The Moral Argument for Theism

[_MrStakhanovite]

So I guess I'd be an anti-realist

And to think, you went to Wheaton. Look at what Claremont and MAD have done to you.

[_MrStakhanovite]

EA has got it.

Dr. Peoples is pretty much setting up a dilemma for the atheist, by forcing them to choose either moral realism or anti-realism (for his purposes, he chose to define it as naturalism vs. non-naturalism). If the atheist chooses anti-realism, then that makes for some uncomfortable admissions and counter intuitive ideas, which doesn’t make anti-realism wrong, but it carries force in actual verbal argumentation.

If the atheist chooses realism, then Dr. Peoples will assert that the only way moral realism to be true, is if theism is true, which is untenable for an atheist. Obviously, this is where most objections are going to happen and where the argument basically fails or succeeds.

This is where Dr. Law’s comments really take force. So far, Dr. Peoples seems to be casting his arguments in terms like “Theism is probably the best explanation for moral realism” but his argument is structured in a deductive format. Now formatting probabilities or inductive inferences in a deductive model isn’t unheard of, and is pretty acceptable (it‘s called demonstrative induction), but the propositions being used need to have an obscenely high probability of being true ( I’d say 95% plus), and the more premises you have, only drags down the probability of your conclusion to be true even lower.

As Dr. Law aptly points out, if you have 5 premises, each with a epistemic probability of 80% chance of being true, then your conclusion is only going to have a 32% chance of being true. What Dr. Peoples has to do in my opinion is show that only theism can account for moral realism, and all non-theistic accounts for moral realism must be false by necessity (as in, there cannot be a possible world where a non-theistic moral realism is true), to make his argument with any force and that is a heavy task.

[_CaliforniaKid]

And to think, you went to Wheaton.

Ha! Well, that's the problem, really. None of the stuff I heard from Wheaton types ever satisfied me.

One of my profs in my last semester there was a realist with respect to universals. And I'm continually finding semi-Aristotelian assumptions throughout religious people's thinking, whether they're talking about the true meaning of morality or the true meaning of "marriage". As for me, I'm a nominalist to the core. Universals strike me as an incredibly dumb idea.

I also always, since I was very young, believed that Jesus's morality was a rational morality designed to make life better for us. I was always repulsed by attempts to root morality in anything other than a subjective set of goals. It just seems bizarre to me. Why would anyone want morality to be a set of metaphysical rules instead of a rational, goal-driven strategy for success (which it seems so obviously to be)?

[_EAllusion]

I'm a staunch moral realist, but this is one of those areas of debate where all positions have notable problems and there is a lot of room for legitimate dispute. Anti-realists make up about 30% of professionals.

Regarding your comment Cal, I think it is bordering on self-evident that whether something is moral or not is deeply related to its tendency to advance or thwart human happiness. (I'd assert that this is because happiness is a prime desire.) I don't think you can account for what moral thinking is unless you effectively explain this. Saying "happiness is good because God wants happiness" should feel cheap in the same way that "The human eyeball is the way it is because God wanted it that way" is cheap. It doesn't offer a lot of explanatory content and if God didn't want happiness, then that would be moral. If God wanted pain and suffering, that would be ideal. This is deeply counter-intuitive to people. The theist might assert that's because God built their intuition to be in harmony with his desires, but if that is the case, then why should we even care about this morality? It's an arbitrarily selected standard that only happens to coincide all this human happiness business. If it's just the will of some 3rd party, why is that will better than any other? It can't be because it is more moral, as that begs the question. If my thoughts were defined as the standard of morality, my will would be morally perfect by definition too. Morality becomes something very different from it seems to be when people express it. This is a problem when you are trying to account for the nature of moral thought.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I hate to be simple (but you know... I'm a simple man):

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

I know ex-Mormons/Non-Mormons like to discuss things to death (in ref to Mormonism), but sometimes a simple couplet frames an idea perfectly.

Mormonism is nonsense. Everyone knows it. crap, I was just downtown SLC yesterday and I had a woman at the Joseph Smith Bldg tell my step-son Joseph Smith was 10' 4" tall and fought Goliath (and won!). I can't even make something like this up. It's crazy. I literally... Had a woman... Tell my step-son... That Joseph Smith was 10 feet 4 inches tall and beat Goliath in battle.

What.

The.

“F”.

This kid is the sweetest, most trusting soul I've ever encountered and here I have an adult woman filling his head with crap. Weird.

There is no moral argument for Theism. It's stupid/insane. I can't believe adults do this to each other.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Stormy Waters]

(P2) The basis of moral facts is not natural

I apologize if the point I want to make has already been covered or is overly simplistic for the topic.

If the basis of moral facts is from a third party source shouldn't we all agree on what is or is not moral? Yes there are many moral aspects which are almost universally agreed upon. But there are some moral issues on which we disagree such as abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. If our sense of morality comes from a third party source shouldn't we agree on these issues?

[_EAllusion]

If our sense of morality comes from a third party source shouldn't we agree on these issues?

Only if you think everyone has an equal, unblemished ability to access the moral truths created/willed by our 3rd party subjet. No one thinks that.

[_Stormy Waters]

Only if you think everyone has an equal, unblemished ability to access the moral truths created/willed by our 3rd party subjet. No one thinks that.

I think you can make the case the Mormons believe that. They believe there is a prophet that clearly states the moral code.

Personally I think the disagreements on morality suggest that there is no third party arbitrator of morality. Abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment are hardly trivial issues. How can we say that there are absolute moral facts if we cannot reach a general consensus on the definition of these moral facts?

If this 3rd party arbitrator of morality doesn't make the moral code they created/willed clear then what value does it have anyway? We'd still be left to our own devices to debate/reason out what is right or wrong.

Edit: Or rather, I think seems unlikely to me that there a 3rd party arbitrator of morality who then doesn't evenly and equally distribute said moral code. To create a moral code (especially one we will be judged by) and then not distribute it evenly seems... immoral.

Please excuse my amateur analysis on this topic.

[_EAllusion]

I think you can make the case the Mormons believe that.

I don't think so. Even if Mormons thought they had direct access to pure, uncut moral truth, which I don't think they normally do, they still would be able to recognize that not everyone is a Mormon.

Personally I think the disagreements on morality suggest that there is no third party arbitrator of morality. Abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment are hardly trivial issues. How can we say that there are absolute moral facts if we cannot reach a general consensus on the definition of these moral facts?

People don't agree on the nature of gravity. That doesn't mean the nature of gravity isn't ultimately a factual thing. It means that not all ideas about it are equally as good. What your thinking is trading on is the assumption that if God willed the nature of moral truths, then God would make them crystal clear to everyone. This is a flawed assumption. Think about it for a second. Why would God do that? Because it's the right thing to do? But remember, whatever God does in this view is automatically the right thing to do. Rape, torture, moral ambiguity for his creations. Whatever.

If this 3rd party arbitrator of morality doesn't make the moral code they created/willed clear then what value does it have anyway?

Hasa diga eebowai.

[_Stormy Waters]

I don't think so. Even if Mormons thought they had direct access to pure, uncut moral truth, which I don't think they normally do, they still would be able to recognize that not everyone is a Mormon.

I concede the point.

People don't agree on the nature of gravity. That doesn't mean the nature of gravity isn't ultimately a factual thing. It means that not all ideas about it are equally as good. What your thinking is trading on is the assumption that if God willed the nature of moral truths, then God would make them crystal clear to everyone. This is a flawed assumption. Think about it for a second. Why would God do that? Because it's the right thing to do? But remember, whatever God does in this view is automatically the right thing to do. Rape, torture, moral ambiguity for his creations. Whatever.

Certainly there could exist a God or entity that acted in this way. A God who doesn't feel the need to make right and wrong crystal clear to his people. My line of thinking started from something Stak posted a few pages back.

Most atheists also believe that some things are morally wrong: Child molestation, torturing people for fun, greed etc. When people in general – atheist or otherwise – see these things, we don’t just think “well that’s not in keeping with our social norms.” We actually think that as a matter of fact those things ought not to be done. And given that atheists in general believe this, they are hesitant to believe that moral facts couldn’t be natural, because a thoroughgoing atheist worldview is, I think, best construed as entirely naturalistic. There is nothing other than what is natural, so if moral facts aren’t natural, then we’d have to doubt that they exist at all, which seems enormously counter-intuitive in light of what people tend to find themselves instinctively knowing about the world.

The argument said person seems to be making was "Everyone agrees that certain things are always wrong. Everyone knows this instinctively, so this source must be external to us." My line of thinking is that if there are important moral rules about which we disagree then morality isn't always instinctive to us. So while there could be a third party who gives us morality, there is no reason to believe that there is one.