Let's look at the logic first:
- Premise: If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
- Premise: Objective moral values do exist.
- Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. From (1) and (2)
Yes, I agree that this logic is as valid as :
- Premise: If rational square roots of positive prime numbers do not exist then Kangaroos do not exist.
- Premise: Kangaroos do exist.
- Conclusion: Therefore, there are rational square roots of positive prime numbers. From (1) and (2)
No fault with the logic. But before we move on to the premises, let's first deal with the two
clarifications.
We have been given a clarification that objective moral values mean that there are moral values that hold true regardless of belief. With this I can agree. That is the meaning of the word
objective.
It looks as if one might be begging the question however, by introducing a nameless final arbiter between good and evil. In ByFaithAlone's view, moral values cannot be objective unless there is some final arbiter. I see it differently. There is a parallel between morals and economics. There are objective economic principles. For example, in a free market of sufficient size with rational agents and an undifferentiated commodity, the price for a particular good will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers at that price will equal the quantity supplied by producers at that price, resulting in an economic equilibrium of price and quantity. Now, this principle requires no final arbiter, but it remains true, even to those who have not read Adam Smith or Milton Freedman. Similarly with morals. If it can be demonstrated that objective morals exist, there is still no implication that there is some final arbiter. As far as I can see, the existence of objective morals does not require belief in an ultimate arbiter any more than the existence of a fixed value for [font=Georgia]Ï€[/font] or the universal gravitational constant [font=Georgia]G[/font]. I expect that we'll get into
that debate in the second part.
Now on to the premises. The first, if I may restate it, is that objective moral values cannot exist without God. To state or to imply that evolution is not objective is to misunderstand evolution. Evolution is about as objective as any natural process or principle can be. It matters not whether you believe it, its principles are unbending and uncaring. If there are objective morals (more on that in the discussion of the second premise), then would they not affect and influence the path of evolution? Do we require that there be a God to explain micro-economic equilibrium or the law of supply and demand? Are these economic principles relative, do they change between culture to culture? No. Various cultures may have differing understandings of how economic principles work, but work they do, regardless of whether you believe or don't, understand them or not. So, without someone showing me that objective moral values could only possibly be sourced from the god, I would reject the assertion of the first premise, that God is the only possible source of objective moral principles.
And now a side-bar regarding definitions. My learned opponent claims that for naturalists reduce morality to, "[font=Georgia]
What is best for humanity as a whole is the morally correct course of action. [/font]" To this, I agree. But, I claim that this also is his definition of morality. Where we differ, in the area of morality, is not the definition, but the application of the definition. To the supernaturalist, what is best for humanity includes the benefits realizable only in the afterlife and an understanding of how to achieve what is best for humanity is not achievable by human reason, but must be supplemented by divine revelation.
The implication that non-theists must be amoral in order to be consistent has been made. Without God's objective morality, we must sink into a cesspool of moral relativism or hypocritically adhere to the morality we inherit from our more godly fellow citizens. Why, it is asked, can we condemn {select from a list of morally reprehensible actions}? I would condemn these acts because they can be objectively shown to be bad for humanity and human societies. What then is the basis for a theist to condemn these acts? They, rather than showing an understanding of true morals, arbitrarily condemn such acts on the basis of a supposed revelation from their God. If their God said to kill all of the Canaanites, their children and their cattle, then it would be a morally correct thing to do. There exists no objective standard, just an arbitrary dictum from the spokesperson for the god.
Unlike my opponent, I see nothing absurd in the evolutionary explanation for morality. Other social species certainly do show proto-moral behavior. Beavers, for example, are known for their alarm signal: when startled or frightened, a swimming beaver will rapidly dive while forcefully slapping the water with its broad tail, audible over great distances above and below water. This serves as a warning to beavers in the area. Once a beaver has sounded the alarm, nearby beavers will dive and may not reemerge for some time. To not sound the alarm, I would think, would feel analogous to the human feeling that goes with immoral behavior. What is absurd, is to assume that because morality is a product of evolution, that is must be identical for all species. Evolution has made some species monogamous (beavers and many bird species) but not other species (93% of mammals).
My opponent asks, presumably intended rhetorically, "How can we believe that some things are wrong despite what society may or may not believe?" He presumes that without his impartial and powerful God to enforce moral principles, moral principles cannot exist. So rather than look to objective reality for a truly justifiable and objective set of moral principles, he looks into the subjective world of divine revelation for his moral principles.
Francois Tremblay wrote:To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality – actions have consequences, which arise because of natural, psychological and social laws. If you stop eating, you will die. If you stop drinking water, you will die even faster. If you break the social mores of decency or peaceful behaviour in your relationships with others, your life will be affected and even endangered. If you do not pursue social values in general, you will live isolated from the benefits of civilization. If you do not pursue mental values, you will not have the mental capacity to reason our way through life. Without such values, you would easily fall prey to any received idea, any scam, you would have no capacity to manage your life. Causality is universal: actions have consequences, causes have effects, if we fail to follow the requirements of life we will fail to live.