Moral Argument against YHWH

[liamconnor]

I hear often the following moral arguments from atheists (and, yes, from the same atheists):

To the argument for God's existence on the grounds of 'objective morality' (Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity):

"Cultures differ in their moralities. Therefore there is no 'objective' morality. What one culture disapproves another approves, and neither are wrong nor right. Distaste for a kind of behavior is like distaste for a kind of ethnic dish; therefore, there is no 'higher morality' pointing to a transcendent 'good'."

The same person will argue against the existence of the o.t. God on other grounds: "What kind of God destroys the entire world with a flood; or kills the first-born of an entire nation; or wages war on a people simply because he wants their land?"

In one breath they have said both that condemnations of behavior do not describe anything objective; then they treat the behavior of the god in the o.t. as if his actions were objective grounds for dismissing his existence.


Now the point of these examples is not to defend the bible. Rather, have atheists contradicted themselves into a position of theism, or at least agnosticism? Is it not more rational to say, "Yes, there is objective 'good'; and this has to come from somewhere; and clearly it does not come from the behavior of mere matter"?

Or is it logically possible to maintain an objective morality when disputing the existence of some entity, while at the same time maintaining a subjective morality when evaluating the behavior of men?

Or, is it that the moral argument is tweaked to defend the atheist's position?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

As I examine the dilemma, I come to this conclusion:

The consistent atheist who disbelieves in objective morality should never, ever, launch an argument against the existence of any alleged deity based on moral grounds.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

As I examine the dilemma, I come to this conclusion:

The consistent atheist who disbelieves in objective morality should never, ever, launch an argument against the existence of any alleged deity based on moral grounds.

Liam I think you should take the time to read divine insights latest post on the does evil exist thread. It was posted just two minutes after your own post here.
In short, your problem is that you are stuck on an absolute thinking mode. Something is either good or it is evil and there are no grey areas, no opinions to be had about it and if this something you believe is an all knowing God says that X is evil...then it's evil, no ifs ands or buts.
I give you a challenge here. Tell me something that you find distasteful on a moral level. I predict with 100% certainty that I can find a Bible verse or verses that support that thing. You can and will of course disagree, say that that isn't what they mean etc... but it doesn't change the fact that, for example, the God whom you believe exists once gave moral sanction to slavery.

[Tiberius47]

I hear often the following moral arguments from atheists (and, yes, from the same atheists):

To the argument for God's existence on the grounds of 'objective morality' (Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity):

"Cultures differ in their moralities. Therefore there is no 'objective' morality. What one culture disapproves another approves, and neither are wrong nor right. Distaste for a kind of behavior is like distaste for a kind of ethnic dish; therefore, there is no 'higher morality' pointing to a transcendent 'good'."

The same person will argue against the existence of the o.t. God on other grounds: "What kind of God destroys the entire world with a flood; or kills the first-born of an entire nation; or wages war on a people simply because he wants their land?"

In one breath they have said both that condemnations of behavior do not describe anything objective; then they treat the behavior of the god in the o.t. as if his actions were objective grounds for dismissing his existence.


Now the point of these examples is not to defend the bible. Rather, have atheists contradicted themselves into a position of theism, or at least agnosticism? Is it not more rational to say, "Yes, there is objective 'good'; and this has to come from somewhere; and clearly it does not come from the behavior of mere matter"?

Or is it logically possible to maintain an objective morality when disputing the existence of some entity, while at the same time maintaining a subjective morality when evaluating the behavior of men?

Or, is it that the moral argument is tweaked to defend the atheist's position?

It's two separate arguments.

The argument against God from morality should be taken as, "Assume God exists and he has laid down moral codes. How can he then violate those codes?"

[benchwarmer]

I hear often the following moral arguments from atheists (and, yes, from the same atheists):

To the argument for God's existence on the grounds of 'objective morality' (Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity):

"Cultures differ in their moralities. Therefore there is no 'objective' morality. What one culture disapproves another approves, and neither are wrong nor right. Distaste for a kind of behavior is like distaste for a kind of ethnic dish; therefore, there is no 'higher morality' pointing to a transcendent 'good'."

The same person will argue against the existence of the o.t. God on other grounds: "What kind of God destroys the entire world with a flood; or kills the first-born of an entire nation; or wages war on a people simply because he wants their land?"

In one breath they have said both that condemnations of behavior do not describe anything objective; then they treat the behavior of the god in the o.t. as if his actions were objective grounds for dismissing his existence.


Now the point of these examples is not to defend the bible. Rather, have atheists contradicted themselves into a position of theism, or at least agnosticism? Is it not more rational to say, "Yes, there is objective 'good'; and this has to come from somewhere; and clearly it does not come from the behavior of mere matter"?

Or is it logically possible to maintain an objective morality when disputing the existence of some entity, while at the same time maintaining a subjective morality when evaluating the behavior of men?

Or, is it that the moral argument is tweaked to defend the atheist's position?

It's two separate arguments.

The argument against God from morality should be taken as, "Assume God exists and he has laid down moral codes. How can he then violate those codes?"

Exactly, and this has been pointed out many times (and ignored many times).

When I judge the morality of the god character described in the Bible, I use the Bible itself and the obvious "Do what I say, not what I do" behavior of the character described. I don't even need to employ my own subjective moral code. I can simply assume for the sake of argument that the moral code laid out in the Bible is indeed absolute and thus shred the notion that this god has any of the morals it's asking us to live by.

The only theist response to this is "Well, God made the rules and can do whatever He wants!". To which my reply is usually along the lines of "The first sign of a poor leader is someone who can't follow their own rules". It's also worth noting that if God can always do whatever He wants and be moral then this means morals are not fixed. i.e. even for God, morals are subjective.

So, ironically, Christians should be arguing FOR subjective morals because that is what their god is employing.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

As I examine the dilemma, I come to this conclusion:

The consistent atheist who disbelieves in objective morality should never, ever, launch an argument against the existence of any alleged deity based on moral grounds.

You seem to be forgetting the hypocrisy of the theists. They claim that their God is moral. But at the very same time they also claim that they cannot know what is moral on their own. How could they? If they could have an opinion on morality then morality would be guided by their own opinion rather than being absolute and objective.

So a theist can't even say that their God is moral because they can't claim to even know what is moral. Instead they need to obtain their morals from their God. Therefore if their God says that bashing babies of heathens against rocks is moral then it must be true. Because the theists aren't permitted to say that the morality of this God is wrong.

If the God of the Bible says that slavery is moral then the theist can't argue with this God.

~~~~~

Here's the problem. The theists have been convinced that the God of the Bible is real. Therefore whatever the Bible says must be true. And God must be the ultimate moral authority. Because of this they don't dare question the morality laid out in the Bible.

However, non-theists as well as ex-theists have come to realize that there may not be a God behind the Bible at all. Therefore it's perfectly justified to ask whether or not the Bible stands up to rational scrutiny in terms of having reasonable morals. When a person does this they realize that the Bible does not represent principle that stand up to rational scrutiny. Therefore there's no good reason to believe that there is any moral authority behind the Bible.

In other words, theists are willing to accept this religious dogma without questioning it. Perhaps they have come to believe that to question it would anger this God. And that frightens them because they have already accepted that the God exists, and so they wouldn't dare question, or second guess, the authority of this God.

The bottom line is simple. If someone tell me that it's moral to bash babies against rocks or that slavery is moral, I'm going to reject that claim. I don't care if this claim is being made by authors who wrote a book claiming to speak for God. That's not going to fool me. Especially when their stories are ignorant and self-contradicting in many other ways as well.

IMHO, no supremely intelligent entity could be as stupid as the Biblical authors claim.

It's really that simple. And yes, this is indeed an opinion.

And by the way, think about it, if my opinion is wrong then God must truly be stupid. That's the only way I could be wrong.

[wiploc]

I hear often the following moral arguments from atheists (and, yes, from the same atheists):

To the argument for God's existence on the grounds of 'objective morality' (Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity):

"Cultures differ in their moralities. Therefore there is no 'objective' morality. What one culture disapproves another approves, and neither are wrong nor right. Distaste for a kind of behavior is like distaste for a kind of ethnic dish; therefore, there is no 'higher morality' pointing to a transcendent 'good'."

The same person will argue against the existence of the o.t. God on other grounds: "What kind of God destroys the entire world with a flood; or kills the first-born of an entire nation; or wages war on a people simply because he wants their land?"

I often see Christians pretend that if there is no objective morality, then there is no morality at all.

I don't propose to guess what you mean by objective morality, but I'm happy to say that genocide is bad, and that a god who does genocide is a bad god, and that a god who tortures people forever in Hellfire is the worst possible god.

In one breath they have said both that condemnations of behavior do not describe anything objective; then they treat the behavior of the god in the o.t. as if his actions were objective grounds for dismissing his existence.

"God is bad" does not entail "god does not exist." So I hope these nasty atheists aren't making the argument you describe.

On the other hand, Christians continually float the opposite "argument," claiming that god must exist since morality does. So I'm happy to assume that the argument you describe is, at least usually, being fielded as a rebuttal to the theist moral argument. As such, it is valid.

Now the point of these examples is not to defend the bible. Rather, have atheists contradicted themselves into a position of theism, or at least agnosticism?

No, that's not how that works.

Is it not more rational to say, "Yes, there is objective 'good';

There's no guessing what you mean by that.

and this has to come from somewhere;

Why? How would that work? If it came from somewhere, what would be the point of going along with it? Why should anyone want to be moral if morality came from somewhere? What would be the point?

Came-from-somewhere-idness is not relevant to morality.

and clearly it does not come from the behavior of mere matter"?

Again, an arbitrary and unsupportable claim. You have offered us no reason to believe that. You will offer us no reason to believe that.

Or is it logically possible to maintain an objective morality when disputing the existence of some entity, while at the same time maintaining a subjective morality when evaluating the behavior of men?

We can do that. We can even maintain objective morality (depending what you mean by that) when evaluating men in the absence of a god. Gods have nothing to do with the objectiveness of morality (regardless of how you define it).

Or, is it that the moral argument is tweaked to defend the atheist's position?

Tweaked? Pot, meet kettle. The theist moral argument depends entirely on equivocation. If we catch them sneaking between incompatible definitions of "objective," and hold them to a single meaning, then they have no argument.

As long as theists keep two-stepping between different definitions, then atheists will keep dancing with them to refute the ever-shifting meanings theists use.

[Divine Insight]

"God is bad" does not entail "god does not exist." So I hope these nasty atheists aren't making the argument you describe.

Don't forget also that saying that the Biblical God is bad is not the same as saying that God is bad. Perhaps if there is an actual God it has nothing at all to do with the Bible.

Therefore the Biblical God could be bad, whilst a real God could be good.

The God of Buddhism is a prime example of a good God that is not the Biblical God.

One could argue also that the Goddess of Wicca is a good Goddess. There are no tales of her doing nasty things to anyone. As far as we know she metes out justice in a perfectly rational and just way. There are no claims that she casts anyone into a state of eternal damnation. So the Goddess of Wicca could potentially be a perfectly good Goddess.

What I don't understand is why the theists don't seek out the best possible religious paradigm to believe. So many theists seem to have their head stuck in the bucket of the Bible and can't seem to be able to set themselves free from it.

[marco]

Now the point of these examples is not to defend the bible. Rather, have atheists contradicted themselves into a position of theism, or at least agnosticism? Is it not more rational to say, "Yes, there is objective 'good'; and this has to come from somewhere; and clearly it does not come from the behavior of mere matter"?

First of all there is not a homogeneous group called atheists. They may say different things but they express an opinion about God, usually the Abrahamic God.

It is possible to view morality as being derived over time. What was done in the past did not benefit, so in a utilitarian way, such behaviour would be avoided. A set of rules, a code of morality, would be formed. On the borders, there may be differences of opinion: should girls of 14 marry?

Thus atheists, bless them, know not to kill their neighbours or steal lead from Church roofs. When they see the character known as Yahweh acting in a way contrary to their devised code, they of course condemn this behaviour. If they are told Yahweh is good and merciful and kind then they disagree with this assessment.

Therefore, there is no inconsistency.

Incidentally there is no attempt at a moral argument against Yahweh, just disapproval of the fictional being's actions. Atheists would disapprove of a murderer's actions as well. They would also find Macbeth's actions distasteful.

[Divine Insight]

Incidentally there is no attempt at a moral argument against Yahweh, just disapproval of the fictional being's actions.

Exactly. Atheists aren't saying that Yahweh is real and he is immoral.

What they are saying is that this religious paradigm describes a God that is obviously immoral by any sane standard, therefore this religious paradigm must be fictitious.