For my MCCC Philosophy of Religion students:
The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality, by William Lane Craig
1. State Craig's argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is a logically valid argument, which means: if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true.
2. Define "Objective Moral Value"
a. By "objective moral value" (OMV) we mean: a moral value that is true independently of what people think of it. Thus, if it is true, it is true for everyone. Like, e.g., the statement The lights in this room are on. If that statement is true, then it is true for everyone; if it is false then it is false for everyone.
3. How does Craig defend P1?
a. Craig cites a number of atheists who admit that, on their atheism, ethics is illusory. For example, Craig cites atheist ethicist Richard Taylor:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is a logically valid argument, which means: if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true.
2. Define "Objective Moral Value"
a. By "objective moral value" (OMV) we mean: a moral value that is true independently of what people think of it. Thus, if it is true, it is true for everyone. Like, e.g., the statement The lights in this room are on. If that statement is true, then it is true for everyone; if it is false then it is false for everyone.
3. How does Craig defend P1?
a. Craig cites a number of atheists who admit that, on their atheism, ethics is illusory. For example, Craig cites atheist ethicist Richard Taylor:
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.2
Taylor concludes,
Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.3b. Most philosophical-intellectual atheists are physicalists. If reality is only physical, then of course morality does not exist, since "morals" are not observed in sheer physical matter.
3. How does Craig defend P2?
Many atheists agree that OMVs exist. Use the Michael Ruse example in the essay: Anyone who thinks it is not wrong to torture and rape children for fun is just as mistaken as someone who thinks 2+2=5.
OMVs function as "properly basic beliefs." A properly basic belief is one that we believe to be true without being able to evidentially prove it. Examples are: 1+1=2, and I see a car coming towards me (Implying that My senses provide reliable information about the outside world.). Even though we can't prove either of these statements to be true, we are rational in believing them until we are given a good reason not to.
For example we know that Racism is wrong. We apprehend this to be true. So, moral values are apprehended. Like we apprehend, by sense experience, that the lights are either on or off. Moral values function like "properly basic beliefs."
Both atheists and theists recognize that OMVs exist. This is not surprising if God exists. If humans are God’s image-bearers, then it’s not surprising that they are capable of recognizing or knowing the same sorts of moral values – whether theists or not.
[Note: Theistic philosopher Paul Copan writes: “We possess an in-built “yuck factor” - basic moral intuitions about the wrongness of torturing babies for fun, of raping, murdering, or abusing children. We can also recognize the virtue of kindness or selflessness, the obligation to treat others as we would want to be treated, and the moral difference between Mother Teresa and Josef Stalin. Those not recognizing such truths as properly basic are simply wrong and morally dysfunctional.”]
For more see:
For more see:
