1) When we talk about objective we are talking about something that is not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, interpretations, or prejudices but based on unbiased facts.
2) This argument does not deal with how one comes to know about morality or how one comes to act on moral values and duties but rather it focuses on the reality of objective moral values and duties. What is implied is not that those who don't believe in God have no ability to be moral. I know many who do not believe in God who have a far superior moral code than some who believe in God. Again, the question is not whether we can recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God. (Craig) What we are dealing with here is that living as a naturalist (one who believes that the physical, natural, world is all that there is. Also referred to as atheism) gives absolutely no basis for objective moral values and duties.
3) When this argument refers to God it is talking about the universal definition of God; the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (Webster's Dictionary)
So now that some shaky issues have been clarified, the argument is as follows:
Premise 1- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2- Objective Moral values and duties exist.
Conclusion- Therefore, God exists.
What is striking about this argument is that the Bible was the first to proclaim it even before guys like William Lane Craig laid out the argument logically (in terms of Philosophy).
14 Indeed, when [those that do not know God], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Emphasis added, New International Version)
Romans 2:14-15 (see above) clearly show us that "the law" (which simply means God's moral code and standard of perfection according to the definition of His character) is written on the consciences and hearts of human beings, even if they have never seen or read a Bible in their life.
Premise 1- Some of you might be asking yourselves right now why in the world would it be true that If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist? One would ask this with good reason as it seems to just make an absurd claim right off the bat! But what is the alternative option to the existence of God? Naturalism. Under naturalism there is no place for the Spiritual or Supernatural, no place for the existence of God. What this presents us with is one option; that human beings were created in the very same way that plants and animals were created, from natural occurrences. Naturalism states that around 4 billion years ago, highly energetic chemistry produced a self-replicating model that eventually led to all life on planet Earth.
But naturalism poses one major problem to the idea of morality; if we are simply relatively advanced primates, how is it that we can claim objective moral values and duties exist? Who is to say that something is really right or wrong, good or evil? Under this assumption, we are simply natural beings (animals) living in a natural world that is controlled by natural phenomena. Now, let's think about this for a moment. When a lion kills a zebra, does it murder the zebra? Absolutely not! It would be absurd to say that! When an animal has forcible intercourse with another animal, is it raping that other animal? In no way! What is thus concluded is what human beings already concede to, animals are not moral agents. Our problem lies in that very statement, if we are simply animals then we are not moral agents and thus have absolutely no foundation to say that anything is truly right or wrong, good or evil. As an advanced animal, one can perceive something as right or wrong, but this gives us absolutely no basis to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong, especially if they perceive what you told them is wrong as right!
Premise 2- This directly follows Premise 1. We all know internally that there are things that are wrong, things that are evil, things that are good. No one in their right mind would say that the priests who rape young boys are simply doing what natural law has inclined them to do thus not being evil. We know internally that this is an act of evil, that this is rape, and that this is objectively wrong. Most, if not all, will concede to premise 2 based on the way that they live their lives.
Conclusion- Since premise 1 and premise 2 and true, the conclusion that God exists logically and inescapably follows. It is internally inconsistent to live as if there is a God, but claim that there is not. The very idea that one can claim, through their actions and words, that objective morality exists yet deny the existence of God (based on this argument) absolutely betrays their very belief system. They are living as if there is a God but denying his very existence! What a contradiction!
It is reassuring to know that our God had this very thing in mind from the day that he created the universe. He preserved it in order that we, as intellectual beings, could discover it, process it and use it. God says in 1 Peter 3:15 that we should "always have a defense ready for the hope that you have in Christ." Well, here is one for our arsenal!
Note: This argument can be read about further in On Guard and Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. Much of this material is derived from his work.
No comments:
Post a Comment