(Originally written March 6, 2007 in Book 13)
Moral Arguments and Objections
The moral argument for God was not posited as a rational argument at first. It was merely used as a practical postulate.
Kant: Positing God out of Moral Necessity
Kant denied any possibility for theoretical proofs of an absolutely perfect being or Necessary Being. But, he did posit God because it was necessary for a God to be to make sense of moral experience.
The unity of happiness (the desire of all man) and morality (what all men ought to do) is Kant's greatest good or summum bonum.
Kant stated that people are unable to reach the summum bonum in this life or without God. Thus, it must be assumed that there is a God and an afterlife.
Rashdall: Positing God is Rationally Necessary
Hastings Rashdall argues that there must be an absolutely perfect moral Mind. He argues that an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist to hold an objective moral law that is independent of individual minds. Since there is an independent and objective moral law an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist.
Sorely: An Expansion of the Moral Argument
W.R. Sorely argues that there is an objective moral law independent of human consciousness despite a lack of conformity to it because:
1) People are conscious of this law
2) People acknowledge its claim on them without actually yielding to it
3) People admit its validity prior to recognizing it
4) No finite mind grasps its fullness
5) All finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning nor conformity to its ideal.
Sorely argues that an objective moral law is an idea and that ideas exist only in minds. Thus, there must be a supreme mind in which this objective moral law exists.
He contends that the moral law is not a formal part of the universe and therefore cannot be accounted for in natural terms.
Trueblood: Further Refinement of the Moral Argument
Elton Trueblood added to the moral argument in the tradition of Rashdall and Sorely.
He argued that there must be an objective moral law because otherwise:
1) There would be no agreement on the meaning of it
2) No ethical disagreements would have ever occurred because each person would be subjectively right.
3) Normal judgment would ever have been wrong
4) No ethical question could even be discussed
5) Contradiction would result
Also, he argued that the moral law is beyond individuals and humanity as a whole.
He stated there must be a Lawgiver that is a moral, personal Mind.
Lewis: Further Expansion of the Moral Argument
C.S. Lewis argued that:
1. There must be a universal moral law because otherwise:
- Disagreements would make no sense
- All criticism are meaningless
- Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary
- We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law
2. This moral law cannot be herd instinct because otherwise:
-The strongest impulse would always win
-We would always act from instinct
-Some instincts would always be right
3. The moral law is not mere convention because:
- Not everything learned is a social convention
- Judgment about moral progress makes sense only if the basis for value judgment is independent of human society
- Variations in value judgments are largely factual, non-moral
4. The moral law cannot be identified with a law of nature because:
- The moral law is not a descriptive 'is' but a prescriptive 'ought'
- Situations factually more convenient are morally worse than these less convenient
- Factually convenient situations can be wrong
5. The moral law cannot be mere fancy
6. The person is the key to understanding this moral law
7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of man which is more like man than anything we know
Russell: Moral Disproof of God
1. If there is a moral law it comes from God's fiat or it does not.
2. If it comes from God's fiat is arbitrary and God is not essentially good
3. If it does not come from God's fiat than God is subject to the moral law and thus, not ultimate
4. Either God is not essentially good or else God is not ultimate
5. Neither an arbitrary God or a less than ultimate God is religiously worthy.
6. Therefore, there is no God who is worthy of religious devotion.
Some theists, following in Ockham's tradition argue that God's fiat is not arbitrary. Other theists, following Aquinas, argue that this is a false disjunction.
Bayle; The Basic Form of the Dilemma
Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) gave the basic logical moral argument against God:
1. Evil exists
2. An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3. A benevolent God would destroy evil.
4. Therefore, since evil is not destroyed then either
-God is omnipotent and malevolent
-God is benevolent but impotent
-God is malevolent and impotent
-God does not exist
Most non theists have not used this a definitive proof because
1. It is possible God is doing something to destroy evil
2. It is possible that there is some greater good achieved by allowing evil.
3. What seems evil may be a part of a greater good.
4. It is possible that it may be contradictory to God's will or man's free will to destroy evil
5. It is possible that God is all-perfect but not all-powerful.
Camus: Theism is contrary to Humanitarianism
Albert Camus claimed that if humanitarianism is right then theism is wrong.
He held that if there is a God, he must be worked against because he is the source of evil.
Other forms of the moral argument against God
Roland Puccetti argued against John H. Hick's defense of theism, stating:
1. There are instances of innocent suffering
2) An all-wise, all-powerful, all-good God would not allow innocent suffering
3. Therefore, such a God does not exist
Puccetti's argument does not logically rule out an all-perfect God.
Innocent suffering is no the same as unrewarded and unredeemed suffering.
It is possible that no suffering is innocent.
There are plausible explanations to why God permits suffering: Even if no theist knows these reasons it may still exist.
If the theistic God exists, there is a good explanation for all suffering.
H.J. McCloskey argued:
1. Either we should work to eliminate suffering or we should not
2. If we should not, then the moral law is wrong
3. If we should, then theism is wrong
4. The moral law is right
5. Therefore, theism is wrong
Moral disproofs of God all appear to be doomed to failure because they must assume some standard of justice from beyond this world.
Even if the anti-theist insists that the moral standard comes from something other than God he must admit a major premise of theism (an objective moral law).
Küng: Exercising Fundamental Thrust
Hans King, a Roman Catholic Theologian offered an argument that is both moral and cosmological:
1. Traditional defenses of God's existence are inadequate
2. Modern atheism is not rationally defensible, but it is not rationally refutable
3. Atheism has given way to nihilism
4. One must choose to affirm reality or deny it and fall into nihilism
5. When we affirm meaningfulness we exercise fundamental trust
6. Reality has not shown itself to be self-grounded
7. We must choose to see reality as grounded in something or not
8. We can say yes to God as the ground of reality.
Küng presents a disjunctive argument. God cannot both exist and not exist; reality cannot both be and not-be meaningful.
King does not demand that we choose God, only that choosing God is a rational decision. But he leaves atheism as a rational, albeit implausible choice as well.
No rationally inescapable moral proofs for God have been offered.
No definitive moral disproof of God has been offered.
The theistic case must demonstrate the plausibility of evil being a condition for a greater good.
When any anti-theist is proof is pressed too far it becomes an argument for God or at least grants a major premise in the theist's argument (objective moral law).
The theistic moral argument depends on the cosmological argument because laws need causes.
No comments:
Post a Comment