Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense (page 8)

eric356

All of this "God is truthfulness" and "God defines (insert quality)" just sounds like total nonsense to me. How is god an abstract quality? Last time I heard the average theist talk about it, god is some sort of all-supreme, disembodied superbeing. What does "God is love" or "God is truthfullness" actually mean? It just seems like a way of avoiding the unsavory implications of divine command theory. Saying that moral absolutes are just "God's nature" just pushes the problem back one step. Why is God's nature a particular way? Could it have been different? Is his nature the result of some logical rule? Can he decide his nature? (Lots of God's free will, eternal, omnipotent incoherence problems with this type of theism.) All of this is hand-waving.

Extra credit: Does god need to exist for mathematical statements true? Just as you claim that there needs to be a divine lawgiver for morality to exists, does there have to be a cosmic mathematician for 1+1=2?

"In the meantime, you can live off our (unexplainable to you) morality until you manage to figure out something better"

Who, exactly is the "our" in this sentence? Are you part of a group of roving moral philosophers? Surely you can't be talking about some mythical "Judeo-Christian ethic" which has, in reality, been shaped by many forces in society and definitely improved (according to most people) over time.

simon17

Why can't we just say there are no objective moral values and be done with it?

Is rape wrong? Why can't I say "it depends on who you ask. In the cosmic sense, the act of rape may not be a significant thing one way or another. However, rape causes emotional suffering. From an evolutionary standpoint, it does not benefit a group to cause suffering and pain among members of your own species. So nature has taken most of the inclination to think of rape as "positive or good" out of our genetic makeup. In addition, our society cannot function if rape were allowed. We consider it illegal and we physically remove rapists from society (perhaps even killing them). So based on societal and evolutionary preferences, rape is a bad thing to do."

Is it possible to have a people that consider rape acceptable? I don't know. Civilization existed a long time with slavery as an institution. We currently live in a society that breeds countless animals into a life of torture, hopelessness and execution. I'm sure there are civilizations which could be envisioned which would consider that "objectively morally wrong" and yet we do not.

WLC would probably consider homosexuality to be objectively wrong in God's view. And yet society is changing its view on that, even though it was a cursed thing for thousands of years, perhaps viewed AS BAD or WORSE than rape. So even what humans "think" is an objective value might change.

I argue that there are no objective values.

Ding

Simon17,

If your son asks you, "Is rape really wrong?" are you going to say, "It depends on who you ask. Cosmically, it's insignificant" and then talk about societal disadvantages and the lack of evolutionary advantage that would come from allowing rape?

Or are you just going to say, "Yes, son, rape really is wrong"?

eric356

simon, I think there is a fairly decent probability that you are correct, for certain definitions of objective. I don't think it's very plausible that "moral absolutes" are just floating out there in nature like Platonic forms or something. To me, objective morality only makes sense as the best set of rules for a particular species of social animals. If humans were different, and (somehow) enjoyed being hurt, raped, lied to, or enslaved, then the "objective" morality would be different.

simon17

Simon17,

If your son asks you, "Is rape really wrong?" are you going to say, "It depends on who you ask. Cosmically, it's insignificant" and then talk about societal disadvantages and the lack of evolutionary advantage that would come from allowing rape?

Or are you just going to say, "Yes, son, rape really is wrong"?

What I tell my son is irrelevant.

To answer your question anyway, of course I'm not going to tell a little kid what I just typed. Just like people don't tell their children the gory details of "where do babies come from." Just like even adults make up stories about where the dead go and how happy they are and such. Just because we lie to little children or to ourselves about what we would like to be true or what we feel should be true... it doesn't make it true.

Beyond that, in our society, the way we have developed it IS wrong. So there is actually not an inconsistency in my saying to a child that rape is wrong. Is it an absolute TRUTH that rape is wrong? That I can't say, but it doesn't effect one iota of how I function as a human being.

bohm

PS

I would like to slide my tounge over Adriana Lima's body and since I would be ok with her doing it to me, it's all good, right?

uhm no i dont believe that. and you know it. i form my moral judgements mainly on gut-feeling, the principle i would invoke there was: "She would not like it".

but i have allready said my moral system is not a very sound one.

i freely admit this. but you cant use my lack of coherent moral system as evidence God exist.

im not trying to convert you, im trying to examine the moral argument because i just think i figured out why its wrong: (1) it shift the burden of evidence and (2) it does not really provide an explanation for absolute morals in itself, its just a fancy way of saying: absolute morals exist.

bohm

Ding:

Could God have been different? I don't think so, because He is self-existent and uncaused. God is who He is and has been so from eternity past. Why is He the way He is and not otherwise? I don't know. I don't even know if that question has meaning when referring to God. It may be like asking, "What number is 1/0?"

I don't think God chose to be truthful. It's just a part of who He is and who He always has been. "Truthfulness" was not a pre-existing quality that someone taught Him or imparted into Him. He didn't grow into truthfulness. "Truthfulness" wasn't an external quality that God chose to adopt. God's character defines truthfulness and thereby gives it its existence.

But your answer is equivalent to: "Truthfulness is good because thats how the boss just happends to be". its not a good explanation, because why is the boss the way he is? what if the boss were different?

my answer was a shrug on the shoulders, but so far i dont see why God provide any good explanation for why absolute morals exist.

Ding

God is the ultimate judge of what is moral and not moral and His judgment is based on conformity or lack of conformity with His character.

simon17

God is the ultimate judge of what is moral and not moral and His judgment is based on conformity or lack of conformity with His character.

So perhaps you could enlighten us with some specific examples of objective morality. For the following, please tell me if it is a) absolutely and objective bad; b) absolutely and objectively good or c) depends on the situation (i.e., subjective).

1- Homosexuality

2- Abortion

3- Slavery

4- Genocide

Ding

What do the scriptures say?

How do you read them?

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

Share this