Note: What follows is the script for my YouTube video on Countering the Moral Argument. Keep reading below for the transcript!
Friday, May 13, 2016
Note: This is a much longer version of my "Countering the Moral Argument" video/paper that goes through each objection listed there in far greater detail.
The moral argument for god’s existence is one of the most common arguments apologists will use in debates with atheists. It also tends to be one of the most misunderstood arguments, which I think contributes to its persistence in sticking around despite having been debunked a long time ago.
This paper will focus on two objectives.
1. The primary goal is showing the Moral Argument is false.
2. Showing inherent problems with the theistic moral system that underlies the moral argument.
Note why these are two separate goals, because one can show that the moral argument is false, but still hold to a theistic ethical system.
I’d like to start by presenting the argument as it is commonly defended by popular apologists like William Lane Craig:
1.) If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values exist.
3.) Therefore god exists.
First off let’s get the easy caveats out of the way. The argument does not say that:
● Atheists can’t act morally
● Atheists can’t tell the difference between right and wrong.
Here’s what the argument does try and say:
1. Atheists do not have a basis for an objective morality on their worldview.
The argument alleges that atheists are somehow being inconsistent by not believing in a god while still believing that morality can be objective.
Now that we’ve established what the moral argument is trying to do, let’s get started with identifying exactly what apologists mean when they use this argument.