Philosophy and doctrine problems

[1Cor29]

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me with the axiological argument and the argument from desire for the existance of God as well as the destiny of infants who die before the age of reason. For the axiological argument, what I’m reflecting on is William Lane Craig and Paul Coban’s essays where they appear to be saying that objective absolute morality = God. Here’re are the links:
leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html
paulcopan.com/articles/can-michael-martin-be-a-moral-realist.html

1.) Axiological argument - It’s my understanding that all athiest moral philosophies fall into ethical relativism. Though is the only way to really escape relativism to have theological metaphysical objective morality? Couldn’t athiest moral philosophy somehow escape subjectivism by naturalism materially forming the illusion of objective moral absolutes in our minds causing us somehow to appeal to them in our everyday lives? How about an objective justice gene? Us creating God in our minds giving off moral commands giving the illusion of objective morality? After all, a society with objective moral absolutes is better for survival.

2.) Argument from desire - I have an innate desire for infinite goodness. Though what would be a good response to the objection that people are just naturally selfish and can never have enough therefore they have this innate desire for infinite goodness? Peter Kreeft, in his book Heaven the Heart’s Deepest Longing, makes a point that the desire for infinite goodness can’t be a product of our mind because we can’t even imagine infinite goodness. Though can’t we comprehend the meaning of infinite goodness since, after all, we’re able to label this innate desire that we have as infinite goodness? Can’t this innate desire for infinite goodness just be an aid to survival since societies that have an optimistic belief in the afterlife have thrived?

3.) Infant salvation - This question is for those who die before the age of reason and how it relates to free will. If these infants die before the age of reason and are in Paradise then what is the purpose of free will on earth? If God gives infants Paradise without choosing Him then why create earth in the first place if he could just give us all Paradise without choosing to love him?

 

[DavidFilmer]

1Cor29:

How about an objective justice gene? Us creating God in our minds giving off moral commands giving the illusion of objective morality?

The problem here is that a person need not believe in God to understand the concept of justice. If we were “genetically wired” to desire justice, we would not need to create excuses for this natural desire (just as we don’t attribute our need for food or companionship to the direct influence of God).

Argument from desire…Peter Kreeft…makes a point that the desire for infinite goodness can’t be a product of our mind because we can’t even imagine infinite goodness… Can’t this innate desire for infinite goodness just be an aid to survival since societies that have an optimistic belief in the afterlife have thrived?

I’ve always thought the Argument from Desire was unconvincing. I cannot imagine infinite wealth, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting it! But I’m not sure history as a whole bears out the premise that societies with an optimistic view of an afterlife fare better than those without.

This question is for those who die before the age of reason and how it relates to free will.

Catholics deal with this question by baptizing infants.

 

[RobNY]

1.) Axiological argument - It’s my understanding that all athiest moral philosophies fall into ethical relativism. Though is the only way to really escape relativism to have theological metaphysical objective morality? Couldn’t athiest moral philosophy somehow escape subjectivism by naturalism materially forming the illusion of objective moral absolutes in our minds causing us somehow to appeal to them in our everyday lives? How about an objective justice gene? Us creating God in our minds giving off moral commands giving the illusion of objective morality? After all, a society with objective moral absolutes is better for survival.

Well, the answer is that a gene would not make anything “objectively right.” It might make us think that is was right, but it would actually make it right.

2.) Argument from desire - I have an innate desire for infinite goodness. Though what would be a good response to the objection that people are just naturally selfish and can never have enough therefore they have this innate desire for infinite goodness? Peter Kreeft, in his book Heaven the Heart’s Deepest Longing, makes a point that the desire for infinite goodness can’t be a product of our mind because we can’t even imagine infinite goodness. Though can’t we comprehend the meaning of infinite goodness since, after all, we’re able to label this innate desire that we have as infinite goodness? Can’t this innate desire for infinite goodness just be an aid to survival since societies that have an optimistic belief in the afterlife have thrived?

I’m not aware of this for certain, but not all societies have a concept of a glorious afterlife.

I’ve always thought the Argument from Desire was unconvincing. I cannot imagine infinite wealth, but that doesn’t stop me from wanting it! But I’m not sure history as a whole bears out the premise that societies with an optimistic view of an afterlife fare better than those without.

You’re saying “I can’t imagine” as a figure of speech-- if you truly want it you must be imagining it, whatever the conception of it must be (even if it is just a silly picture in your head of bars of gold stretching to infinity-- and whatever it is that you desire in this case, you want according to the conception, or symbolized by the conception). As for not being able to imagine infinite happiness-- of course we can’t do that. We know we want it but we can’t put our fingers on it. People think they imagine infinite happiness in sports cars or cash but they never find it there, they only imagine the residue of infinite happiness. Even when we try to imagine infinite happiness in its source, God, we can only vaguely understand. Eye has not seen, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love him, that sort of thing. We know God is this, or holds this, but it remains a mystery what it is. When we imagine infinite happiness we imagine that slice of finite contentment, or rather, that slice of finite joy that we experience here on earth, but we can only imagine however inadequately the feeling, never the cause or source of it.

Of course, you’re also missing the other component of the Argument from Desire-- it must be a natural desire. The desire for happiness is natural, the desire for wealth is not. In fact, the desire for wealth is often generated from a misguided attempt to satisfy the desire for happiness. We continually try to satisfy our desire by pinning it on false solutions, but it never works.

I find the argument from desire subtly convincing. Have I said anything in these last few paragraphs, or have I just blown hot air?