William Lane Craig: Objective Moral Values Do Exist

[MindOverMatter2]

I think it is self evident that raping a child isn’t just socaily disadvantages; it is really and trully evil. It is not just a socail taboo; it is an abomination which exists not just in my subjective opinion, but rather it is evident in the very nature of the act itself. It is at least self evident to me that some things really are wrong, whether people agree or not. People who say otherwise are either metally ill, or, they are purposely supressing the knowledge of that which is self evident in order to serve some other self gratfying ideology or artificail purpose; which is quite sick in itself.

Of course the evidence is not something that can be arrived at by inductive reasoning alone because moral truth has a meaning that is experential, and must be experienced by a personal nature inorder to know of it. Thus one can deny its existence while having knowledge of it and after a period of time induce ignorance of it; that is to say, dull ones senses and thus ones knowledge in regards to the objective meaning of that type of experience. In otherwords become psycologically detached from the meaning of that experience in such a way that you nolonger regognise the meaning of that experience.

The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth. This is no different to the fact that one cannot reason to the existence of emotions without first having a personal experience of them, because it is by that expereince alone that we know of their existence. Yet nobody would deny the existence of them, mainly for the fact that they have nothing to loose by admiting that emotions exist.

Heres a clip from william.

youtube.com/watch?v=TQR06rDlKfc

 

[tonyrey]

…they have to admit and be true to themselves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfilled according to a standard of objective moral truth.

Polonius:
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!” (Hamlet)

If right and wrong are subjective then so are true and false!

 

[Joel_PF]

That honesty to one’s deepest personal experience is the reason why no-one can be a consistent nihilist or a pure relativist; the clear knowledge of objective values always crepts back in. And that is also why “ends-justify-means” ethics like utilitarianism always leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouths when taken to their logical conclusions. No-one can truly believe them deep down. The knowledge of the first principles of practical reason cannot be erased from man’s mind.

 

[shoe]

I believe that objective moral values exist as well. Most cultures around the world, if not all cultures, seem to know and accept the moral truth that child abuse, murder, stealing, etc., are wrong. And this universal understanding and realization of these wrong actions as being morally wrong everywhere at all times can therefore be neither part of our biological makeup nor something we learned through the school of trial and error. And because morals are everywhere at all times and are above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time itself, it would seem that morals are indeed objective to our nature and can only come from the One - in my humble opinion, God - who is above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time. Thanks for sharing the clip.

 

[tonyrey]

That honesty to one’s deepest personal experience is the reason why no-one can be a consistent nihilist or a pure relativist; the clear knowledge of objective values always crepts back in. And that is also why “ends-justify-means” ethics like utilitarianism always leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouths when taken to their logical conclusions. No-one can truly believe them deep down. The knowledge of the first principles of practical reason cannot be erased from man’s mind.

It’s ironic that “humanists” regard believers as guilty of wishful thinking but they** live** in a world of make-believe!

 

[belorg]

I believe that objective moral values exist as well. Most cultures around the world, if not all cultures, seem to know and accept the moral truth that child abuse, murder, stealing, etc., are wrong. And this universal understanding and realization of these wrong actions as being morally wrong everywhere at all times can therefore be neither part of our biological makeup nor something we learned through the school of trial and error. And because morals are everywhere at all times and are above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time itself, it would seem that morals are indeed objective to our nature and can only come from the One - in my humble opinion, God - who is above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time. Thanks for sharing the clip.

No, God is not independent of individuals, He is an individual. So how can objective morality come from an individual?.

 

[Joel_PF]

Because morality issues from the nature of man and the world, and not from anyone’s desires.

 

[shoe]

No, God is not independent of individuals, He is an individual. So how can objective morality come from an individual?.

Morals (honesty, truth, love, etc.) are a reflection of the inherent character and nature of God. God’s morals, like God Himself, are transcendent; that is to say His morals transcend space and time. I believe that the transcendent character and nature of God is the source of morals, which is the reason that we see across almost every culture the universal belief that raping a child, for example, is wrong.

 

[belorg]

Morals (honesty, truth, love, etc.) are a reflection of the inherent character and nature of God. God’s morals, like God Himself, are transcendent; that is to say His morals transcend space and time. I believe that the transcendent character and nature of God is the source of morals, which is the reason that we see across almost every culture the universal belief that raping a child, for example, is wrong.

Yes, but for this to work, the inherent character and nature of God must be ‘good’, something for which there is no real argument.

And it seems the idea that raping a child is wrong is about the only thing that is universally agreed upon.

That is not the case with e.g. murder, which is condoned and sometimes even seen as a command from God.

Anorther problem is that my moral intuition says that raping a child would be wrong even if God didn’t exist or ceased to exist. That wouldn’t make a shred of difference, and I think it wouldn’t make any difference to you either. This tells me that morality is not based on some transcendent law-giver,

 

[tonyrey]

Anorther problem is that my moral intuition says that raping a child would be wrong even if God didn’t exist or ceased to exist. That wouldn’t make a shred of difference, and I think it wouldn’t make any difference to you either. This tells me that morality is not based on some transcendent law-giver,

What you call your moral intuition is the result of your upbringing in a post-Christian society. Do you think **everyone **throughout history who raped a child knew it is morally wrong?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, but for this to work, the inherent character and nature of God must be ‘good’, something for which there is no real argument.

The immense value of existence demonstrates that the Creator must be good. Moreover evil is ultimately self-destructive rather than creative.

 

[razredge]

What you call your moral intuition is the result of your upbringing in a post-Christian society. Do you think **everyone **throughout history who raped a child knew it is morally wrong?

Of course not, atheists simply cannot make statements on morality (besides what their own personal views are) without being intellectualy dishonest.

We may believe in a ‘God Delusion’ but an atheist pontificating on morality believes in an equally problematic ‘Moral Delusion’.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Anorther problem is that my moral intuition says that raping a child would be wrong even if God didn’t exist or ceased to exist. That wouldn’t make a shred of difference, and I think it wouldn’t make any difference to you either. This tells me that morality is not based on some transcendent law-giver,

Given the existential and essential nature of human experiences and the knowledge of their meaning, you admit that objective moral values exist. Surely you are not incapable of understanding that this can only imply that people have knowledge of general “moral truths” regardless of his or her “knowledge” of Gods existence. This does not neccestate that God is not the source moral truth. What it does imply is that you are ignorant of the source; perhaps wilfully. This is an epistemological limitation, not neccesarily an existential one. That you have failed to identify the existence of moral knowledge with the being that is called God in no way implies that Moral truth is something existentailly distinct from what is genrally understood by Christians to be God.

You have failed to understand the objective meaning of moral truth. You have a superficail understanding of it, which is demonstrated by your failure to regognise that some actions have contextual distintions, and thus the moral meaning of them changes when placed in different contexts. An action can be wrong in one situation and yet be a virtue in another. Protecting the lives of your family is a moral good, even if it results in the unfortunate death of an attacker; because you are protecting what is good, and that is love because you have a duty to protect what is good. However, killing somebody for material gain alone is immoral, because its a selfish act completly ignoring the dignity and value of the victim. The contextual meaning changes and thus so does the value of the action.

Human beings are limited in knowedge and wisdom. Therefore if left to their own devices, morality can become a complex issue for them, and they can make mistakes, they can miss match context and meaning; especailly when they have ignorance of the over arching ultimate purpose that is intrinsic to morality. When you understand morality within the proper context of God, the meaning of some actions change; for example the inconsistent moral belief in abortion becomes wrong because it undermines the intrinisic value of an embryos development - given to it by its creator - in vitue of the teleological end to which the embryo is in act. When the value of things are understood in term of their existential purpose, our understanding of what is morally good can change, because an addtional context is now known and thus effects the meaning of the action given in that context. Therefore context is very important when determining what is right and wrong.

Morality is teleogical, and is meaningless outside of the teleological end for which things where created. To be moral is to conform to a specific end for which the existence of your nature is in act and ought to follow. The rational link between ones experience of objective moral values and the existence of what Christians understand to be God can be demonstrated logically. But it seems evident to me at least, given the fact that you failed to distinguish between categories of knowledge and existence, that a logical demonstration would be entirely wasted on you.

 

[belorg]

What you call your moral intuition is the result of your upbringing in a post-Christian society. Do you think **everyone **throughout history who raped a child knew it is morally wrong?

No, I don’t. And as a matter of fact, I don’t think the God of the OT thought it was moraaly wrong either.
So, is it a truly objective moral value or not? I do not know. But if it is an objective moral value, it is so regardless of whether God exists or not.

 

[belorg]

Given the existential and essential nature of human experiences and the knowledge of their meaning, you admit that objective moral values exist. Surely you are not incapable of understanding that this can only imply that people have knowledge of general “moral truths” regardless of his or her “knowledge” of Gods existence. This does not neccestate that God is not the source moral truth. What it does imply is that you are ignorant of the source; perhaps wilfully. This is an epistemological limitation, not neccesarily an existential one. That you have failed to identify the existence of moral knowledge with the being that is called God in no way implies that Moral truth is something existentailly distinct from what is genrally understood by Christians to be God.

No it doesn’t imply that, but if your intuition leads you to God, mine doesn’t, so what’s the value of intuitions?

You have failed to understand the objective meaning of moral truth. You have a superficail understanding of it, which is demonstrated by your failure to regognise that some actions have contextual distintions, and thus the moral meaning of them changes when placed in different contexts. An action can be wrong in one situation and yet be a virtue in another. Protecting the lives of your family is a moral good, even if it results in the unfortunate death of an attacker; because you are protecting what is good, and that is love because you have a duty to protect what is good. However, killing somebody for material gain alone is immoral, because its a selfish act completly ignoring the dignity and value of the victim. The contextual meaning changes and thus so does the value of the action.

If you are going to insult me, I’ll back off. I’m here for an irenic discussion, and I am not going to waste my time reacting to somebody who obviously thinks his superior morality gives him the right to offend people.

There isn’t any sort of argument to discuss here, only bare assertions anyway.

 

[belorg]

Of course not, atheists simply cannot make statements on morality (besides what their own personal views are) without being intellectualy dishonest.

We may believe in a ‘God Delusion’ but an atheist pontificating on morality believes in an equally problematic ‘Moral Delusion’.

It may very well be true that absolute morality cannot exist under an atheist worldview, but it cannot exist under a theist worldview either, so we are both equally deluded, except that I have never claimed that objective morality exists.

 

[Joel_PF]

It may very well be true that absolute morality cannot exist under an atheist worldview, but it cannot exist under a theist worldview either, so we are both equally deluded, except that I have never claimed that objective morality exists.

Of course you make that claim.
Whenever you feel outraged upon learning of a sexual abuse against a child you feel that it is objectively wrong, and not that “this is against my arbitrary opinion”.

Absolute, objective morality exists both under theism and atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

What you call your moral intuition is the result of your upbringing in a post-Christian society. Do you think **everyone **

They may be confused or brainwashed!

We may believe in a ‘God Delusion’ but an atheist pontificating on morality believes in an equally problematic ‘Moral Delusion’.

Precisely! They constantly bring up the Problem of Evil but never bring up the Problem of Good!

 

[tonyrey]

No, I don’t. And as a matter of fact, I don’t think the God of the OT thought it was morally wrong either.

The God of the OT is not identical with the God of the NT.

So, is it a truly objective moral value or not? I do not know. But if it is an objective moral value, it is so regardless of whether God exists or not.

If you tell people you don’t know whether raping a child is objectively morally wrong no one would trust you with a child!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No it doesn’t imply that, but if your intuition leads you to God, mine doesn’t, so what’s the value of intuitions?.

I never said anything about intuitions. Thats a strawman that you decided to make up about me; lukily for me i know deception when i see it. In any case, your intuition hasn’t lead you to your conclusion, but instead your faulty reasoning has, which i exposed in the last post.

So, in some instances rape isn’t wrong?

How do you go from my saying that “some” actions are contextual, to my suggesting that “in some instances rape isn’t wrong?” Not once have i ever said that in some instances rape is morally correct behavior. Again, this is the fualty reasoning that i am taking about. Could it be that i also smell a deceptive attempt to take something i said out of context. Or perhaps you are just a flawed thinker; in which case, apoligees. I must point out however, that your “awareness” of the fact that some actions such as raping children is always wrong is revealed to me in the fact that you asked the question. We are just waiting for you to be honest to your self and admit that there is a transcedent objective moral law.

Sure it is, but what is your point?

If you can’t see, then i can’t help you with that.

Well, by all means, demonstrate it, then.

The nature of your replies suggest to me that such a demonstration is not really what you want, and you will simply deny the conclusion regardless of how reasonable or logically neccesary it is. I am not going to waste my time. If you are trully dedicated to knowing the true source of objective moral law, then you will work it out for yourself, just as i did.

I am not going to waste my time reacting to somebody

Then why did you?

There isn’t any sort of argument to discuss here, only bare assertions anyway.

No assertions were made by me, although the nature of my arguement can be twisted in such a way that it can be made to appear so to weaker thinkers. Like i said, when it comes to experiencing moral truth, it requires honesty on the part of the experiencer to admit that they have knowledge of objective moral law. If you have ever experienced something that is Wrong or something that is Virtuous, then you will know what i mean. But perhaps you have never experienced right and wrong. Perhaps as an atheist you do not know the general difference between right and wrong. You do not know moral truth. If so, again my apoligees.

However, i think we all know deep down what the truth is.