Transcendental argument for God’s existence: your response

Faith & Science Conversation
81

You are repeating your charge that I have provided no evidence. I have provided a logical argument (X is impossible, and therefore “not X” is the case, with X being the subjective morality view). As logic is evidence, this charge is simply untrue.

I did not say that I couldn’t see how an ultimate standard of subjective morality could work; rather I showed that the subjective morality view defeats itself logically. I concluded that the subjective morality view is logically impossible, not that I couldn’t see how it was possible. My credulity never entered the argument, so this criticism is also untrue.

I have not claimed that a particular moral system is axiomatic, but rather that axioms (of some kind) are indispensable. The only moral axioms I have needed for this argument are that at least one personal moral exists, and that it is possible to justify one action as more moral or less moral than another. I don’t think we disagree on those axioms, so there need not be debate here.

Let me point out that I am referring to formal logical arguments when I say “logic.” Sometimes the word logic just refers to any kind of reasoning, but that is a distinct meaning from formal logic. Your conversation with @Dale shows me that you have been using the latter meaning (for example, when you say, “There are many, many examples of morality disagreeing with basic logic,” which is not true if we intend logic to mean “formal logic”), which might be grounds for some of the confusion. Whatever the reason, I have found your description of my statements to be inaccurate, so I am trying to clarify them here. I have not yet seen a refutation for the problem raised by my argument (especially my posts on January 16 and January 21), a problem which I see as fatal to the subjective morality view.

There’s a good article about the slavery question called “The Bible and Slavery,” by Andrew Judd. I’ll link it below. Essentially, it explains how the Old Testament economic system referred to as slavery is not the same as what we are used to calling slavery today (in the US, anyway). He gives more meat to my summary about various parts of the law having different purposes, too. As another example, I’d like to supplement his article with the following: the Mosaic Law allows divorce, and yet elsewhere God says He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). How can these coexist? Jesus explains it in Matthew 19:8. Basically, it was a temporary allowance that God was gracious to permit, not a declaration of moral perfection. Parts of the Mosaic Law were meant this way as guards, guides, and restraints particular to the society and culture for which they were given. We should not read the entire Mosaic Law as the one, singular, perfect, objective moral standard, so to pick out individual laws this way is to miss the point of the law. The law had other purposes, probably the most important being to point us to Christ. It is in the person and the work of Jesus Christ that the Mosaic Law finds its fulfillment (see Matthew 5:17, John 1:17, and much of Romans and Galatians).

Because I think it is relevant to your subjective morality view, I want to ask you again about my Molech example from last week. Do you affirm those sacrifices as morally right since they were accepted in that culture?

Article link:

82

That is not a logical argument. It is an opinion. Just tacking on “It’s logical” does not make it a logical argument. Let’s review that argument:

First, there is no requirement to justify a moral code outside of the society in which the morality exists.

Second, moral systems can exist within the human experience only and be justifiable because we are all humans. Morality doesn’t have to exist external to humanity in order to be justified.

Third, morality doesn’t require complete agreement between everyone.

Your premises don’t hold up. They are opinions. Therefore, you do not have a logical argument.

As stated earlier, morality doesn’t require complete agreement between everyone.

It would still not be considered moral in today’s society. We can hem and haw about particulars, but these were people owned by other people. It was considered moral if you beat them as long as they didn’t die.

Morals change over time because people and society change over time. We come up with new ideas and new philosophies, and those change how we view morality. Morality is a product of the subjective human experience.

No, I don’t think it is moral to sacrifice people to a god. I also think it is morally wrong to commit genocide.

Do you think it was morally right for them to commit genocide because God told them too? In the same vein, was it morally correct for followers of Molech to sacrifice children if that is what their god given objective morality told them to do? Or, perhaps, we all have an inner sense of morality that we use to determine if something is right or wrong instead of just following orders.

1 Like
83

That’s your dilemma and Euthyphro’s. Not mine. Everybody, just about every living thing, wants to be loved. Needs to be loved. Whether it knows it or not. God will oblige. That’s His job. Love fixes everything. Not here below. The want of love here below is fixed above. Not with torture or murder. No ancient story to the contrary. In the mean time, we must love as we want to be loved, inadequate as we are.

What happened to you mate? Whatever the lack, the loss, Love will fix it.

84

Not when you consider that logic itself entails an objective morality. That is not an opinion.
 

As before:

85

Since it has been demonstrated that there is indeed an objective moral*, all morality is not subjective, thus X is impossible.

 

*(At least one, anyway, that you should do something, namely to agree to the statement about moons and cheese. ; - )

88

It’s not an opinion – it’s a category error.

2 Likes
89

Granting that we’ve established that at least some morality is objective, I am also agreeing that the personhood aspect is ‘tricky to define’. ; - )

In the case of what we should do with respect to moons and cheese, yes, the ‘oughtness’ of it certainly requires a person, reflexively, so to speak. But if you should disagree about the moon, thereby doing something you ought not to do, you have not committed a moral wrong against a person. Unless it is lying to yourself. In any case, morality does still entail personhood.

So your “if the standard of morality exists, then it requires personhood to exist” is still founded, but I’m not sure it is by your “other person” argument. It seems that we certainly can commit immoral acts against ourselves, as noted (and more!), and also against impersonal objects, say, the environment. Defacing any beauty or impairing any function, including aesthetic, would certainly be a wide-ranging impersonal category.

But back to TAG – the suggested singular nature of personhood in morality does not change your subsequent argument, does it?

90

You disagree that you should accept the moon and cheese statement, or any other logically correct statement? It is not a category error – logic has an objective moral entailment.

91

No, I agree that those of us who are capable of following and accepting logic (which is a subset of humans) should do so. But that’s a belief about morality, not a component of a logical system. This is the same mistake the OP made. The existence of a moral standard that concerns logic does not make morality logical, just as the existence of moral standards that concern personal agents does not make morality personal, and the existence of moral standards that concern animals does not make morality zoological.

1 Like
92

Morality cannot exist without personhood, so your extrapolation to animals is a non sequitur.* That logic contains premises that should be accepted means it has implicit and integral moral implications. Should and ought denote moral conclusions.
 

*(Although we could talk about “Good dog!” and “Bad dog!” ; - )

93

That’s a different argument, one that as far as I know was only suggested by me. It’s not the argument that was actually made. The argument that the OP made was that because moral acts are directed at persons, morality is personal.

Since logic doesn’t contain premises that should be accepted – or at least no one has made any effort to show that it does – your conclusion does not follow. ‘We should follow logic’ is a statement about logic; it is not a statement within logic. You can of course use it as a premise in a logical argument (as you are doing here) but you can also use ‘all big things are plaid’ as a premise.

1 Like
94

 
In the OP:

 

Is it not implicit in logic, “If a statement is true, then it should be accepted”? What use is it otherwise?

95

Actually, it has been demonstrated that the existence of logic entails an objective moral standard, and how does morality exist without personhood?

96

Oh, missed this. Again, it’s perfectly logical.

97

And the reasoning supporting that claim: ‘Moral acts can only be done to a being with personhood; I cannot commit moral wrongs against inanimate or lifeless “nonpersons.”’ Which is not true.

No, it’s not. The single defining characteristic of logic is that it’s logical, and ‘I should believe this’ does not follow logically from anything within any logic system I’ve heard of.

Much of logic has no use. In any case, what does usefulness that have to do with anything?

3 Likes
98

Hark, an echo. ; - ) That is not dissimilar to what I suggested a little ways above:

 

Well, the word ‘algebra’ does not have to be in an algebra textbook to study algebra. Maybe we should include it and “If a statement is true, then it should be accepted” in logic texts? Or do you think that is a false statement.
 

Snowshovels?

99

True. the word ‘algebra’ is also not part of algebra.

We’ve already been through this. I think it’s a statement that’s not part of logic.

2 Likes
100

I hope Chad @chadrmangum can get back to us. We have fulfilled his request, I think. ; - )

What do you think of his other argument for objective morality:

101

I’m not particularly interested in arguments for the existence of objective morality since I think the thing being proposed is too poorly defined to be meaningful.

102

An objective moral simply means one that is true regardless and independent of any individual’s or group’s subjective opinions or feelings.