The Moral Argument. Is goodness without God good enough?. A Cautionary Note. The argument is NOT that knowledge of God is required to be good. People could breath long before scientists knew about air. Romans 2:15
Is goodness without God good enough?
The argument is NOT that knowledge of God is required to be good.
People could breath long before scientists knew about air.
They [Gentiles] 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.
Neither is the argument about what our moral duties are or how we can know about them.
Therefore, God exists.
Values have to do with whether something is Good or Bad
Duties have to do with whether something is Right or Wrong
Objective is independent of people’s opinions
Subjective is dependent on people’s opinions
The Holocaust was objectively wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right.
Traditionally Moral values have been based in God
In the absence of God why think humans have moral worth?
On Naturalism moral values seem to be just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning.
To think that human beings are special and our morality objectively true is speciesism
We are not saying that all atheists are immoral.
We are not saying that atheists can’t recognise moral values and duties.
Given that atheists can recognise human value we are not say that they can not work out an ethical code of conduct.
Belief in God is not necessary for objective morality; God is.
Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good?
It is a false dilemma as there is a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good.
God’s own nature is the standard of goodness and his commands the expression of his nature.
It would be contrary to God’s nature to make commands that would harm the creation that he loves.
e.g. the property of badness necessarily attaches to a man beating his wife. Or the property of goodness to a mother nursing her infant
Moral Experience: We trust our five senses and cognitive faculties to tell us the truth about the external world. We should trust that our moral cognitive faculties tell us the truth about reality.
Persons who fail to see that it is true that some things are right/wrong are just as handicapped as people who are blind.
Do correctly functioning humans really think that actions like the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) is morally neutral?
We have given reasons to accept both premises and the conclusion follows that there is a personal entity that provides a basis for morality
While the cosmological arguments are good the moral argument resonates with most people. It isn’t shrouded in complex science and we are confronted with moral choices on a daily basis.
The moral argument puts flesh and bones on the ‘first cause’ and ‘designer’. This entity now begins to appear as the kind of God who would care about his creation and provide a method of our salvation.