say that morality is a human construct, and that for the most part, humans are the only animals that have enough of whatever kind of intelligence it takes to construct morality. Regarding "for the most part," some researchers believe that some non-human primates practice altruism on occasion.

When a bear is catching salmon in a stream, he generally does not want other bears to be close to him competing for salmon. If bears somehow became as intelligent as humans are, and still lived out in nature, they would no doubt start to construct their own versions of morality. If salmon were scare, bears would sometimes form coalitions and fight over the salmon, and would frequently disagree about all sorts of other moral issues as the issues developed. Humans, including Christians, have fought many wars partly or solely over resources.

If naturalism is true, it seems to me that some kind of morality would be probable if not inevitable for intelligent species in a world that had limited resources.

If a God exists, why can't he be amoral?

 

[Valjean]

Atheists, freethinkers, and the non-religious in general are at least as principled and moral as the religious.
Just because Craig has no internalised moral values himself, and must rely on an external, axiomatic set of commandments to keep himself in check, does not mean there do not exist others, more morally developed, who require no such crutch.

Craig judges others by his own standards. Apparently he is a moral cripple, and assumes all others are like himself, and in need of religious crutches.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Heck, thank god we have lists of moral laws in religious texts for those who need them to act morally.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that Dr. Craig begins with the logical fallacy "if God does not exist, then X."

It really doesn't matter what he says after that.

 

[Oberon]

Atheists, freethinkers, and the non-religious in general are at least as principled and moral as the religious.

It's not a question of whether atheists et cetera are moral and principled. The question is more fundamental. If there is no god or higher power or karma or whatever, morality is entirely subjective, meaning that there is nothing inherently wrong with anything. Rape, murder, genocide, child abuse, and so forth are wrong only if they are believed to be wrong, and for all practical purposes believed to be wrong both by the culture and/or the guys with the guns (i.e. whoever is running the country).

 

[no-body]

It's not a question of whether atheists et cetera are moral and principled. The question is more fundamental. If there is no god or higher power or karma or whatever, morality is entirely subjective, meaning that there is nothing inherently wrong with anything. Rape, murder, genocide, child abuse, and so forth are wrong only if they are believed to be wrong, and for all practical purposes believed to be wrong both by the culture and/or the guys with the guns (i.e. whoever is running the country).

Objectively... morality began with human tribal mentality and we are evolving to apply that to the entirety of creation. No need for God or any system, they at one point might have been needed to propagate morality but we are growing out of it. I would say those who don't believe yet feel compelled to act "good" and moral have more moral worth because they aren't doing it for some carrot on a stick, they honestly care about others. Yes this is all subjective and there really is no objective cosmic morality but so what.

 

[Oberon]

Yes this is all subjective and there really is no objective cosmic morality but so what.

The "so what" for me is that it matters whether or not, for example, what the Nazi party did was wrong because I am part of a culture with a particular set of norms concept of right and wrong, or because some things are objectively wrong. If the former, then if culture changes in particular ways, things like genocide can be considered moral. If the latter, this is never the case.

 

[linwood]

The "so what" for me is that it matters whether or not, for example, what the Nazi party did was wrong because I am part of a culture with a particular set of norms concept of right and wrong, or because some things are objectively wrong. If the former, then if culture changes in particular ways, things like genocide can be considered moral. If the latter, this is never the case.

Can you not imagine a situation where genocide is the only moral option?

We have already committed genocide on many other species.

Why is humanity "special" in comparison?
Because humanity says it`s "special" in comparison.

That`s it in a nutshell.

Nothing is objectively "wrong" or "right"we form our own accepted morality.

The morality theists think comes from god/s is really just morality created by humans.

Bronze age goat herders in my culture .

The irony!

 

[Kerr]

Morality is subjective, but at the same time many moral concepts are shared between individuals and societies. Murder, rape, theft... they tend to be considered bad no matter where you are. To be honest I don´t get why it would be objective even if there is a God, the only difference is that we give someone elses (in this case Gods) subjective opinion of right and wrong authority. But if morality is subjective, does that mean there is no right or wrong? Of course not. Morality does not need a higher power to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that he errs by not considering the ramifications if God does exist (or at least, they're not considered in the quoted passage). If morality can't have an absolute basis either way (which is the conclusion I lean toward), then the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think that Dr. Craig begins with the logical fallacy "if God does not exist, then X."

It really doesn't matter what he says after that.

Why do you say that this is a logical fallacy?

 

[Oberon]

Murder, rape, theft... they tend to be considered bad no matter where you are.

Yet there are places in the world where the women raped is punished.

To be honest I don´t get why it would be objective even if there is a God

"Objective" means in this case that morality exists indepedently of humanity. If there is something beyond humanity, be it Zeus or karma or whatever, then there is objective morality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not a question of whether atheists et cetera are moral and principled. The question is more fundamental. If there is no god or higher power or karma or whatever, morality is entirely subjective, meaning that there is nothing inherently wrong with anything.

Why do you add "if there is no god... [etc.]"? What power would a god or higher power have to make things morally right or wrong? Is it on the basis of the "might makes right"-type rationale you apparently look down upon in your next paragraph?

And morality isn't entirely subjective. Once you have a set of values, the moral tenets that flow from those values are for the most part a matter of logic and reason.

Rape, murder, genocide, child abuse, and so forth are wrong only if they are believed to be wrong, and for all practical purposes believed to be wrong both by the culture and/or the guys with the guns (i.e. whoever is running the country).

How would the opinion of "the guys with the guns" affect the individual morality of others?

I mean, I understand how people can use violence and threats to coerce behaviour out of people against their normal moral judgement, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Objective" means in this case that morality exists indepedently of humanity. If there is something beyond humanity, be it Zeus or karma or whatever, then there is objective morality.

That's not necessarily objective.

I only see two valid ways of interpreting "objective" in the sense this thread talks about:

- objective above the level of the individual. Shared societal morals would fit this bill and do not require imposition by God.

- objective at all levels. This would mean that at the level of God, morality would still be objective. IOW, morality wouldn't be rooted in God, because morality would be above even Him.

The morality you're describing would still be subjective, just subjective at a rather high level.

 

[Kerr]

Yet there are places in the world where the women raped is punished.

That was the "tend" part .

"Objective" means in this case that morality exists indepedently of humanity. If there is something beyond humanity, be it Zeus or karma or whatever, then there is objective morality.

So if it is dependent on something else, like there are two gods who disagree on everything when it comes to morality, the morality they try to teach us would always be objective? Not sure I agree with that.

 

[freethinker44]

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

.......if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us?

Is he really implying he believes in a god so he can feel special? Is that really all religion is, just the mechanism that humans use to help themselves feel special? This is so depressing to me, and it's sad.

 

[no-body]

The "so what" for me is that it matters whether or not, for example, what the Nazi party did was wrong because I am part of a culture with a particular set of norms concept of right and wrong, or because some things are objectively wrong. If the former, then if culture changes in particular ways, things like genocide can be considered moral. If the latter, this is never the case.

All I'm getting at is that even objectivity is rule to subjective concepts. Philosophically if you where to go as objective as possible then anything is permissible, there is no cosmic justice; that is a human invention. The tree's and the birds and the universe don't look down at the terrible medical experiments, at the rape and the carnage humans inflict on each other and go "jeez how horrible, somebody should frigging do something"

Even if there was a higher being why would it care about our atrocities? It would be like you caring about what terrible things ants do to each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is he really implying he believes in a god so he can feel special?

Good point. It seems to me that he's arguing based on appeal to the consequences of a belief.

 

[Amill]

Doesn't bother me that morality is subjective. I think a person's values become stronger when they are based on what they feel is right or wrong, not what they "think" or what they were "told" was right or wrong. People generally do what they want to do anyways.

 

[logician]

Atheists, freethinkers, and the non-religious in general are at least as principled and moral as the religious.
Just because Craig has no internalised moral values himself, and must rely on an external, axiomatic set of commandments to keep himself in check, does not mean there do not exist others, more morally developed, who require no such crutch.

Craig judges others by his own standards. Apparently he is a moral cripple, and assumes all others are like himself, and in need of religious crutches.

Quite true, ultimately morality comes from within, not without, no matter how much religious fearmongering is done to try to keep people "moral".

 

[Oberon]

Even if there was a higher being why would it care about our atrocities? It would be like you caring about what terrible things ants do to each other.

That's certainly one view. A deist god, for example, my simply have set the universe in motion upon creation, and watched it like a play. However, other views of god differ, and there are many views positing objective morality which do not include a god at all. The notion of karma, for example, is an objective morality. In an imperfect comparison, one could relate it to laws of physics like gravity. We can in a sense "break" or "circumvent" these laws (e.g. airplanes or jumping), but the force is still there (I am aware attraction between objects with mass still exist even when other forces overcome this attraction, so jumping isn't "breaking" the law of gravity; as I said the comparison is imperfect).

Basically, you don't need a god to have objective morality.