Worldview of Jesus

Tag: Moral argument

  • The Euthyphro Dilemma

    The Euthyphro Dilemma

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IgGB4Oxs5VU]

    In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig describes the basic structure of the Euthyphro Dilemma and why it serves as an attempted objection against the moral argument.  This objection is found in Plato’s first dialogue named Euthyphro.  His objection is laid out as follows:

    “Either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good” 1

    Let’s dissect each half of that statement to get a better understanding of what is truly being objected to within the moral argument.

    The first half states that, “something is good because God wills it”.  That means that God could have willed anythingto be good.  God could have potentially willed rape, murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… to be good.  If those horrible actions were to be willed good by God, then we would be obligated to do those things to one another by Him.  What is good becomes arbitrary under this option. Therefore, the first half of this dilemma clearly seems to be an implausible assertion because the possibility of murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… being good just because God wills it undermines the fact that some moral values are necessary in this world 1. 

    The second half states that, “God wills something because it is good”.  That means that whatever is good is completely independent of God and would completely undercut the first premise of the moral argument (If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist).  If we contend that the first premise of the moral argument is true, we see that objective moral values are dependent upon God for their moral grounding.  Therefore, God does not will something because it is good 1.    

    Since the moment I heard the Euthyphro Dilemma, I’ve always questioned why this dilemma has become the authority on the moral argument for the atheist.  Are there any other options outside of the two that are presented within the dilemma?  It appears that this dilemma isn’t providing us with all the options for the origin of moral grounding.  It seems that Plato failed to acknowledge the option of God making our moral foundations good because He is good!  They are reflective on His nature.  So, if an atheist states, “If God commanded rape, we would be obligated to do so”, the atheist is presupposing that God could command such an atrocity.  God couldn’t command rape because it is against His nature 2.  Stating otherwise would be as non-nonsensical as identifying red as blue, a square as a triangle, and the moon as the sun. 

    In conclusion, God’s nature is the foundation for the morality in this universe.  If humanity acts immorally, it’s because they’re acting contradictory to God’s nature and not because God willed it.  Those who present the possibility of God willing unspeakable actions are simply confused by how morality is bound by God’s nature.If God’s nature is the basis for all moral foundations, then it would logically fall into place that morality would be determined upon that nature.  Since God is the greatest possible being, it would be illogical to assert that God would impose rape simply because He wills it.  God couldn’t will something against His own nature.  In essence, we recognize morality today because God is good and we are made in His image, which gives us a key to acknowledging such goodness in this world.

    Notes

    1 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4

    2 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 6

  • The Moral Argument

    The Moral Argument

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evcg_UtnJfI&feature=player_embedded]

    The video above is of Dr. William Lane Craig describing the moral argument for the existence of God.  The moral argument is a very powerful argument as nearly everyone can relate with it.  At first glance a skeptic would likely be hesitant to agree because of the obvious theistic implications associated with it.  However, would an atheist stick to their worldview after seriously pondering the premises of this argument?  Let’s take a closer look at what those implications are after reviewing the moral argument itself:

    1)     If God does not exist, objectivemoral values and duties do not exist
    2)     Objective moral values and duties do exist
    3)     Therefore, God exists

    So, the first premise states that if God does not exist, there are not objective moral values.  Before we progress, I’d like to define objective as “existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions”.  Now, let’s dissect that premise.  For the argument to be valid, God would be the authority on morality if He existed.  If He didn’t exist, all observable signs of morality would be pure illusory.  That’s to say that these signs of morality would purely be a byproduct of socio-cultural evolution and nothing would be objectively right or wrong.  Essentially, by natural selection, our species has developed behavioral patterns that are beneficial to the propagation of our human species.

    However, do we witness the lack of objectivity in the moral sense?  Do we consider the holocaust in Nazi Germany objectively wrong?  How about the raping of a little girl?  Or, when the terrorists crashed commercial jets into the Twins Towers on 9/11 and killed thousands of people?  If someone were to deny the first premise, that person would then be committed to affirming that these actions are not objectively wrong.  These people committing these atrocities are not morally guilty of anything objectivelyevil under an atheist worldview because there are no objective moral foundations.  If God does not exist, these actions would simply be categorized as behaving outside of what would be considered culturally acceptable. 

     However, many atheists confirm that there are objectivemoral foundations in this world but really can’t explain why outside of personally feeling there is a “right” and “wrong”.  One of the most prominent atheist apologists Richard Dawkins writes in his book “The God Delusion”, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.  If Richard Dawkins can admit that if we are truly purposeless, it would follow logically that good and evil lack an objective foundation.  It is difficult to think that the holocaust, rape, or 9/11 as NOT being objectively evil, but that is what the atheist is faced with if they were committed to their worldview.  Many atheist philosophers have come to this same conclusion after realizing the theistic implications of morals being objective.

     That is NOT to say that atheists are incapable of being moral.  I have atheist friends and family members who are incredibly moral people.  This is a difficult topic because a majority of people affirm objective morals but don’t realize the theistic implication of doing so.  It is important to understand that we observe objective morality on a daily basis, and not as a byproduct of socio-cultural conditioning, but through God.  We are made in His image and that is why when good or bad things happen, we are able to objectively define them as such.