Moral Argument for the Existence of God

[Samuel_Maynes]

The following is a brief excerpt of the moral argument contained on the Preview page 2 of my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca.

“Kant’s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can ‘know’ nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

It is for the highest theoretical and practical reasons of systematic unity that we will that the maxim of our actions should conform to a universal law. This objective moral law – the categorical imperative – is expressed personally in the Golden Rule; Do as you would be done by others. In regard to any action of moral significance, this rule prompts the personal question: “How would you like it if somebody did that to you?” In more general terms, the universal categorical imperative boils down to; Act as you would have everyone act, which suggests the universal question regarding the morality of any contemplated action: “What if everybody did that?”

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don’t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do… Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost… etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume’s famous moral question: “Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?” – What’s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God.”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, Kant’s argument has a certain appeal to the intellect and to the emotions.

It doesn’t quite overcome the denial of the atheist, who might not find in the idea of God either emotional or intellectual appeal. Some people simply prefer a nihilistic or if you prefer an existentialist (absurdist) view of life. Why they prefer this view is beyond me.

 

[EasterBeagle]

It reads well, but the only true faith is Catholicism. You have to work that in there somewhere.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

The only true faith is Catholicism. You have to work that in there somewhere.

EasterBeagle, you may have to expand your thinking a bit, but I’m not making this religious pluralism stuff up. Clearly, God has manifested himself through several historic messengers. The diversity of world religions may very well be rooted in the diversity of the divine life itself. Thus, a deeper understanding of the Trinity might include a synthesis of all that God has revealed of himself, as contained in the wisdom of all the world’s major religions.

If you read the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, you will see that I am merely expanding on what is already inherent (but sometimes obscured or hidden) in the orthodox concept of the Trinity. Despite apparent differences, the underlying similarities among religions suggest the possibility that they may all be merely different facets of the same multi-dimensional reality. It is only common sense that the Trinity would reveal itself in three basic religious attitudes to the Absolute. Indeed, when we examine world religions, we see in the personalities they portray and the language they use, a reflection of one or other (or some combination) of the three divine psychological persona.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[orang]

What may be possible is showing atheism in principal to be a contradiction. The secularist determines an ethic from a particular set of standards in motion by the social, for example law and order. In any progressive society there must be an enforceable source of law and order otherwise there will be chaos. Chaos because the human is not perfect gets sick, loss of things, friends, resource’s money and can justify thieving what does not belong by right of way to survive.

Yet the overwhelming percentage of law and order out of known social circumstance’s in history demonstrates a root meaning in a spiritual belief of some kind in a God. An ultimate governing ruler in the order of the setting itself which is not stable, the world and setting is a jungle.

So if the secularist book of rules sets in a pledge to follow the general ethic of the social, and the social is unanimously by choice and percentage a god belief of some kind fueling law and order, the secularist is in conflict by contradiction, of the very source of boundaries it holds to be following. Atheism rejects what it suggests to be governing social ethic itself by the nature of popularity throughout all history in god belief. So rather then argue which is what this is an argument that the God belief is not crucial to a community , the secularists argument, show any secularist recourse to be in a state of contradiction, The creation forged out a reasoning human which is a matter of reflective thinking. That is the value, reflective thinking. The universe didn’t just forge out the human it also forged out a belief idea in a consequence to the reflecting value itself, otherwise the thinking in anything is just a no value consequence and no point can be made in anything because nothing has any value. Then its back to the, there is no reason we exist thing, so the secularist atheist wants to say there is no reason we exist yet install some kind of value for the thinking when it suites. So what happens is the suggestion is a product of nothing and may be ok for the moment as a whim, but has no interest in progress of a thing called human that would like to survive. I think the popular atheist things and the talks and big shot philosophers are just using this as a fad. So I think the pro proff and philosopher’s and all that use the word God so much they have completely forgot the meaning of the word, are just trying to further their career, are full of baloney and a menace to society. For example many many people work very hard all over the world for next to nothing, everywhere, yet the so called some educated want to broadcast to these people who make their fussy life possible "There is No God…or it is even a question. What do they want people to come home and listen to that nonsense for ? A full menace to society.

 

[orang]

Wanted to say not criticizing the link or anything simply getting the exercise of the thought down.

 

[ynotzap]

If we all concede that truth is the object striven after by human intelligence (the object of appetency of our intelligence) You will find conflicting beliefs in many religions eg: many gods. You will also find beliefs that are similar eg: belief in one God, We are speaking about the entire human race We know by experience that humans are limited in their knowledge, even in the most intelligent ones, are subject to error. Just knowing these facts should confirm the fact that any religious human institution is highly or inevitably subject to error, as no human has complete knowledge of the truth, and also is inevitably fallible as no human is perfect, not capable of making mistakes Truth is universal, applying to all reality. And it should apply to all religions, and to all of humanity.

Many religions are like fiction and non-fiction or half-truths, that which is true gives credence to the half that is not true, and people accept it. In fiction, there would be no fiction if it wasn’t for non-fiction because that is where fiction is drawn from. Universal truth is one , all facets of truth should agree. I f each religion was true, there wouldn’t be any contradiction among them. Do we find contradictions, is there One God, or many, are we part of God, did God create us, and just leave us on our own. there are so many contradictions. I s God so divided? Is truth relative, or is it absolute? Eg: If we believe in one God, and knowing we are fallible would He leave us on our own to acquire this universal truth? We believe as Catholics that the Church God founded , was founded by Jesus Christ, God-man and promised the assurance of this universal truth, and to keep it from error. this is our system of belief. We agree with other faiths where we can, and we disagree where we must. Hopefully in the spirit of universal love for all mankind.

I believe it was Lincoln who said “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” I think he was just acknowledging the fact that we were made to know the truth. We see Jesus Christ as the truth, I believe all religions have something of the truth in them, but it must be discerned as to how much is truth, and how much is un-truth, and fiction.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Religious pluralism and tolerance is desirable as a socio-political fact of life in any society.

However, people do not gravitate toward several opposing religions simultaneously. One must choose, because truth is singular, and God does not seek to confuse us. It is possible to choose a bad religion. It is possible to choose a not so bad religion. It is possible to choose a better religion. It is possible to choose the best religion.

We are all driven by this desire to find the best in everything.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

Is truth relative, or is it absolute?

The one categorical imperative – Act as you would have everybody act – is an “objective” (even absolute) moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is a synthetic a priori object of reason, and can be relied upon.

As the great idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, practical reason requires us to “act as if God exists.” For it is not God (whose will it may however be), but reason that gives us the moral law.

Not God, but pure reason dictates, and practical reason authorizes us to assume the prime moral directive expressed personally in the Golden Rule, which is universal among all major religions; and more generally in the One Categorical Imperative, enunciated by the great philosopher. Meditating on the existence and nature of God, human reason naturally and inevitably rises to a divine concept of universal pure practical moral duty, which requires freewill, and can only be perfected in a sequence of lives, with the help of God.

More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality – the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule – and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is “necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force.” Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is “necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force.” Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

The categorical imperative is certainly a universal moral law. But it requires God’s fiat to enforce it. That is why atheists, though many subscribe to this law, cannot find an obligatory foundation for it other than universal consensus and common sense. Absent God, men are free (and many exercise that freedom with impunity) to ignore the categorical imperative of doing to others as we’d have them do unto us. This is why atheism was adopted in the Soviet Union to purge enemies of the state, and why Hitler vowed to destroy Christianity in order to justify hateful and anihilating Nazism.

Both the Nazi State and the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of disobeying with impunity the categorical imperative. Millions of men and women are in prison for the same reason.

 

[Sochi]

It reads well, but the only true faith is Catholicism. You have to work that in there somewhere.

Why? Charlemagne II is right:

…It doesn’t quite overcome the denial of the atheist, who might not find in the idea of God either emotional or intellectual appeal…

I have friends who are avowed atheists from birth, some who have overcome great evil in their lives. Their arguments for being good on the simple basis of reciprocity are both sufficient and unassailable.

I again quote Marcus Aurelius:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

 

[ynotzap]

Act as you would have everybody act" This seems almost subjective, not objective. We know humanity as a whole in not in agreement with the Categorical Imperative. The interpretation of one’s behavior is limited to one’s choice of action, and we know where that can lead You make reference to “Pure Reason” who has that? A fallible and weak humanity inclined to follow the dictates of it passions rather than the dictates of its conscience limited by ignorance is a common phenomenon. Ignorance , and uncontrol feelings, passions are definite osbstacles, to an informed objective conscience.and to pure reason.

A principle used to determine humanity’s moral law
What ever is objectively conducive to man’s well being is good, and right
What ever is not objectively conducive to man’s well being is bad, and wrong

For reasons stated at the beginning of this post humanity is faced with a real moral problem. The Categorical Imperative contains objective truth when it refers to God as being the anchor for morality, but it seems very idealistic, and not really in touch with the reality of the human condition In that sense not objective

Quote “Not God but pure reason dictates, and practical reason etc…” Without God who has pure reason? The Categorical Imperative approach to morality appears to be a humanistic approach to a humanity that is really handicapped when it comes to understanding objective truth and incapable to truly follow the dictates of one’s conscience due to it’s inclination to follow the dictates of it uncontrolled passions and feelings. Again a common human observation, reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have friends who are avowed atheists from birth, some who have overcome great evil in their lives. Their arguments for being good on the simple basis of reciprocity are both sufficient and unassailable.

Their arguments for being good on the basis of reciprocity arise out of the function of reason, a God-given tool for helping us to live the good life. Catholics recognize this natural law basis of morality from St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas. It is a universal law planted in our hearts, which if we violate it brings damnation to us even if we do not know God. That is why atheist recognize this universal law. They would not recognize it if it was not planrted in their hearts by a wise and merciful God. That they will not likewise recognize that the need to worship God is also planted in their hearts is the fundamental defect of atheism. Without this recognition, some atheists could dismiss the natural law called the Golden Rule, and substitute another in its place, such as: “Do unto others before they do it unto you.” Without God’s fiat behind the natural law, one can declare other laws to be natural that really are not. And this is what is happening everywhere today in America and all over the world.

 

[Sochi]

Their arguments for being good on the basis of reciprocity arise out of the function of reason,

This works anywhere, unless someone is condemned for going solely on reason. That condemnation would be faulty.

a God-given tool for helping us to live the good life. Catholics recognize this natural law basis of morality from St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas. It is a universal law planted in our hearts, which if we violate it brings damnation to us even if we do not know God. That is why atheist recognize this universal law. They would not recognize it if it was not planrted in their hearts by a wise and merciful God. That they will not likewise recognize that the need to worship God is also planted in their hearts is the fundamental defect of atheism. Without this recognition, some atheists could dismiss the natural law called the Golden Rule, and substitute another in its place, such as: “Do unto others before they do it unto you.” Without God’s fiat behind the natural law, one can declare other laws to be natural that really are not. And this is what is happening everywhere today in America and all over the world.

This works (is believable) if you are a believer in an Abrahamic deity but has an element added to it that your other post acknowledged wouldn’t work across the board. Reason could call it conjecture.

Somehow there needs to be an acknowledgement that faith and belief of any sort are not knowledge or reason, thought knowledge may be incomplete and pure reason insufficient for aesthetics. Even if faith and belief use reason to connect dots of assumption, faith is not rooted in knowledge as such. It is, after all, called faith for a reason, yes? They just don’t operate in the same theater.

 

[oldcelt]

This works anywhere, unless someone is condemned for going solely on reason. That condemnation would be faulty.

This works (is believable) if you are a believer in an Abrahamic deity but has an element added to it that your other post acknowledged wouldn’t work across the board. Reason could call it conjecture.

Somehow there needs to be an acknowledgement that faith and belief of any sort are not knowledge or reason, thought knowledge may be incomplete and pure reason insufficient for aesthetics. Even if faith and belief use reason to connect dots of assumption, faith is not rooted in knowledge as such. It is, after all, called faith for a reason, yes? They just don’t operate in the same theater.

Agreed. I do not believe that human morality is inserted into us by the Deity, but is a learned skill. Looking across our world throughout history and to this day shows to me a variety of moral codes that have developed in particular areas and cultures, not a singular set, which is what one would expect if they were handed down from on high.

 

[Sochi]

Agreed. I do not believe that human morality is inserted into us by the Deity, but is a learned skill. Looking across our world throughout history and to this day shows to me a variety of moral codes that have developed in particular areas and cultures, not a singular set, which is what one would expect if they were handed down from on high.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Somehow there needs to be an acknowledgement that faith and belief of any sort are not knowledge or reason, thought knowledge may be incomplete and pure reason insufficient for aesthetics. Even if faith and belief use reason to connect dots of assumption, faith is not rooted in knowledge as such. It is, after all, called faith for a reason, yes? They just don’t operate in the same theater.

It’s true that faith is not the same as reason. But that does not mean faith cannot be rooted in reason. The belief in God(s) is faith (because we do not literally see God), but it’s also a reasonable faith in that God(s) explain creation and (God(s) give us a higher destiny that atheism cannot give. All atheism does is put us in a hole with the worms. That is reasonable to the atheist because that is all the atheist sees. He does not see (and apparently does not even want to see) the human soul aspiring to and deserving something better.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Agreed. I do not believe that human morality is inserted into us by the Deity, but is a learned skill. Looking across our world throughout history and to this day shows to me a variety of moral codes that have developed in particular areas and cultures, not a singular set, which is what one would expect if they were handed down from on high.

The variety of moral codes across the world are not proof that there is no single moral impulse that unites them all. In Catholic theology that moral code is called the natural law, which can be generalized as: “Do good and avoid evil.”

One of the principal reasons why moral codes vary in their details across cultures is the evil influence of Satan, who doubtless has been very busy in various cultures leading men astray from the natural law, which is to do good and avoid evil. Thus, the bloody sacrifice of human children in certain ancient cultures, and the sacrifice of humans by the Aztecs in the 15th century and by the Thugees in India until the 19th century, can be viewed as the triumph of Satan over the impulse to do good and avoid evil. In our own time, right here in America, millions of babies have been slaughtered in the womb in the past 50 years, and the very act is protected by law as if it were a sacred obligation to protect it. There is a reason why Harvard University sponsored a Satanic Mass on its campus.

 

[Sochi]

The variety of moral codes across the world are not proof that there is no single moral impulse that unites them all. In Catholic theology that moral code is called the natural law, which can be generalized as: “Do good and avoid evil.”

One of the principal reasons why moral codes vary in their details across cultures is the evil influence of Satan, who doubtless has been very busy in various cultures leading men astray from the natural law, which is to do good and avoid evil. Thus, the bloody sacrifice of human children in certain ancient cultures, and the sacrifice of humans by the Aztecs in the 15th century and by the Thugees in India until the 19th century, can be viewed as the triumph of Satan over the impulse to do good and avoid evil. In our own time, right here in America, millions of babies have been slaughtered in the womb in the past 50 years, and the very act is protected by law as if it were a sacred obligation to protect it. There is a reason why Harvard University sponsored a Satanic Mass on its campus.

I can understand your moral outrage about those things. And as you know, your list could be much longer through our rather vulgar history. Notably, you have avoided listing any of the incidents perpetrated by our own Church, that others not of the Faith would include in your list. Or perhaps those weren’t due to the influence of Satan? But it all merits a closer look.

In its simplest terms, “Do good and avoid evil” is the survival imperative of every living creature:“Good” = survival, “Evil” = pain, suffering or death. So definitely yes, it is a code of Natural Law. There is nothing new or not universal about that. Making what gets plugged in to those two words is a matter of local necessity modified by many factors. That dynamic holds up even in “evil” people thus: an abused child may see one of two choices when it grows up: continue to be the victim and continue to suffer and perhaps die, or take the example of the abuser and be in control. That’s not the devil, that is habituation, and limited imprinting, as any useful clinical psychologist will tell you.

It has been noted that serial killers have the the highest sense of self esteem. On an national scale this can happen as well: Many Americans continue to yell “We’re #1!” when by all measurable standards we are somewhere around 17th>20th, or worse, among developed nations. Any entity always and primarily thinks of itself as good. It has no choice, even if it has perceptions or remorse about having done bad things. In fact, clinically, to think of oneself as even generally bad, or completely bad indicates pathology.

So you may be a liberal or a tea bagger but you are convinced that what you are doing, or stand for, is “good.” And if an alien was confronted with all of the religions of the world, including the some 40,000 christianist ones, what would be notable at first look is that they all claim to be the one true way. And each claims its pedigree of verification and sticks to it, save for the kinds and degrees of changes of perception in some adherents.

If there is a devil, it is the state of infantile egoism that puts an individual’s sense of self importance above that of their companions. In fact we regard as hero or saint the person who has transcended, outgrown, or put aside their own well being for the sake of others. Heck, that holds even in groups that send out suicide missions or elevate a Hitler or a Stalin. That is to say that the good/evil dynamic is hard wired, yet its contents are a matter of acquired “software.” Overall, it is simply a manifestation of the survival imperative that in some or many cases is matured into a distribution of the sense of “self” over increasingly larger groups, from family to Nation to planet, to God.

It can actually be said that the Golden Rule in is several forms is an expression of a mature sense of survival in that it requires the identification of the individual to include what might be “another,” even a perceived enemy, in the category of “self.” Perhaps many on here are familiar with the dictum “Love thy neighbor as thy self/thyself!” (In write Hebrew there are no spaces, vowels, capitalizations, or punctuation. Might have an effect on some translations, yes?)

The point is, that as many mystics have delineated, Catholic and otherwise, the closer the sense of one’s sense of identification approaches what is held as God, the more inclusive of Creation the individual becomes, and that has its consequences both in perception and action.

In fact, there are many who claim that the Catholic mystics either didn’t go far enough with this, or were restricted from being completely forthright as to the actualities of this state, due to fear of censure, or worse, from the Church. The fascinating and remarkable Catholic woman, Bernadette Roberts has some very useful observations about this.

So yes, I agree that to do good and avoid evil is a natural imperative. In it’s most mature experiential form, that might even be seen to stem from beyond the perception of such a duality.

 

[Sochi]

It’s true that faith is not the same as reason. But that does not mean faith cannot be rooted in reason. The belief in God(s) is faith (because we do not literally see God), but it’s also a reasonable faith in that God(s) explain creation and (God(s) give us a higher destiny that atheism cannot give. All atheism does is put us in a hole with the worms. That is reasonable to the atheist because that is all the atheist sees. He does not see (and apparently does not even want to see) the human soul aspiring to and deserving something better.

If there is reasoning from know data, it is called reasoning, inductive or deductive. And that still depends on the accuracy or completeness of the data. It is why we had phlogiston theory until we knew better and why scientists don’t do God experiments. But the scientific method is telelological and can be properly called “reasoning.” Reasoning, no mater how astute, applied to parochial conjectures of any alleged god are properly called “rationalization.” That doesn’t mean any particular religion it isn’t helpful or harmful to its adherents, only that any religion is not properly derived as a matter of reason, but by conjecture (even from leading data,) inculcation, or personal preference. That is neither science or reasoning in a strict sense. Questionable premise =questionable conclusion. This is even true of most social “science.” which is science only in that statistics are involved and there is reasoning about them. (soft science.) Reasoning can be done from many premises, some of them relatively true.