2:00 to 2:19 - No it doesn't. The first premise doesn't say that objective morality _can't_ exist if God doesn't exist; it says that objective morality _doesn't_ exist if God doesn't exist. All you need for this premise to be probably true is for objective morality to be _unlikely_ given God's nonexistence. It's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails . With that said, I would agree that William Lane Craig often presents weak justification for the first premise. For a better defense of the first premise in the opinion of Jeffrey Jay Lowder (co-founder and former president of Internet Infidels) see the debate Lowder had on Capturing Christianity with a theist on the moral argument.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 _Mere unlikelihood wouldn't allow you to infer the conclusion_ Remember, it's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails (I can refer you to the proof if necessary). So "mere" unlikelihood that objective morality exists given God's nonexistence is enough to infer that the first premise is at least probably true. And one needn't believe the premises of the moral argument with absolute certainty for the argument to carry epistemic weight.
@MaverickChristian I disagree. But this is irrelevant because the argument could be sufficiently modified in order to make the uncertainty explicit. But even so, there is no reason to think that the first premise is even probably true. So regardless, the argument falls flat.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 _I disagree._ With which part? That it's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails ? Google, _“If A, then probably C” entails “Probably, if A then C”_ to find the proof. (Fortunately, the math is fairly simple, requiring little more than a high school understanding of mathematics to understand the proof.) _But even so, there is no reason to think that the first premise is even probably true._ If you're a moral anti-realist, then you're rationally committed to believing the first premise is at least probably true, assuming that the nonexistence of God wouldn't change your evaluation of moral anti-realism being true. Remember, the justification I offered is "Given God's nonexistence, then objective morality does not exist" is true. So assume arguendo that God does not exist, then ask yourself: is it likely that objective morality does not exist? If the answer is yes, then we have our justification for the first premise being at least probably true.
@@MaverickChristian I'm a moral skeptic. I don't think that God's existence or God's nonexistent has any bearing on the probable truth of moral realism. And you have not yet supplied a reason to think otherwise. Moral realism is unlikely regardless of whether or not God exists.
Hey David! Love this video. I don’t think all moral arguments are bad but they have its limits like most arguments. What do you think is the strongest argument for theism?
@@lanceindependentOne line of argument, is maybe that theism provides a more solid basis for morality compared to naturalism. For example, with naturalism, the underlying reality is merely a blind process and can't connect to human moral concerns in any meaningful way. With theism, the underlying reality can have a moral concern and the "natural world" can have a moral purpose. Now of course, that doesn't prove anything about which worldview is correct. But if some people are persuaded that theism provides a more solid basis for morality, it may reasonably motivate them to explore rational arguments for theism.
0:50 hasn't Craig argued that we can perceive morality with our senses, like how we perceive the external world with our senses, and any reason to doubt our perception of morality would also cause us to doubt the external world?
Craig has certainly asserted this when directly asked. As far as I know, he has never defended this claim with any rigor. And in any case, appeals to perception are the opposite of arguments. Perceptual beliefs are justified by perceptions rather than arguments. As to what it means to perceive moral truths, I can only guess. Presumably moral truths don't have sensuous qualities like shape or color or smell so they cannot be perceived in the same way as external objects. This alone breaks any symmetry between external world beliefs and moral beliefs. So whatever sort of "perception" Craig has in mind requires a lot of further analysis - analysis which he not provided.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 thanks for the response. and you may have addressed this in the main video -- but within your personal beliefs, do you think God is responsible for objective morality in some way even if we can't articulate how through a sound argument?
@@mnmmnm925 I'm weird because I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. I find the arguments for moral realism to be exceptionally poor. I actually think that divine command theory fits better within an anti-realist view of morality. It seems to me that if we locate right and wrong in God's commands, then we have abandoned the idea that morality is stance-independent. I'm personally fine with just biting the bullet on that, although I realize that this isn't a very popular move. 🙂
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........ Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜 In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔
I love these concise (and controversial) videos! You show the marks of good public philosophy: bridging pop apologetics work that many find persuasive and the academic material many have difficulty accessing or understanding. Few put in the effort to engage with apologetics, and fewer still understand academic metaethics, but to make the academic work understandable is a tremendous gift. Keep up the great work, but just don't go after any of my cherished views, as I don't think they could handle your keen intellect!
I think with WLC, the justification that without God there are no moral values is supposed to be implicit. By citing things like the Dawkins quote, it's supposed to be the justification itself, as if to say, "Look, here's the most famous atheist in the world right now, look what he says. Case closed." While that doesn't answer the question about well other atheists can disagree with Dawkins, etc. I think that both sides are not articulating themselves well. WLC doesn't say why that's the definitive position for those who don't believe in God and those opposing WLC on this point, don't say why something like the Dawkins quote is wrong.
Dawkins it's just the worst sort of person to be quoting on an issue like this. He is not a philosopher or an ethicist. He's an evolutionary biologist. Why would I care what an evolutionary biologist has to say about metaethics?
WLC is highly overrated. He gets credit for tackling tough questions, but his answers don’t hold up except on topics where the “non genius” apologists have already weighed in convincingly.
I think that Craig's work is better than most of what one can find in the apologetics community, so I appreciate whatever strides he has taken to improve the quality of Christian apologetics. But Craig has plenty of weak points in his thinking (as no doubt we all do) and I think that it is important for other apologists to recognize that. Craig is too often regarded as an untouchable and infallible paragon of wisdom in the apologetics community and that is problematic.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I second this. It is not surprising that leaders have weaknesses, but idolizing people like Craig can make the weakness all the worse. One community-level apologetic, by contrast, is to show believers and nonbelievers alike signs of accountability and self-awareness in one's community. It is not an attack against one's faith but rather a sign of the richness of that faith. Craig is impressive on God and abstract objects, God and time, as well as divine foreknowledge and its relation to human freedom. Unfortunately, much of his work in religious epistemology and theistic metaethics, though, is borrowed from Adams or Plantinga at best and is mere polemic at worst. FBR, as well as The Analytic Christian, are calling the Christian community to a healthy humility by separating Craig's wheat from his chaff.
These are all excerpts from my longer video "Why I Don't Use the Moral Argument". I don't think there is a successful version of this particular argument which is why I caution against the use of it.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 forgive me if you already addressed this in the video, and if you did please direct me to that. but I think that the assertion that if some objective moral facts exist then God must exist, and an example of an objective moral fact would be "It is morally good to act with integrity and honesty." a standard for good would be necessary if this were true thus God exits
@@faithbecauseofreason8381I think moral platonism could explain a basic difference between good and evil. However, perhaps it would fail to apply to humans in the hypothetical scenario of naturalism. So you wouldn't be able to explain moral responsibility; appropriate guilt, or appropriate blame of people for crimes or wrongdoing. There would also I think certainly be a mismatch between the underlying reality of naturalism which would presumably be a blind mechanical process, and the platonic realm. So humans might be able to connect their morals ideas to the platonic realm in a meaningful way, but not connect them to the underlying reality that produced everything.
It’s not related to this topic but why don’t people use fathers like Julius Africanus when it comes to external testimony of the gospels authorship? “Wherefore also the genealogy deduced through him will not be made void, which the Evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: And Jacob begot Joseph.(Matthew 1:16)But Luke, on the other hand, says, Who was the son, as was supposed (for this, too, he adds), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat.(Luke 3:23-24) For it was not possible more distinctly to state the generation according to law; and thus in this mode of generation he has entirely omitted the word begot to the very end, carrying back the genealogy by way of conclusion to Adam and to God.” The Epistle to Aristides chapter 3 The same can be said for Archealus and Lactantius and also St Gregory Thamurtugus(all these people are before 300 AD) Is it due to the time period? If so in which time period do the quotes about the gospels from the Fathers become to late to be considered reliable? Also you should make a book recommendation list if you haven’t already God Bless
It's simply amazing how people don't understand the first premise of the argument. "If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist" is an ontological statement, not an epistemic one. What is being said is that there is no possible world (including the actual) in which there are objective morality and there is no God, because God is the foundation of objective morality. Nothing is being said about the cetainty we have about this, or about the absence of epistemic possibility of the atheistic hypothesis.
I interpreted it as an ontological statement, not as an epistemic one. Where is the logical contradiction between these two propositions: 1. Objective morality exists. 2. God does not exist. If there is no logical contradiction, then it follows that there is a possible world in which objective morality exists and God does not. Ergo, premise 1 is false.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 There is no logical contradiction between the premises: 1- Gold exists 2- There is no chemical element with atomic number 79 And yet, in no possible world are both premises true.
@caiomateus4194 Gold and chemical element with atomic number 79 are the same thing, correct? So to say that one exists is to say the other exists. Gold exists (your point 1) is p. Gold does not exist (your point 2) is ~ p. Unless you are merely making a contingent semantic point in 2, then we have a clear p and ~p.
The brute explanation for moral realism is also not great either. An actual robust theistic foundation for morals (namely a foundation in God’s perfect being) is a much better explanation. And yeah, sadly, Craig has been lacking bad it comes to supporting his moral argument.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Here’s my take… I’d love to hear your thoughts. My argument here personally seems more satisfying than a brute facts argument. P1. If God is perfect, then He is perfectly virtuous in all of His doings. P2. In creating the universe, God's nature is reflected. P3. Perfect virtue is a part of God's nature that is reflected in all of creation, chiefly in humans but also to varying degrees in other species of life. 4. Our thoughts of what is good and what is not good stems from observing either deviation or continuation of perfection. C. Our understanding of good and bad deeds is based on the reflection of God's perfect virtue in creation.
I think it's important to remember that different beliefs can be reasonable for different people because we all have access to different pieces of evidence. Reasonableness is not a property of propositions in and of themselves. It is a property of the persons who believe them and why.
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
2:00 to 2:19 - No it doesn't. The first premise doesn't say that objective morality _can't_ exist if God doesn't exist; it says that objective morality _doesn't_ exist if God doesn't exist. All you need for this premise to be probably true is for objective morality to be _unlikely_ given God's nonexistence. It's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails .
With that said, I would agree that William Lane Craig often presents weak justification for the first premise. For a better defense of the first premise in the opinion of Jeffrey Jay Lowder (co-founder and former president of Internet Infidels) see the debate Lowder had on Capturing Christianity with a theist on the moral argument.
Mere unlikelihood wouldn't allow you to infer the conclusion
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
_Mere unlikelihood wouldn't allow you to infer the conclusion_
Remember, it's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails (I can refer you to the proof if necessary). So "mere" unlikelihood that objective morality exists given God's nonexistence is enough to infer that the first premise is at least probably true. And one needn't believe the premises of the moral argument with absolute certainty for the argument to carry epistemic weight.
@MaverickChristian I disagree. But this is irrelevant because the argument could be sufficiently modified in order to make the uncertainty explicit. But even so, there is no reason to think that the first premise is even probably true. So regardless, the argument falls flat.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
_I disagree._
With which part? That it's a theorem of mathematics and propositional logic that entails ? Google, _“If A, then probably C” entails “Probably, if A then C”_ to find the proof. (Fortunately, the math is fairly simple, requiring little more than a high school understanding of mathematics to understand the proof.)
_But even so, there is no reason to think that the first premise is even probably true._
If you're a moral anti-realist, then you're rationally committed to believing the first premise is at least probably true, assuming that the nonexistence of God wouldn't change your evaluation of moral anti-realism being true. Remember, the justification I offered is "Given God's nonexistence, then objective morality does not exist" is true. So assume arguendo that God does not exist, then ask yourself: is it likely that objective morality does not exist? If the answer is yes, then we have our justification for the first premise being at least probably true.
@@MaverickChristian I'm a moral skeptic. I don't think that God's existence or God's nonexistent has any bearing on the probable truth of moral realism. And you have not yet supplied a reason to think otherwise. Moral realism is unlikely regardless of whether or not God exists.
Hey David! Love this video. I don’t think all moral arguments are bad but they have its limits like most arguments. What do you think is the strongest argument for theism?
Probably the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. I like the argument from consciousness too though.
Which moral arguments do you think aren't bad? (I'm a moral antirealist, and haven't seen any moral arguments I think are any good)
@@lanceindependentOne line of argument, is maybe that theism provides a more solid basis for morality compared to naturalism. For example, with naturalism, the underlying reality is merely a blind process and can't connect to human moral concerns in any meaningful way.
With theism, the underlying reality can have a moral concern and the "natural world" can have a moral purpose.
Now of course, that doesn't prove anything about which worldview is correct.
But if some people are persuaded that theism provides a more solid basis for morality, it may reasonably motivate them to explore rational arguments for theism.
0:50 hasn't Craig argued that we can perceive morality with our senses, like how we perceive the external world with our senses, and any reason to doubt our perception of morality would also cause us to doubt the external world?
Craig has certainly asserted this when directly asked. As far as I know, he has never defended this claim with any rigor. And in any case, appeals to perception are the opposite of arguments. Perceptual beliefs are justified by perceptions rather than arguments.
As to what it means to perceive moral truths, I can only guess. Presumably moral truths don't have sensuous qualities like shape or color or smell so they cannot be perceived in the same way as external objects. This alone breaks any symmetry between external world beliefs and moral beliefs. So whatever sort of "perception" Craig has in mind requires a lot of further analysis - analysis which he not provided.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 thanks for the response. and you may have addressed this in the main video -- but within your personal beliefs, do you think God is responsible for objective morality in some way even if we can't articulate how through a sound argument?
@@mnmmnm925 I'm weird because I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. I find the arguments for moral realism to be exceptionally poor. I actually think that divine command theory fits better within an anti-realist view of morality. It seems to me that if we locate right and wrong in God's commands, then we have abandoned the idea that morality is stance-independent. I'm personally fine with just biting the bullet on that, although I realize that this isn't a very popular move. 🙂
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
Morality is subjective, we set the rules HOWEVER that does NOT mean we cannot set objective rules about morality. Let me give you a couple of analogies perhaps then you will understand........
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrarily concieved with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a pre- agreed consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things "from within our pre-agreed metric reference framework" 😜
In the game of chess there are no OBJECTIVE RULES laid down by a god. They were arbitrarily concieved man made, however once we all come to an agreement about which rules we want to implement and adhere to it then becomes posible to objectively declare a move as illegal "from within the framework of agreed upon rules" ( a Bishop can only move diagonally ect ) That does not mean therefore that outside of the framework ( rules ) that its objectively impossible to move a Bishop straight forward 😁
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy, equality and respect ??? 🤔
I love these concise (and controversial) videos! You show the marks of good public philosophy: bridging pop apologetics work that many find persuasive and the academic material many have difficulty accessing or understanding. Few put in the effort to engage with apologetics, and fewer still understand academic metaethics, but to make the academic work understandable is a tremendous gift. Keep up the great work, but just don't go after any of my cherished views, as I don't think they could handle your keen intellect!
You're much too kind. Thank you.
I think with WLC, the justification that without God there are no moral values is supposed to be implicit. By citing things like the Dawkins quote, it's supposed to be the justification itself, as if to say, "Look, here's the most famous atheist in the world right now, look what he says. Case closed." While that doesn't answer the question about well other atheists can disagree with Dawkins, etc. I think that both sides are not articulating themselves well. WLC doesn't say why that's the definitive position for those who don't believe in God and those opposing WLC on this point, don't say why something like the Dawkins quote is wrong.
Dawkins it's just the worst sort of person to be quoting on an issue like this. He is not a philosopher or an ethicist. He's an evolutionary biologist. Why would I care what an evolutionary biologist has to say about metaethics?
WLC is highly overrated.
He gets credit for tackling tough questions, but his answers don’t hold up except on topics where the “non genius” apologists have already weighed in convincingly.
I think that Craig's work is better than most of what one can find in the apologetics community, so I appreciate whatever strides he has taken to improve the quality of Christian apologetics. But Craig has plenty of weak points in his thinking (as no doubt we all do) and I think that it is important for other apologists to recognize that. Craig is too often regarded as an untouchable and infallible paragon of wisdom in the apologetics community and that is problematic.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I second this. It is not surprising that leaders have weaknesses, but idolizing people like Craig can make the weakness all the worse. One community-level apologetic, by contrast, is to show believers and nonbelievers alike signs of accountability and self-awareness in one's community. It is not an attack against one's faith but rather a sign of the richness of that faith.
Craig is impressive on God and abstract objects, God and time, as well as divine foreknowledge and its relation to human freedom. Unfortunately, much of his work in religious epistemology and theistic metaethics, though, is borrowed from Adams or Plantinga at best and is mere polemic at worst. FBR, as well as The Analytic Christian, are calling the Christian community to a healthy humility by separating Craig's wheat from his chaff.
I gonna give credits to WLC for apologetics
so what would be the right way to make the moral argument? I'm loving these criticism but are you going to make your own video?
These are all excerpts from my longer video "Why I Don't Use the Moral Argument". I don't think there is a successful version of this particular argument which is why I caution against the use of it.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 forgive me if you already addressed this in the video, and if you did please direct me to that. but I think that the assertion that if some objective moral facts exist then God must exist, and an example of an objective moral fact would be "It is morally good to act with integrity and honesty." a standard for good would be necessary if this were true thus God exits
@howardparkes8787 why do you think that something like Erik Wielenberg's moral Platonism wouldn't explain moral facts just as well?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381I think moral platonism could explain a basic difference between good and evil. However, perhaps it would fail to apply to humans in the hypothetical scenario of naturalism.
So you wouldn't be able to explain moral responsibility; appropriate guilt, or appropriate blame of people for crimes or wrongdoing.
There would also I think certainly be a mismatch between the underlying reality of naturalism which would presumably be a blind mechanical process, and the platonic realm.
So humans might be able to connect their morals ideas to the platonic realm in a meaningful way, but not connect them to the underlying reality that produced everything.
Would you count TAG as a sort of moral Arguement?
Moral arguments can be formulated as transcendental arguments. But they aren't essentially transcendental.
It’s not related to this topic but why don’t people use fathers like Julius Africanus when it comes to external testimony of the gospels authorship?
“Wherefore also the genealogy deduced through him will not be made void, which the Evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: And Jacob begot Joseph.(Matthew 1:16)But Luke, on the other hand, says, Who was the son, as was supposed (for this, too, he adds), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat.(Luke 3:23-24) For it was not possible more distinctly to state the generation according to law; and thus in this mode of generation he has entirely omitted the word begot to the very end, carrying back the genealogy by way of conclusion to Adam and to God.”
The Epistle to Aristides chapter 3
The same can be said for Archealus and Lactantius and also St Gregory Thamurtugus(all these people are before 300 AD)
Is it due to the time period? If so in which time period do the quotes about the gospels from the Fathers become to late to be considered reliable?
Also you should make a book recommendation list if you haven’t already
God Bless
It's simply amazing how people don't understand the first premise of the argument.
"If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist" is an ontological statement, not an epistemic one. What is being said is that there is no possible world (including the actual) in which there are objective morality and there is no God, because God is the foundation of objective morality. Nothing is being said about the cetainty we have about this, or about the absence of epistemic possibility of the atheistic hypothesis.
I interpreted it as an ontological statement, not as an epistemic one. Where is the logical contradiction between these two propositions:
1. Objective morality exists.
2. God does not exist.
If there is no logical contradiction, then it follows that there is a possible world in which objective morality exists and God does not. Ergo, premise 1 is false.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
There is no logical contradiction between the premises:
1- Gold exists
2- There is no chemical element with atomic number 79
And yet, in no possible world are both premises true.
@caiomateus4194 there is a contradiction between them though.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I would love to see you derive this contradiction.
@caiomateus4194 Gold and chemical element with atomic number 79 are the same thing, correct? So to say that one exists is to say the other exists. Gold exists (your point 1) is p. Gold does not exist (your point 2) is ~ p.
Unless you are merely making a contingent semantic point in 2, then we have a clear p and ~p.
if morality comes from god, how can it be "objective"?
I haven't claimed that morality does come from God
The brute explanation for moral realism is also not great either. An actual robust theistic foundation for morals (namely a foundation in God’s perfect being) is a much better explanation.
And yeah, sadly, Craig has been lacking bad it comes to supporting his moral argument.
Why is it a better explanation?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
Here’s my take…
I’d love to hear your thoughts. My argument here personally seems more satisfying than a brute facts argument.
P1. If God is perfect, then He is perfectly virtuous in all of His doings.
P2. In creating the universe, God's nature is reflected.
P3. Perfect virtue is a part of God's nature that is reflected in all of creation, chiefly in humans but also to varying degrees in other species of life.
4. Our thoughts of what is good and what is not good stems from observing either deviation or continuation of perfection.
C. Our understanding of good and bad deeds is based on the reflection of God's perfect virtue in creation.
@@TheOtherCaleb that's a passable account of morality. But why is it better than, say, Erik Wielenberg's?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I haven’t read much of his material. I’m assuming he gives a naturalist account for moral realism. Is that correct?
@TheOtherCaleb he's a moral non-naturalist (though he is a metaphysical naturalist).
I don't know if I would call belief in God reasonable but I wouldn't call it unreasonable 🤷♀️
I think it's important to remember that different beliefs can be reasonable for different people because we all have access to different pieces of evidence. Reasonableness is not a property of propositions in and of themselves. It is a property of the persons who believe them and why.
Objective moral values and duties do not exist.
You are correct. Its all subjective.
It's subjectively objective 👏👀🤣
@@flamechick6 That's basically an oxymoron . . . and with many, it's an emphasis on moron.
@@patsox2004That's an "objective" statement. You are beyond irrational.
Objective moral values and duties DO EXIST.