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?.?.?.?.?

[TRANSPONDER]

No.You are being deliberately obtuse and obstructive to put off accepting the answer (there a moral standard but hardly objective) so you can keep claiming there is no answer and so there is no moral code, unless one goes to the Bible, I predict.

But you are not winning this one by refusing to accept the answer, claiming it has not been answered and apparently trying to run away shouting "I win". Nobody is buying it. Well, Nobody who matters

[boatsnguitars]

Ah well, Ray Comfort is not using a fair argument but an effective one. It is a hard sell method that backs people into a corner so they either go denial (their right) or give in. But that might save them

"I guess you're right and only Jesus could save me from the punishment i deserve for all these sins...but I just can't believe it. Sorry; I cannot make myself believe that what you're telling me is true." Which in fact is the bottom line of the whole debate.

Cue Pascal's wager, but People will simply have to learn the refutation of that. Which is why we are here,talking about what we don't believe, anyway.

What's funny is that after much ridicule Bananaman said he was just joking. Lomfpoc

And think of all the idiot Christians who bought his books, gave him money, etc - as if he was the great apologist!
The guy is a millionaire because he conned dumb people.
A real shining example of Christian morality... reminds me of Jesus.

[POI]

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.

The point I'm making, is the point I have stated a couple of times now. I already know the theist agrees with me, that infanticide, as written in the Bible, was an atrocity. This is why theists will use this argument to get out of admitting they do not agree with the God, in which they worship. Otherwise, they would not issue this argument.

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.

Correct. And there exists stuff in there, which you likely personally and/or culturally dislike.

They cannot be wrong in any meaningful since.

We apply our own meaning, where 'morals' are concerned. As we do in economics.

If you call something an “atrocity” then you are contradicting your own stated position.

No more or less than calling someone "rich" or "poor", as, there-to exists no 'true standard'. And yet, we function and work around it if we wish to co-exist in society. Is it perfect? Of course not.... However, arguing a god is necessary to substantiate morals is as absurd as arguing we need the "Monopoly Guy", on the Monopoly game box, to ground economics. It's not really much different.

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.

If you still need me to address your questions, I can still do so. Let me know?

However, the 'contradictions', in which you will find, are the ones between you and your claimed god.

[POI]

[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]

[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.

To be clear, are you saying that your position is that moral law is not real, as opposed to the Christian position that there is a real moral law?

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.

That’s fine, but it’s not an objective basis. A moral law that comes from the most evolved human instinct is, by definition, a subjective moral law.

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.

This somewhat misrepresents Plato’s argument in Euthyphro. In Plato’s writing, Euthyphro was not arguing that the moral law was not objective. He was arguing that we cannot know how morality functions at a ground level. I’m paraphrasing here, but Plato argued that morality could be the creation of God the way that gravity is a creation of God. God created a world with built in morality that is as real as the laws of motion. If the moral law came by God’s choice then He could have chosen something different, but the morality of this world is and inherent part of this creation.

The other option is that morality can only exist the way that it exists in this world. No matter how powerful God is, he could no more make hatred good and love evil than He could make pi equal exactly 3. The objective laws of morality in this world are as necessary as the laws of logic.

Plato (and Aristotle) later put forth the third option that God doesn’t have to be logical, but at that point the discussion ends. If God can violate the laws of logic then we can’t use logic to argue against him. Logic would have no hold on him.

Plato argued that we can’t know which of these is correct, but not that any of them mean that morality is subjective.

[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.

That’s fine, but it is not morality. It is saying that something is unpopular, not that it is morally wrong.

That is a valid way of looking at the world, but it is reasonable to expect consistency in that view. If we take that view then an action can go against the consensus of human desire. It cannot be an atrocity. It cannot be wrong. It can only be extremely dislikable.

[POI]

That’s fine, but it is not morality. It is saying that something is unpopular, not that it is morally wrong.

That is a valid way of looking at the world, but it is reasonable to expect consistency in that view. If we take that view then an action can go against the consensus of human desire. It cannot be an atrocity. It cannot be wrong. It can only be extremely dislikable.

Your response is interesting. All I see here is some 'word play.'

An atrocity means, from google: "an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury". Or, "a highly unpleasant or distasteful object." "the house was a split-level atrocity".

The example provided in red, is a clear give away that the word reeks of subjectivity.

Hence, <atrocity vs extremely dislikable> are not really that different, if at all, in the sense they are both subjective statements. Why? You might think that split-level house is great. And it only takes one buyer for every house.

[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.

To be clear, are you saying that your position is that moral law is not real, as opposed to the Christian position that there is a real moral law?

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.

That’s fine, but it’s not an objective basis. A moral law that comes from the most evolved human instinct is, by definition, a subjective moral law.

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.

This somewhat misrepresents Plato’s argument in Euthyphro. In Plato’s writing, Euthyphro was not arguing that the moral law was not objective. He was arguing that we cannot know how morality functions at a ground level. I’m paraphrasing here, but Plato argued that morality could be the creation of God the way that gravity is a creation of God. God created a world with built in morality that is as real as the laws of motion. If the moral law came by God’s choice then He could have chosen something different, but the morality of this world is and inherent part of this creation.

The other option is that morality can only exist the way that it exists in this world. No matter how powerful God is, he could no more make hatred good and love evil than He could make pi equal exactly 3. The objective laws of morality in this world are as necessary as the laws of logic.

Plato (and Aristotle) later put forth the third option that God doesn’t have to be logical, but at that point the discussion ends. If God can violate the laws of logic then we can’t use logic to argue against him. Logic would have no hold on him.

Plato argued that we can’t know which of these is correct, but not that any of them mean that morality is subjective.

[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.

That’s fine, but it is not morality. It is saying that something is unpopular, not that it is morally wrong.

That is a valid way of looking at the world, but it is reasonable to expect consistency in that view. If we take that view then an action can go against the consensus of human desire. It cannot be an atrocity. It cannot be wrong. It can only be extremely dislikable.

Yes. The problem all around is whether morality is (as I think I said) a cosmic law, like gravity which is real, a Fact, whatever humans think. Morality is a human construct, like art, language and music, but nobody would say those were not 'Real' in the sense of not being valid. In fact some savants have got astray in trying to find out what these things Are when they are nothing but a game that humans made up.

On the other hand, there is debate about whether mathematics and even logic is Real or a human convention. I say, (unlike art and music) when you get down to basics, there is a universal reality. Like one stone and another is 2 stones and never mind if the Bible says it's five. Similarly the physical practicalities of the way the world works makes Occam's razor (perhaps the most contested of Philosophical rules) valid, as well as, of course, the materialistic default (1). The fact is that morality and ethics are effectively a human construct but are no more invalid than music which is also a human construct. It exists, it works, and has its' rules - which are made to be evolved, even if not broken.



That said, while we may wonder about an evolved instinct that underlies art and music (social and communication) I think the case for a social and ethical instinct is known and is found in animals, too. Ans that is a better objective basis for an evolved morality that the Bible which, even if it was the best people could do at the time, we can do better than now, slavery for instance being condoned by both testaments.

(1) And also answers those hoary old favorites, whether a leaf remains green in the absence of light or a tree exists when there is no -one there to see it. (2) and indeed good ol' Zeno's paradox.

(2) It is on all reason and logic, there even if no -one sees it And without the need for a God (apart from as a metaphor for the rules of physics) to observe it.