I’m very pleased to have a special guest this week, Jeffery Jay Lowder! Jeff is one of the founders of Internet Infidels and the Secular Outpost. He’s also someone with a vast knowledge of apologetics and counter-apologetics, having studied at a christian university. One thing about Jeff Lowder though is that he’s very fair and tried to criticize bad arguments on either side of the equation. It’s in that spirit that I’ve invited him on this week to discuss atheists’ poor responses to moral arguments, namely William Lane Craig’s moral argument for god.
Find Jeff at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/
or on twitter @SecularOutpost
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:22 — 56.6MB)
Subscribe: RSS
I think possibly one of the reasons people get Craig’s argument from morality wrong is that it is so vacuous, they can’t believe he really means it and so try and interpret it.
It would seem to me that “objective” morality must be defined in order to know exactly what is being proposed. Typically, this would be something like “morality that exists independent of people’s views” or something similar, which raises the question of does it exist independently of God? and also whether it would exist in an empty universe. We would also want to know if it had any relation to suffering or harm, or if it was just a standard imposed on the world.
Which would leave the first part, that objective morality can’t exist without god. Certainly, anyone claiming it would need to justify this, and they may be able to, if there definition of objective morality is “what god says”, which I suspect for many people is what is hiding behind many obfuscations. Other than the “It’s what God says” it’s hard to envision any morality that would require a god.
Hi GShelley — In case you haven’t already seen it, I have a YouTube video where I explain what Craig means by his claim that objective moral values and duties require God. I then offer my refutation.
LINK
Thanks. I’ll have a look. When I posted my comment, I thought I had heard the whole show, but had missed the last 6 or 7 minutes, when this specific issue actually came up (that Craig has his own special meaning for the term), but at least in part one, you didn’t get into what he actually means by it)
Thomas — After our interview, I was inspired to put together a brief Primer on Religion and Morality, in order to try to correct some of the mass confusion I see among many people who discuss the topic. Your audience might find this of interest.
LINK
In my opinion, the best argument to prove the existence of God!
In the easy to understand format.
As a real fact, there are moral and ethical laws of behaviour among people.
Firstly these laws are absolute and objective.
And secondly: these laws are laws of behaviour which show us (people) how to behave, so these are laws of behaviour for rational creatures.
The fact that these laws are rules of behaviour for rational creatures and that they address to our mind means that they are established by a rational Creature, Individual.
The fact that these laws are objective and absolute for all people means that these are laws of nature, laws of universe arrangement.
But then who could invent such laws of behaviour that are objective and absolute and that are the part of universe arrangement? – Only the Highest Rational Being, a certain All-powerful Creature who invented the whole world, the Universe and all people.
To say in other words – the God Creator!
http://en.apologet.net/the-moral-argument-a-modern-approach/