The core theme is that the best moral argument against atheism is not about whether individuals can act morally without God, but rather that the existence of objective morality, particularly concerning puzzling moral facts like the intrinsic value of certain human lives and the wrongness of specific sexual acts, is best explained by the existence of God.
Mind Map
คลิกเพื่อขยาย
คลิกเพื่อสำรวจ Mind Map แบบอินเตอร์แอคทีฟฉบับเต็ม
In today's episode, we're going to talk
about the best moral argument against
atheism. And to help us do that, I've
asked non-theistic PhD candidate Joe
Schmid from Majesty of Reason to review
today's script to make sure all the
philosophical ground is covered
properly. First, we have to remember
that just as there is no single
cosmological argument for God's
existence, an argument from the origin
of the universe, there is no single
moral argument for God's existence.
Instead, there are a collection of
arguments that all agree there is
something about morality, good and evil,
right and wrong, that points to the
existence of God. And because of this,
you're going to have better and worse
arguments. The absolute worst arguments
are usually Reddit level summaries that
most Christians don't even use. These
are arguments like you can't be good
without God or you can't have morality
without God. But the moral argument is
not saying belief in God is necessary to
act in moral ways. That's a bold claim
given that there are many people who
don't believe in God that still act in
moral ways. The argument would be better
rephrased, you can be good without God,
but you can't have good without God.
That way, we move the focus away from
personal conduct and towards the strange
properties associated with morality. The
moral argument is also not making the
simplistic claim that it's impossible to
have morality without God. Setting aside
questions of onlogical existence, you
can have morality without God in the
same way you can have football without
God. Morality would just be a series of
mutually agreed upon rules to make the
game of life more enjoyable for everyone
to play. A better summary would be that
the moral argument claims you cannot
have objective morality without God. CS
Lewis made this kind of argument famous
in his book Mere Christianity which was
based on a series of radio addresses.
These were meant for the common
Englishman during World War II which is
probably why Lewis avoided more
technical arguments like the
cosmological contingency argument which
his contemporary father Coppelston used
in his debate with Bertrren Russell. A
few months ago I published an episode
surveying what 150 Christian thinkers
Catholic and Protestant thought was the
best argument for God's existence. The
majority said the cosmological argument
was the best, and I agree it's the best
logically at supporting a being with
divine attributes existing. But often
regular people's eyes start to glaze
over when you talk about contingency or
the paradoxes of an infinite past for
the universe. So the moral argument can
be more helpful to share with regular
people. CS Lewis began mere Christianity
with the moral argument by describing
people arguing over things like who
deserves a seat on the bus and that both
people who argue in these cases appeal
to some standard of morality that
transcends their individual opinions.
Lewis also pointed out that even if
cultures disagree about morality, that
supports his argument because that means
there's something objective for them to
disagree about. He writes, "If your
moral ideas can be truer and those of
the Nazis less true, there must be
something, some real morality for them
to be true about. The reason why your
idea of New York can be truer or less
true than mine is that New York is a
real place existing quite apart from
what either of us thinks." Lewis goes on
to say his argument isn't getting within
a 100 miles of the God of Christian
theology, just that it shows there is
something which is directing the
universe. But among philosophers and
even lay people, the moral argument can
fall flat. First, moral philosophers
point out that even if Lewis is right,
that there are objective moral truths,
God isn't necessarily the best
explanation of them. John Beaver Slooh
in his booklength critique of CS Lewis
says other options include Platonism,
oralianism, stoicism, hedonism, natural
law theories, canonism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism,
actontology, rule deontology, virtue
ethics. Eric Wheelenberg, the author of
Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe,
says a better explanation than God is
that there are necessary moral truths,
statements about morality that are
always true. For example, it's wrong to
cause pain for pain's sake, is something
that is just always true, like how 2
plus 2 always equals 4. You can see this
brute fact approach in interactions
between lay people and Christians when
Christians ask, "Why is it objectively
wrong to do something evil like rape or
murder someone?" In response, the
critics say, "Because it's bad to cause
pain without a good reason, and it's bad
to do bad things." The idea that
morality is objective, because there are
objective truths about reducing
suffering and improving the well-being
of conscious creatures, is the primary
thesis of atheist Sam Harris's book, The
Moral Landscape. He says, "Science, the
study of what is, can prove morality, or
what ought to be in this way." Now, it's
often said that science cannot give us a
foundation for morality and human values
because science deals with facts and
facts and values seem to belong to
different spheres.
It's often thought that there's no
description of the way the world is that
can tell us how the world ought to be.
But I think this is quite clearly untrue.
untrue.
But values are a certain kind of fact.
Okay? They they are facts about the
well-being of conscious creatures. Why
is it that we don't have ethical
obligations toward rocks? Why don't we
feel compassion for rocks? It's because
we don't think rocks can suffer.
>> You see a similar pattern in this
exchange between Charlie Kirk and Kyle
Beavenon that I covered in my previous episode.
episode.
>> You know that zygote is not capable of
suffering as far as we know.
>> So you're by again by what moral
standard? Is that just your opinion?
Where did you get that moral standard from?
from?
>> Because suffering is a bad thing. We all
know suffering is a bad thing. That's an
objective fact, right?
>> Hold on. So, okay. So, you do believe in
objective morality.
>> I believe that suffering is an
objectively negative.
>> So, if you if you can't feel it, is it okay?
okay?
>> So, when Christians ask, "Why is it
wrong to cause suffering for no good
reason?" Non-Christians might just look
at them like they're crazy for missing a
self-evident fact about the universe,
not that the Christian has pointed out a
flaw in their own worldview. Here's an
exchange between atheist Dean Withers
and a caller that shows this.
>> Let's say you're right. I'll grant that
you're right. and he's on the list and
all the things and you're right about
all the accusations you've been making.
Why is it wrong that he did those
things? Trump in particular, why is it
wrong that he did those things? [laughter]
[laughter]
>> Because child rape is wrong. >> Why?
>> Can you answer that?
>> Because you're raping a child.
>> Yeah. What is wrong about that? What is
Are you asking me why it's wrong to rape children?
children?
>> Yeah, I need to I need you to tell me
why it is wrong in your eyes
>> to rape children
>> to do that.
>> Yes. Did you do you need me to repeat it?
it?
>> I'm not I'm not going to give you more
of an explanation than that because if I
do need to give you more of an
explanation than that,
then you need to be on a list. I think
Withers thought the caller was saying
Trump being involved in an Epstein
scandal is okay because maybe violating
children isn't wrong. That would be an
insane level of idolatry on behalf of
Trump. That would certainly belong in my
previous episode on that topic if that's
what he meant. But I suspect the caller
was trying to pull the rug out from
under Withers and say that he can't
complain about Trump allegedly being
involved in violating children because
Withers as an atheist cannot even
explain under his own worldview why
violating children is objectively wrong
in the first place. The problem with
this approach though is that it might
have a hard time getting off the ground
and getting over the response that well
it's just a brute fact or it's
self-evidently true that you ought not
do such a horrible thing or that this is
wrong or I may not be able to respond to
the claim that morality flows from a
thing's objective nature apart from God
as argued in Kuneo Bergen and Schaefer
Landau's new book the moral universe so
I'd like to offer a better approach the
best moral argument for God's existence
focuses on being modest
and zeroing in on the most puzzling
moral facts to explain from a naturalist
perspective. It's modest in that it
doesn't try to say it will prove beyond
a shadow of a doubt that God exists.
Instead, it says that God is the best
explanation for many strange features
about morality rather than just the
generic concept of morality itself. In
fact, it's more of an argument about the
moral poverty of secularism that opens
the door for God than a strict argument
for God from morality. For example, most
people think murder is objectively wrong
because it's wrong to cause suffering
for no good reason. And murder does
that. Even if the person is murdered in
his sleep, people would still cite the
suffering to family members and friends
or the frustration of the murder
victim's plans as objective reasons
murder is wrong. But suffering is a
species neutral category. It's more
puzzling to explain why we should treat
human beings who have less rationality
and thus less capacity for suffering as
being victims of murder having intrinsic
dignity than we would treat the killing
of nonhuman animals like dogs that are
more rational than some disabled or
underdeveloped humans. In my debate with
Destiny on the Whatever podcast, Destiny
conceded that his worldview could not
condemn in principle intentionally
altering fetuses in the womb so that
they could be used as brainless organ
farms or even as toddler SCEX dolls.
Jeff McMahon, a respected pro-choice
philosopher, says it would be
permissible to kill a healthy orphaned
newborn to use his organs to save three
sick children. McMahon admits, "Most
people will find this implication
intolerable, and I confess that I cannot
embrace it without significant
misgivings and considerable unease."
Now, many secular philosophers oppose
infanticide, but their reasons become
specious when they try to carve out an
exception for abortion. They often say
infanticide is wrong because newborns
are close to being persons or that other
people would want to adopt these
children or that killing newborns would
make society more disrespectful towards
human life. arguments that also apply to
unborn humans, which the critic would
reject as reasons to condemn abortion.
This is why some of the most consistent
defenses of abortion bite the bullet on
infanticide. Now, an atheist might say
having the potential to be rational is
what gives us value apart from God. And
so, this explains why infanticide is
always wrong, even though it's not wrong
to painlessly kill more cognitively
developed animals. But that wouldn't
explain why severely handicapped humans
who will never be rational still have
intrinsic value beyond all other
animals. To which an atheist might say
that merely possessing a rational
nature, even if a being will never
engage in rational thought is enough to
confer intrinsic dignity and human
rights apart from God. To which I say,
if you believe that, then you should be
pro-life and oppose the direct killing
of any unborn human being, since every
human embryo and fetus has a rational
human nature. But you might also be
suspicious about the existence of this
immaterial, highly valuable property in
a godless universe, especially since 91%
of atheists identify as pro-choice and
don't seem to recognize it within their
own worldview. The unique value of human
beings, even the most disabled and
helpless human beings in comparison to
non-humans, is puzzling under many forms
of atheism. But it makes sense if all
human beings are made in God's image and
are beloved by God. That would not
justify mistreating non-human animals,
though, because things like unnecessary
factory farming or other things that
cause pain for no good reason would be
wrong. My point is just that morality
consists of much more than this single
basic truth. Indeed, theism provides
grounds to care for all of God's
creation, including the non-scentient
parts that God entrusted to us. And just
like how you can take the wrongness of
murder and reduce it to a set of
puzzling cases of killing that are hard
for atheists to explain, you can take
the wrongness of rape and reduce it to a
set of puzzling cases of sexual evil
that are also hard for atheists to
explain. Consider the following exchange
between Andrew Wilson and Naima on the
Whatever podcast, where they discuss
sexual ethics. When Wilson brings up the
morality of incest between two twin
brothers, she admits it's gross, but has
a hard time saying it's immoral. And she
knows she just can't say it's immoral
because it's gross. Because then she'd
open the door to condemning all kinds of
behaviors like sodomy or other sex acts
and fetishes that many people also think
are gross. The best you can come up with
is that it might upset other family
members. Even though I'm sure Naima
would have no problem with a person
coming out as gay or trans, even if it
upset their family. So Wilson modifies
his example. Your whole family dies in a
tragic accident except your twin
brother. So now you can't destroy them
emotionally cuz they're all dead. Is it
okay or moral then to have a twin
brother uh incestuous relationship based
on your principle of bodily autonomy? I
guess if you're not hurting anyone,
including yourself, then sure. But I
don't think that this negates the basic
belief that bodily autonomy is a human right.
right.
>> I bet Wilson picked twin brothers
because this evades other explanations
for why incest is immoral. Many people
will say incest is wrong because it
harms people. Specifically, it causes
children to exist who are more likely to
have genetic deformities. And it often
involves family members grooming young
members and exploiting them through
power imbalances even when they are no
longer children. But the genetic
deformity argument doesn't work because
it's not wrong for women to get pregnant
over the age of 35 even though their
children are more likely to have birth
defects. And it doesn't work in cases of
same-sex incest where the duo cannot
reproduce. And if they're adult twins,
then they warrant an ever case of
grooming each other. You could even
bring up real cases of genetic sexual
attraction that occur when separated
blood relatives meet for the first time
as adults and so there's no grooming
that happened when they were children
and become attracted to one another.
This isn't as uncommon as you might
think given that men who donate sperm to
create hundreds of children often create
situations where people fall in love
with half siblings that they never knew
existed. You can also pick examples of
disordered sex acts involving nonhumans.
This includes consensual necrophilia or
people allowing a partner to engage in
sex acts with their dead body. Or
consider this clip from the BBC saying
that maybe we should help people with
rape fantasies as long as everybody consents.
consents.
>> Ideically sex positive world. Someone is
able to pay conscious women to come and
be drugged so that I can get my kink
out, my my fetish on having sex with
unconscious people. There's a consensual
way to do that. An atheist might say
this is wrong because it makes people
more likely to commit actual rape. But
that's an empirical judgment, not an
argument that this kind of act itself is
just wrong for its own sake because sex
should not be used in this way. Or
consider beastiality, which I covered in
a previous episode that I'll link to
below. Many people say beastiality is
wrong because sex requires consent and
animals cannot consent. But most of
these people eat animals without their
consent. On the whatever podcast, I
brought up the fact that you can't work
for the police unless you're a
consenting adult. But most people don't
morally object to police canine units,
even though that's much more hazardous
to a dog's health than non-penetrative
sexual acts of a human being. In the
end, Destiny and Jasmine had to bite the
bullet and admit there's nothing wrong
with humans engaging in sex acts with
animals. Destiny even said the only
reason he could consider it wrong was
because he's not religious, which after
2 hours of discussing really gross sex
stuff, I briefly lost my composure.
>> Cuz we're not religious. So you think about
about
>> No, you're not insane. You're an insane person.
