• Art48
    477
    The claim is often made that morality is objective and, as such, proves God. To begin, what do we mean by “objective”? Usually, we mean a proposition or fact is objective if it’s true regardless of anyone's opinion. That chocolate ice cream tastes good is subjective to me; other people may feel differently. But that 2+2=4 is objective, regardless of what I think. Objective morality, therefore, is the idea that there are things which are right or wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks.

    Anyone except God, that is. For “laws require a lawgiver” so things are objectively moral or immoral because God considers them so. Our opinions don’t count. Therefore, to use a standard example, that the Nazis murdered Jews is objectively wrong. Even if the Nazis had won the war and everyone accepted the Nazi worldview today, what the Nazis did would still be wrong, objectively wrong.

    So, murdering women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft was objectively wrong, even if medieval Christians believed they were doing God’s will. And slavery is objectively wrong even if Christians in the southern United States believed for centuries it was in accordance with God’s will.

    But now we come to a problem. If slavery and death for “witchcraft” are objectively wrong, THEN HOW COULD A GOOD GOD HAVE FAILED TO INFORM US OF THOSE FACTS?? Even today, we wonder if capital punishment is objectively wrong or not, if euthanasia is allowable or not, if we should eat sentient animals or be a vegetarian, if stem cell research is objectively wrong or not, etc.

    Once you decide objective moral values exist, if you believe God is good, then you must explain why God doesn’t clearly tell us what is and is not objectively moral. This, clearly, God has not done. States in the southern U.S. needed a war to be convinced slavery was wrong. Why? Why didn’t God tell them it was wrong during the centuries they bought and sold humans like cattle?

    Of course, some Christians will make the (laughable) claim that God via the Bible does tell us what is right and wrong. But somehow all the bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, who burnt witches, and all the preachers and pastors in the U.S. South, who thought slavery was A-OK with God, were wrong. For centuries. If the Bible is that difficult to understand correctly (for instance, Exodus has explicit rules for buying and selling foreign slaves), then what good is it?

    Is stem cell research moral or not? In a century, after we’ve discerned the truth, some Christian will surely claim that the Bible could have given us the answer if only we’d asked. But ask today and Christians give contradictory answers. So much for the Bible having the answers to all moral questions.

    If objective moral values exist, then for most of human history, God has kept objective moral values secret. Only after a few centuries, did Christians figure out that killing for “witchcraft” is wrong. Only after the Civil War forced them, did Southern slave owners give up their slaves.

    Today, the morality of many issues is an open question. Why? Where is God? One conclusion is that God doesn’t exist or God is not all-good.
  • Deus
    320
    To ascribe such properties as good bad to God is missing the point slightly.

    To err is human. Morality then is not simply rule following otherwise perhaps we’d never got out of Eden but as human curiosity is such that everything must be tried to en extent obviously depending on the corruption or deviousness of such beings then morality can be leaned on through other ways.

    To learn it the hard way is of course the natural way I mean do not covet thy neighbours wife is law. But feel free to try it. Once the neighbour starts coveting your wife then you start to understand morality a bit better.

    Go swinging for all I care.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530


    I would say this complements the argument from divine hiddenness.

    Why hide and let us make mistakes that harm our fellow beings, and lead us to damnation? We would still have the free-will to follow or ignore god's advice, so he can't use that as an excuse.
  • Art48
    477
    We would still have the free-will to follow or ignore god's advice, so he can't use that as an excuse.Down The Rabbit Hole
    Correct. One of the Ten Commandments could have been "Thou Shalt Not Enslave."
    Or, thinking outside the box, there could have been eleven commandments.
  • Matias
    85
    I'd say that there are good arguments against the idea of moral realism and moral facts, but introducing God in this question just muddies the waters.
  • Art48
    477
    ↪Art48
    I'd say that there are good arguments against the idea of moral realism and moral facts, but introducing God in this question just muddies the waters
    Matias
    The OP concerns the claim that objective moral values prove Gods existence.
    So, God is part of the claim I'm addressing.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Why do we always have to know what is objectively right and why would God necessarily have to will ubiquitous clarity?
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    I wasn't aware that objective morality or god existed. :wink:

    I've generally held that theists have no objective basis for morality - all they can do is express personal preferences about what they think god wants. Usually by subjectively cherry picking or interpreting scripture. Even within one religion morality is all over the place. Theists do not agree on morality.

    Today, the morality of many issues is an open question. Why? Where is God? One conclusion is that God doesn’t exist or God is not all-good.Art48

    A third option. From a Christian perspective - there are commandments to follow and there are the teachings of Jesus. Humans are flawed and have free will and make bad choices. Morality is all there in your communion with God and in scripture - the fact that humans are inconsistent and weak and choose badly is a problem of people and comes with freedom.

    Or, thinking outside the box, there could have been eleven commandments.Art48

    There are 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    There are 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible.Tom Storm
    :up:

    To suffer is to cry-out for help to – solicit silently or not for – other sufferers to help stop or reduce the suffering. The moral fact. Like hunger: either feed a hungry child or ignore her. So what does a g/G have to do with it? :roll:

    Besides, since g/G is "mysterious" (i.e. inexplicable), to answer "Why do A and not do B?" with "because the Inexplicable (g/G) says so or commands it" only begs the question. When a priest, preacher, imam, rabbi, lay believer or politician says this, in effect, what they are saying is "This is such and such because I say so." :eyes:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    The cost of freedom is evil.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    The cost of freedom is evil.Agent Smith
    Freedom is beyond good and evil.
  • Art48
    477
    I've generally held that theists have no objective basis for morality - all they can do is express personal preferences about what they think god wants. Ususally by subjectively cherry picking or interpreting scripture. Even within one religion morality is all over the place. Theists do not agree on morality.Tom Storm
    Quite true.

    The cost of freedom is evil.Agent Smith
    Are people in heaven free?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Are people in heaven free?Art48

    Good question. Could it be that those who make the cut are the ones who choose good over evil? A selective breeding program, si? Free will? :chin: Hmmmm.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Freedom is beyond good and evil.180 Proof

    Indeed, hence the problem of evil vis-à-vis god?
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    The cost of freedom is evil.Agent Smith

    :up: :sparkle:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    :chin:

    Only good people go to heaven, just like only some dogs/cattle/sheep/pigs are bred.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Only good people go to heaven,Agent Smith

    Only bad people who have redeemed their sins go to the heaven :death: :eyes:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Only bad people who have redeemed their sins go to the heavenjavi2541997

    We must accept our condition as sinners.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    We must accept our condition as sinners.Agent Smith

    :up: :sparkle:

    I am not embarrassed about it
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I am not embarrassed about itjavi2541997

    Cynicism?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    No, self-confidencejavi2541997

    :lol:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    If all there is to this world is this world, the existence of a(n) (omni)benevolent god is doubtful.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    If all there is to this world is this world, the existence of a(n) (omni)benevolent god is doubtful.Agent Smith
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/740227
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k


    Indeed, mon ami, indeed! Without God, everything is sacred!
  • FrankGSterleJr
    94


    Maybe animal-eating is as bad for one's spirit as it seemingly is for one's body.

    Much, if not most, of the plentiful violence committed by humankind is against God’s animals, their blood literally shed and bodies eaten in mind-boggling quantities by people. That fact even leaves me wondering whether the metaphorical forbidden fruit of Eden eaten by Adam and Eve was actually God’s four-legged creation.

    I can see that really angering the Almighty — a lot more than the couple’s eating non-sentient, non-living, non-bloodied fruit. I’ve yet to hear a monotheist speak out against what has collectively been done to animals for so long.

    (Just to be clear, I’m not vegetarian. Though I seldom eat mammal meat, I do enjoy eating prawns or shrimp pretty much on a weekly basis.)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.