William Lane Craig's theistic base for morality

Any atheist who is not familiar with William Lane Craig, and who is concerned with the subject of morality in regard to atheism, should pay attention to his work. He delivers a concise and potent attack on the atheistic basis of morality in a debate with Sam Harris for the second annual God Debate entitled "Is good from God". However I think he argues very poorly for the theistic basis of morality

Basically Craig attempts to ground the objectiveness of moral claims in the perfection of God's being, but he does not provide an argument relating God's perfection to moral objectivity.

What do you think about this claim? Does it really follow necessarily that if a perfect being exists, then objective morality exists? Can anyone offer a rebuttal to Craig's claim that it in fact does?

 

I'm not at all concerned with atheist morality. Atheist or NATURAL human morality is based on genuine compassion, empathy, reason, quality of life values, and real world justice.

Theist morality, on the other hand is deeply concerning. It is a CONDITIONED pseudo-morality. Theist morality is dismissive, egocentric, and based on fantasies, ignorance, and biased anecdotes from hateful primitive men.

It's quite ironic that Craig's first two examples of objective "evils" were the Holocaust and genital mutilation of girls, two things that are directly influenced from religious fanaticism and brainwashing.

I'm not particularly a fan of Harris and I was disappointed with some of his responses. Especially in regards to Craig's condescension of moral authority. Harris could have spoke of natural law being a superior authority over religious deities. The words natural compassion and empathy never came up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg"]The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig - YouTube

The question and Harris's response at 1:50 is hilarious!

 

But Craig would rebut by saying that you have no grounds to argue that increasing quality of life is 'good' and decreasing it is 'bad'. He would challenge you to provide an objective basis for the claim that quality of life improvement is 'good'. This is a difficult task: Clearly most of us think that rape is terrible, and rapists are bad people. But Craig would say that we are just making a value judgement in that case along the lines of "we find rape and rapists distasteful". To pose the question another way: What is it that makes violating people objectively wrong?

To be sure I do not agree with Craig (see my thread about god as the basis for morality). However I think that it is clear that Craig has made a very reasonable attack on atheistic morality. What he has not done however is defend the position that "If god then Objective morality and objective moral obligations". I would like to hear a rebuttal of this position if anyone has one.

My own inclination is that Craig is actually using a circular argument where he is claiming that objective morality can be derived from god because god is morally perfect. I have not worked out my rebuttal enough to post it yet but it will be along those lines.

 

so an atheist can only have a relativistic sense of morality, which may appear to be objective but really isn't.

the existence of an eternal perfect being allows us to imagine the basis for an absolute, objective morality which exists independently of human subjectivity.

is this what he's saying? i can't be arsed to watch the whole debate but i think i've heard similar arguments before.

i don't have a rebuttal, because i think he's probably right.
but i would argue that the proposed existence of this morality is largely irrelevant, since we don't seem to have any access to it, and the world does not appear to be run on any recognizably consistent moral principles and humans are subjective creatures. the idea that somewhere there might be an objective basis for morality makes absolutely no difference to us if we have no access to it and it has no impact on the way that the universe works...

 

We had a go-around on this subject before on a different thread. I thought we reached a compelling conclusion: that both atheist and Progressive Christian morality are rooted in fundamental moral instincts that are independent of commands from a deity or even ideals based on the perfection of a deity. Otherwise, what would we mean when we say "God is good" or "God is perfect"? Now we could go round and round on the issue whether or not God gave us these moral instincts. And certainly the instincts that we regard as fundamental couldn't be inherent in human nature, because not all humans share or have ever shared such a consensus. We have the Nazi, Stalinist, and Khmer Rouge examples of the 20th century; the Aztec-Toltec and Baal-Moloch examples of mass human sacrifice of yesteryear; and of course the genocidal examples of the Old Testament. It's a complex argument, but I agree with Pinker that there have been advances in human notions of civility over the millenia. I think evolving religion has played a positive role in this development, although unevolving religion (i.e., fundamentalism) provides strong blowback.

 

It appears that this is what he is saying but he offers no argument to bridge the gap between "A perfect being exists", and "therefor objective morality exists". A glaring omission.

Agreed. For example in a world in which there is a perfect god, but the god makes no commandments Craig would have to say that no one is under any moral obligations. To Craig a moral obligation is derived solely from the command of a deity.

 

does there need to be a link? i'd have thought that one logically followed the other. a perfect being, by its very nature, must be perfect, and eternal/unchanging, in all ways, including having a perfected morality. Therefore, i would have thought that it naturally follows that an objective morality must exist if a "perfect being" exists.

 

Agreed.

.

As an atheist and a believer in the standard theory of evolution I think my opinion on that goes without saying.

I have my own ideas about how to ground my morality, and obviously I have my own ideas about why morality cannot be grounded in god. I did not start this thread for the purpose of a general discussion on morality. I wanted specifically to discuss Craig's views because I find them interesting and relevant. I think it is important to note that Craig is making two separate claims: The first that objective morality is grounded in the perfection of god's being, and the second is that moral obligations are grounded in god's commands. Clearly the command part is bogus for reasons already mentioned.

 

Many people think that it does follow logically, and necessarily, but I don't and I can't see how the answer would be an obvious one. Consider this: Is morality determined arbitrarily by god, or is god bound to an absolute set of moral codes? In the former case morality is meaningless, in the latter god is subservient to morality which implies that it exists without god.

Also it would seem strange to say (which Craig implies that this is the case) that in a universe without god it is not wrong to commit rape, but in a universe in which god exists rape is wrong. That would seem to imply that all transgressions are transgressions against god, not against the worldly victim. Again that makes morality meaningless to me.

If anyone can provide an argument for why morality becomes absolute when the world is inhabited by a perfect being then I would love to hear it.

 

Objective morality is a falsehood that even God can't sustain as an authoritative example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI"]Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness - YouTube

 

To believers like Craig, atheist morality would seem to rest on thin ice. I know that atheists can be moral, because I've seen them in action. I'm grateful that they are. But thinking Christians are nervous that atheists might apply the same critical faculties they use against belief in God to morality, and come to the conclusion that it is groundless. If morality simply rests on instincts which are a product of our "selfish genes" acting on the basis of reciprocal altruism, what happens if we cheat? Of course, most of us do on occasion--believers possibly at least as much as atheists. How can a priest seduce and altar boy and still sleep at night?

My own answer to the problem I pose is that I'm a turtle avoider. I divide the human population into four categories, according to how they behave toward turtles they might encounter in the road: turtle ignorers (those who keep on going, regardless of whether or not they hit the turtle); turtle destroyers (those who aim for the turtle); turtle avoiders (those who swerve to the side to avoid hitting the turtle); and turtle protectors (those who stop the car and rescue the turtle). Why do I care about turtles? Empathy for sentient beings. Why does that matter? Social conditioning, probably aided by evolutionary hard-wiring, in which a Christian outlook possibly plays a role. Now that I know that, will it change my attitude toward turtles? Probably not, because I like to be a turtle avoider, because that's the way I was brought up. But then that's also why I'm a Christian, and there are those atheists like Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell who try to tell me I should really reconsider these instincts that are grounded on powerful social conditioning and irrational sentiments. Are moral atheists like me? Probably. Will they change their "do gooder" turtle avoider or rescuer inclinations because they know they're socially conditioned? I'd bet not. But many Christians aren't sure. They think that Dostoevsky might have been right in The Brothers Karamazov that "without God, everything is permitted." They worry about what would happen if the next time somebody encounters a turtle (s)he hears a voice whispering in their ear: "Aim for the damned thing. You will not surely die!"

 

I'm not sure about that, but I think the argument works well for the existence of meaning in general. I think it's only logical that there's no meaning without some absolute meaning, but I don't know if you need to call that God.

That meaning holds it all in place, draw whatever conclusions you like about the fact that this is meaningful. But I think morality can be absolute just as a fact of human nature. Call the best in us good and the worst in us evil and it still works out as an absolutism, doesn't it? It is the way things are, the brute fact of existence.

Maybe Craig needs to elevate love to some transcendent level, because he loves it so much. He wants to keep it safe, maybe. But things can be intangible without calling upon a God. Maybe love just is indomitable. And the Bible does call God "Love" at some point, I think.

All of this talk of Gods and Devils I think it just our way of trying to communicate the fact that this is inexplicably meaningful. But it's capturing nothing. Does that mean be apathetic about life? No. It just means we're that powerful. We don't even have to worry about this going wrong. Wouldn't that be ridiculous and hilarious?

 

Yeah, that's about all it adds up to.

The thing is, genuine morality is a complex thing. It's as complex as the human mind. It's also a wonderful and profoundly beautiful thing. that a proper working mind can work out right and wrong. That even a child is naturally empathetic without conditioning.

Simplified to a static set of rules, it doesn't work out too well. Especially when ones deities can't even abide by their own rules.

 

Okie, I actually named my previous thread about atheism and morality as a play on that line from The Brothers Karamazov, because it is my belief that in a world in which morality is grounded in a deity, and in which moral obligations are derived from the deity's commands that in fact any heinous act may at any point be morally permissible.

I agree with you that many theists are nervous about what conclusions an atheist might come to regarding morality. But again I think the problem should be turned on its head. The end of your previous post is very telling. You said "They worry about what would happen if the next time somebody encounters a turtle (s)he hears a voice whispering in their ear: "Aim for the damned thing. You will not surely die!"" But of course this is nonsense from the atheists point of view because we atheists do not act morally out of fear of retribution, either worldly retribution or divine. It would seem that we only really need to be nervous about people who only behave because they fear god. That kind of person would behave immorally if they lost their faith, but that problem does not apply to any atheist that had already rejected the idea of god as the basis for morality.

Craig offers no argument for how morality can be grounded in a being, even if it were a perfect being.

 

I wasn't thinking about retribution. I was thinking about the tenuousness of basing morality on principles which can be attacked as "nothing but" the product of social conditioning and selfish genes. As Sam Harris (to his credit) points out, many secular relativists take precisely that position. I don't believe in an afterlife or even in punishment from supernatural sources in this life. The Kingdom of Heaven is, as the Gospel of Thomas tells us, "spread out everywhere upon the Earth, and people do not see it. And as Sartre tells us, "Hell is other people--but only when they have bad attitudes and look for satisfaction in all the wrong places.

I don't regard God as a "being", but I do see how morality can be grounded in a perfect being. I think of God as the sum of all human idealism. Ideals can provide a basis for morality. They do for me. They're intangible, but people have given their lives for them: Liberty, Justice, Truth, Beauty, etc. I, like Craig, base my morality on the two basic values taught by Jesus (and Rabbi Hillel): love of God and love of neighbor. The latter, to me, follows from the former; when we encounter fellow humans, we encounter God, if we view them properly. I agree that blind obedience to arbitrary commands cannot provide a proper basis for morality. But as Craig argues that God, should be worshiped only if He is the Supreme Good, who could, by definition, not be evil or arbitrary.

That being said, I have real problems with Craig's argument as presented in the first video. It all hinges on the big IF: If God exists, He provides a sound foundation for objective morality. Craig refuses to engage Harris on whether or not God does in fact exist, or what that even means. IF God does not exist, then, says Craig, objective morality can't exist. I don't agree with that. I'd consider a set of moral values on which people could agree to be objective whether they're secular or not. if we can agree on the attributes which would make God perfect, why can't that consensus serve as the objective basis for our morality. Craig says that's a redefinition of "good", but it's one I could live with. Harris' views presented in the Moral Compass strike me as warmed over Benthamite utilitarianism, reminiscent of the Felicific Calculus, and I certainly don't think his book lived up to the billing as a "scientific" basis for secular morality. He overestimates the problems of reaching consensus on human well-being, neglects contractarian and deontological ethical perspectives, and seems oblivious to the contradictions between his ethical exhortations and the psychological determinism that he puts forward. But I think his model, with considerable refinement, has potential for providing a moral system that could qualify as "objective". People could take it or leave it, but it would be based on values most people would accept as conducive to happiness,which is something a decent moral code should be concerned with. After all, people disagree about what God wants and commands, so how us God an adequate source of morality--objective or otherwise? The values are, in a sense, "subjective" but they are rooted in the common human condition. Craig complains that science can't make an "is" into an ought. That is called the "naturalistic fallacy." Oughts (moral values) can only be derived from purpose. God's Plan would qualify, but so would, I think, collective human purpose rooted in common physiology, neurology, and basic needs. One advantage such a system would have over Craig's is that it doesn't depend on a hypothetical "if".

As for the second video, it presents an interpretation of Craig which differs from the position he defended on the first video. The second video attributes to Craig a clear non-sequitor: Premise #1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Premise #2: Objective moral values do exist. #3. Therefore God exists. Of course it doesn't follow that if objective moral values exist God must exist. The first premise seems wrong, since objectvity doesn't necessarily depend on God but on some standard or criterion all or most people could agree on. Objective values could be determined to exist if people can independently agree on them. That would be good enough for me--possibly also for God.

 

Meagain I agree. I've often thought that if god spoke to a person that that would be revelation and perhaps the person would be obligated to believe it, but if that person then tells me about god talking to them, then that is not revelation, and I cannot be obligated to believe it.

Okie, I think that your attack on Harris is very fair. However you seem to be straddling two positions in your last post. You said "...but I do see how morality can be grounded in a perfect being. I think of God as the sum of all human idealism. Ideals can provide a basis for morality." I am obviously in agreement with that last sentence (I really have no alternative as an atheist). Would you agree that whether human nature was created or at least influenced by god, or whether human nature arose completely by blind processes that were not themselves created by god, that in either case we would have to ground morality in human ideals? Or do you think that human ideals only serve as the basis for morality if they were somehow derived from god?

Also, it seems that a grounding of morality in human ideals requires some sort of utilitarianism. Not in the strict sense, but when you listen to people talk about using human ideals as the basis for morality they often sound very much like people arguing for a utility based morality. At the very least it seems that we may have to rely on utility in order to make arguments for or against particular actions. Any thoughts on this?

 

I believe that if we can agree on the common ideals and values that would make a God perfect, those could serve as the basis of an objective morality. The real problem is to motivate people to follow them, if they think they were just made up by a bunch of fallible humans like themselves.

 

Yes this is a problem. It would seem that those of us who are committed to acting 'morally' will continue to attempt to do so regardless of the outcome of philosophical debates about the basis of morality, and those who are not so committed will continue not attempting to behave 'morally'.

If someone provided a knock-down argument against secular morality I would still refrain from murder, and I would still engage in charity, even at the risk of being called illogical or irrational for doing so. If morality is at its base irrational I will still choose it over the alternative.

It is clear then that I am motivated, but it is not clear where my motivation arises from. Personally, as strange as it may seem, I became much more concerned with morality after I renounced my faith and began studying science. Not because I think that science provides a rationale for morality, or that faith necessarily impedes it, but rather, as strange as it seems, the more I learn about the world the more I feel moved towards compassion for all living things. Of course many people study the world and arrive at opposite conclusions.

Obviously as someone who currently accepts the standard evolutionary theories it would seem that I am stuck with a bleak world view: after all the majority of species that have ever existed have already gone extinct, and struggle takes place even within a single organism's genome. But it still compels me to be exhilarated by every mundane detail. Strange as it seems.