Christian Moral Argument

[POI]

It happens time and time again, in debates. The skeptic/atheist/doubter/criticizer/other mentions an apparent "atrocity" in the Bible, and more often than not, the Christian apologist will say (sooner or later).... "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'right' and 'wrong'?", as if this is some sort of 'checkmate'. I've experienced it myself, many times, especially when I first started to debate Christians. It's as if this is their bread-and-butter, go-to, knee-jerk response, in an attempt to avoid the obvious. Meaning, we both agree it is an 'atrocity.'

Well Christians, I have a thought experiment for you...

For Debate:

Is the moral argument a good one? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say it lends nothing to demonstrate a god. So why do you Christians use it in this fashion? Is it a deflection mechanism, as indicated above, or are their other implications involved?

Before you answer, consider this:

I'd reckon all of us have labelled someone 'rich' or 'poor'. What if a Christian came up to me and stated, "you are too rich and you need to do this/that with your money." And my response was, "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'rich' and 'poor'?".

The point being, I do not recall AN ECONOMIC STANDARD existing to distinguish between 'rich' and 'poor', and yet, we can get along and mange just fine. Hence, if it should turn out that no such standard exists for 'right' and 'wrong', can we still get along there too?.?.?.?.?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I will go with the atheist philosopher Alex O'Connor on this one. The moral argument is in favor of God.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I will go with the atheist philosopher Alex O'Connor on this one. The moral argument is in favor of God.

You're on the edge here. You don't make any point but just a faithclaim, and use appeal to authority. ONE atheist philosopher who (supposedly) finds the moral argument favours divine origin, never mind "God" as you suggest it is One god. I don't know which of you is reading far too much into the argument.

Either way, you should be making your case here, not sending us off to do your work for you.

[bjs1]

It happens time and time again, in debates. The skeptic/atheist/doubter/criticizer/other mentions an apparent "atrocity" in the Bible, and more often than not, the Christian apologist will say (sooner or later).... "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'right' and 'wrong'?", as if this is some sort of 'checkmate'. I've experienced it myself, many times, especially when I first started to debate Christians. It's as if this is their bread-and-butter, go-to, knee-jerk response, in an attempt to avoid the obvious. Meaning, we both agree it is an 'atrocity.'

Well Christians, I have a thought experiment for you...

For Debate:

Is the moral argument a good one? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say it lends nothing to demonstrate a god. So why do you Christians use it in this fashion? Is it a deflection mechanism, as indicated above, or are their other implications involved?

Before you answer, consider this:

I'd reckon all of us have labelled someone 'rich' or 'poor'. What if a Christian came up to me and stated, "you are too rich and you need to do this/that with your money." And my response was, "Oh yea, what is your standard for 'rich' and 'poor'?".

The point being, I do not recall AN ECONOMIC STANDARD existing to distinguish between 'rich' and 'poor', and yet, we can get along and mange just fine. Hence, if it should turn out that no such standard exists for 'right' and 'wrong', can we still get along there too?.?.?.?.?

I disagree. Christians use the the moral argument because is a strong and coherent argument that poses a real problem for atheism.

That is especially true in the situation described here. This is a situation where the skeptic/etc. has established that there is an objective moral standard. The skeptic described in this post has claimed that something is an atrocity – that it is morally wrong. Not just something the skeptic personally dislikes or something that does not fit the skeptic’s cultural values. The skeptic has built a case on the premise that something is morally right and something else is morally wrong.

This is a moral law, which is evidence for theism. Gravity cannot make something right or wrong. Thermodynamics cannot make something write or wrong. A force or physical object that lacks a will can never do anything that is wrong and it can never make something wrong. For something to be genuinely wrong, for there to be a moral law, requires an intelligence of some kind. Religion is the effort to know that intelligence.

In the example from this post we have a skeptic who has argued from the premise that this moral law is real. To take the economic analogy, consider an economist who writes a book in which he argues that a person who has more than $1 billion is rich. From a mixture of royalties and other earning he acquires well over $1 billion. Someone than says to him, “You are rich.” The economist replies, “Oh yeah, what is your standard for rich or poor?”

We would rightly call the economist dishonest. He has established a standard of rich and poor. He then denied the position he had just argued in favor of because it does not lead to the results that he wanted.

This, sadly, has been my most common experience with skeptics/etc. on this site. Far too often skeptics insist that there is a moral standard when it suits their needs, but then shift to say that there is no moral standard when that suits their needs. This reveals an inconsistency in the skeptic’s thinking.

The problem of evil is a real problem for theists. The problem of good is a real problem for non-theists.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I will go with the atheist philosopher Alex O'Connor on this one. The moral argument is in favor of God.

This response lends nothing to the debate. Please elaborate.

[POI]

I disagree. Christians use the the moral argument because is a strong and coherent argument that poses a real problem for atheism.

It is not 'strong and coherent'. I will explain why, where necessary.

Further, such a problem presents to all, equally, regardless of a god belief or not. I'll explain why, where necessary.

That is especially true in the situation described here. This is a situation where the skeptic/etc. has established that there is an objective moral standard.

Nope, the skeptic only assumes that the interlocutor agrees that it is an atrocity. And this becomes evident when the theist then states, "oh yea. what is your standard?". Its a way to avoid the obvious.

Imagine if I stated this if I told you I thought someone was rich? I already assume you agree with me. And yet, there exists NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD for "wealth"

The skeptic described in this post has claimed that something is an atrocity – that it is morally wrong. Not just something the skeptic personally dislikes or something that does not fit the skeptic’s cultural values. The skeptic has built a case on the premise that something is morally right and something else is morally wrong.

No. I'm willing to wager that you and I agree that infanticide is an atrocity. And because of this, if I were to mention a passage from the Bible, which sanctions infanticide, this is when the theist often times asks, "oh yea, what is your standard?"

This is a moral law, which is evidence for theism.

No, it's not. See above. Your evidence is just as good as verifying that we both think someone is rich. That's all. And yet, there exists no "objective economics".

Gravity cannot make something right or wrong. Thermodynamics cannot make something write or wrong. A force or physical object that lacks a will can never do anything that is wrong and it can never make something wrong. For something to be genuinely wrong, for there to be a moral law, requires an intelligence of some kind. Religion is the effort to know that intelligence.

Well, religion got another thing wrong then

In the example from this post we have a skeptic who has argued from the premise that this moral law is real. To take the economic analogy, consider an economist who writes a book in which he argues that a person who has more than $1 billion is rich. From a mixture of royalties and other earning he acquires well over $1 billion. Someone than says to him, “You are rich.” The economist replies, “Oh yeah, what is your standard for rich or poor?”

We would rightly call the economist dishonest. He has established a standard of rich and poor. He then denied the position he had just argued in favor of because it does not lead to the results that he wanted.

The economist does not claim to be God, does (s)he? And if (s)he does, you would not deem him/her so anyways. Your analogy fails.

Further still, EVEN if such a god exists, morals are still subjective. Deal with it....

This, sadly, has been my most common experience with skeptics/etc. on this site. Far too often skeptics insist that there is a moral standard when it suits their needs, but then shift to say that there is no moral standard when that suits their needs. This reveals an inconsistency in the skeptic’s thinking.

What is sad, is what you are attempting to convey. I admit there exists no absolute/objective moral standard. Just like there exists no absolute/objective economic standard. So now what? Well, we can 'ground' morals in all sorts of ways, just like we do so in economics, for instance.

The problem of evil is a real problem for theists. The problem of good is a real problem for non-theists.

The 'problem of evil' is a problem for theists because many cannot find the rationale to agree with some of their god's moral pronouncements, actions, or lack there-of to a wanted action.

I, have no problem. I recognize that morals are subjective. Just like the value of my dollar is subjective. I deal with it, without assigning some divine agency to make me sleep better at night.

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #15]

You have said that infanticide is an atrocity – that it inherently violates a moral standard in an extreme way.

You have also said “there exists no absolute/objective moral standard.”

This, on the surface, is an obvious contradiction. Can you explain your reasoning?

Is there a moral standard that infanticide violates? Or is infanticide not actually an atrocity? Or by “atrocity” do you mean “something I consider subjectively wrong in extreme way, but not something that is inherently wrong outside of my opinion?” Or do you have a fourth option that would resolve this apparent contradiction?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #13]

Interesting. The argument is that moral law is not real, but the opinion either of a god (name your own) or (consensus) human opinion. I would say at the most that evolved human instinct as a basis for morall aw is the only objective basis you are going to get.

The Euthyphro proposition points up that if Moral law is just what God says, it is not objective, but if it is objective as some kind of Cosmic Law, it does not need a god.

[Replying to POI in post #15]

You have said that infanticide is an atrocity – that it inherently violates a moral standard in an extreme way.

You have also said “there exists no absolute/objective moral standard.”

This, on the surface, is an obvious contradiction. Can you explain your reasoning?

Is there a moral standard that infanticide violates? Or is infanticide not actually an atrocity? Or by “atrocity” do you mean “something I consider subjectively wrong in extreme way, but not something that is inherently wrong outside of my opinion?” Or do you have a fourth option that would resolve this apparent contradiction?

Yes, there is a moral standard. It is at best based on human instinctive revulsion towards infancticide. It is codified by human consensus (remember religions have said that it can be ok in a religious context) and there is no Cosmic law codifying it, otherwise. There is no reason to suppose as god is involved and even if it was, that would only be it's subjective opinion.

[POI]

You are clearly not picking up what I am putting down.

[Replying to POI in post #15]
You have said that infanticide is an atrocity – that it inherently violates a moral standard in an extreme way.

No more or less than making an evaluation on economics. And yet, there exists no economic standard.

You have also said “there exists no absolute/objective moral standard.”

Again, no more or less than doing so for economics, even though we all assess <rich vs poor>.

This, on the surface, is an obvious contradiction. Can you explain your reasoning?

See above.

Is there a moral standard that infanticide violates? Or is infanticide not actually an atrocity? Or by “atrocity” do you mean “something I consider subjectively wrong in extreme way, but not something that is inherently wrong outside of my opinion?” Or do you have a fourth option that would resolve this apparent contradiction?

I'm going to suspending answering this question until you catch up. Please re-read what I told you in the prior response, and in this one.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #18]

I see the same thing every time. No interest in getting at the facts or a solution, but in causing as much confusion and doubt about anything other than the opinion of a theist, whether or not it is part of a church or their own personal religion.

Quantum -Woo,
Logic is only human opinion,
You can't prove that George Washington existed.
'Brain in a Vat' arguments.

All to try to make us doubt everything we thought we knew, so that of course Godfaith is left as the only certain claim. So they think.

[bjs1]

You are clearly not picking up what I am putting down.

[Replying to POI in post #15]
You have said that infanticide is an atrocity – that it inherently violates a moral standard in an extreme way.

No more or less than making an evaluation on economics. And yet, there exists no economic standard.

Very well. There is no moral standard. Then it would seem that the “Christian apologists” you mentioned in your fist post have a valid point. Since you claim that there is exists no moral standard, then actions recorded in the Bible (or elsewhere) can be something that you personally or culturally dislike. They cannot be wrong in any meaningful since. If you call something an “atrocity” then you are contradicting your own stated position.

Is there a moral standard that infanticide violates? Or is infanticide not actually an atrocity? Or by “atrocity” do you mean “something I consider subjectively wrong in extreme way, but not something that is inherently wrong outside of my opinion?” Or do you have a fourth option that would resolve this apparent contradiction?

I'm going to suspending answering this question until you catch up. Please re-read what I told you in the prior response, and in this one.

My questions were a polite way of giving you a chance to address a contradiction in your stated position. You are obviously under no obligation to answer any questions, but that does not resolve the contradiction. You have argued from the premise that there are moral standards when that got the results that you wanted, and you have claimed that there are no moral standards when doing so got the results that you wanted.