Many of the 'internet atheists' like to deny the existence of objective morality in order to circumvent the idea of a necessary 'Law-Giver' (God).
The problem is that unless the skeptic can provide an argument against the existence of objective morality, theists (and all who believe in the reality of objective moral values) are justified in their convictions about the existence of objective morality.
In this short clip William Lane Craig argues that any argument made against objective morality can also be used against the reality of the external world. If a skeptic denies the reality of the moral realm, then why not also deny the reality of the physical world? After all, we could just be brains in a giant vat or living in the matrix. If we can't trust our moral experience which leads us to conclude that objective morals exist, then why should we trust our sensory experience which leads us to believe that the external world is real?
The problem is that unless the skeptic can provide an argument against the existence of objective morality, theists (and all who believe in the reality of objective moral values) are justified in their convictions about the existence of objective morality.
In this short clip William Lane Craig argues that any argument made against objective morality can also be used against the reality of the external world. If a skeptic denies the reality of the moral realm, then why not also deny the reality of the physical world? After all, we could just be brains in a giant vat or living in the matrix. If we can't trust our moral experience which leads us to conclude that objective morals exist, then why should we trust our sensory experience which leads us to believe that the external world is real?
I just love Dr Craig in these clips. It seems to me that many atheists would LIKE to support the notion of objective moral values and duties but they have no way of doing so in a rational way other than positing God as the foundation for morals. They would then try and find theories that attempt to support their view that objective morals exist but these theories all fall flat or become self-refuting.
ReplyDeleteI'm convinced that the only view on morality that is consistent with atheism is Peter Singer's utilitarianism, where humans are not more valuable than animals. And animals, as we know, do not commit murder, rape, incest or theft. Therefore humans beings can't be held accountable for these abominations.