An Implausible Parallel Argument to the Moral Argument for God

In a question to William Lane Craig, a person named Manol from Albania noticed a parallel argument to the Moral Argument for the Existence of God. Here’s Dr. Craig’s Moral argument:

1) If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore God exists.

Speaking to Dr. Craig Manol writes:

Your argument in support of premise 2 is that in the same way the outer world is objective, in the same way moral values are objective. Our perception of objective moral values is on a par with our perception of the outer world with the five senses.

But if this parallelism between moral values and the outer world is true, then it means that the argument may be turned into something like this:

1) If God does not exist, then an objective outer world does not exist.
2) An objective outer world does exist.
3) Therefore God exists.

If this second argument is used and it is proven not convincing, why should be the moral argument, which is a parallel argument, be convincing? Or, if you think this second argument is not convincing, why is it so?
Dr. Craig responded by saying:
On this basis you construct a parallel argument, which, if dubious, ought to make us think that the moral argument is also dubious. Now the parallel argument you construct is actually a sort of cosmological argument for God’s existence. In fact, I think it is a sound argument! It is obviously valid, and both the premises seem to me to be true. For the objective outer world obviously exists, and if God did not exist, then no world at all would exist, including an objective outer world! It’s not that if God did not exist, then the outer world would be merely a subjective illusion; rather it’s that there wouldn’t be anything at all!

The first premise of your parallel argument threatens to beg the question and is not apt to appear more plausible than its negation to someone who is not already a theist. By contrast, as you know, the first premise of the moral argument is one that many atheists themselves believe and argue for. Thus, although the premises of your two arguments are parallel, the support for the premises is quite different.
What Craig said is that these two arguments are parallel but that the one for the existence of an outer world threatens to beg the question and that skeptics just wouldn't be apt to think it’s plausible.

As a skeptic I think there is more room for discussion here. Doesn’t the first premise in the moral argument "threaten" to beg the question in the same way? And can’t we reverse things and say that since the argument for the outer world isn’t plausible then neither is the moral argument?

I think so. Any thoughts?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

there's a lot to unpack in that.
and I challenge the whole premise of objective morals and the link to god.

1. Who says morals are objective?
2. Who says they are linked to God?

I think there is enough evidence to show that morality and "politeness" emerge from the actions of self-interested agents which breaks the link to God and being objective.

in fact, i have an article started on that sitting my googledocs.

in a nutshell, I say that the actions of self-interested agents is sufficient for morality and politeness to emerge.

and in any case, humans define what is moral and polite, so we set the parameters on them, even if we do have some innate "yuk" mechanism that is misinterpreted as some divine law written in our biology.

and in the case where morals and politeness become annoying or even rude, then where does the objective moral from God figure in?

Is an annoying doting mother a reflection of the Universal Moral?
What are the parameters of this Universal Moral?

Anonymous said...

Craig's and Manol's parallel argument begs the question. It is a grand assumption to tie objective truth such as, the outer world exists or objective morals exist to God. The Atheist could construct an opposing argument, but like Craig's argument, its premises would need further defending with reasons and evidence. I do not see any evidence that God is consistent in communicating or demonstrating objective moral values. Here's an argument outline that I recently came up with, which would of course would need additional evidence to support the premises:

1) If an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God exists, then God would clearly demonstrate his existence and the difference between “right” and “wrong.”
2) Humanity and Christians in particular cannot agree on “right” and “wrong.”
3) Humanity disagrees on God’s existence.
4) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God does not exist.

NAL said...

Our perception of objective moral values is on a par with our perception of the outer world with the five senses.

Since our five senses evolved, then our perception of objective moral values also evolved.

ahswan said...

While I am not a skeptic, I would tend to agree that the 1st premise in both arguments threaten to beg the question; at least it seems to call for further support.

Seek4Truth, your 1st premise is even worse; it is highly presumptive as to what God would or would not do, and assumes that He has not already done so. And, the fact that some deny the obvious does not mean it isn't true.

Warren said...

Many (not all) Christians define morality as inseparable from God. This means that if God says, "kill this innocent child," then the act is moral, because he is sovereign like that. No nonbeliever uses the term, "morality", in this way. If this is the morality Craig refers to then premise #1 is a given and premise #2 is clearly not.

Everyone is familiar with a more natural definition of morality which is that acts are moral to the extent that they improve the well-being of mankind, (and, usually secondarily of living things). This is why murder and stealing are immoral, and why burning cats alive is also considered immoral. This morality, to the extent that it can be defined (what is meant by "well-being" etc) is objective. This makes premise two at least plausible, but since this morality is as natural a concept as other natural laws, it makes his first premise false. Who needs a deity to understand the value of pi or that a policy of killing for pleasure is subversive to human well-being?

Craig, among other things, is playing a term game. He uses one morality in premise one and then suggests another in premise two. Anyone truly seeking truth deals in concepts and not words for this reason.

Jeff said...

"It’s not that if God did not exist, then the outer world would be merely a subjective illusion; rather it’s that there wouldn’t be anything at all!"

I think we could continue the parallel once again. Craig says that without God, the world would not just be subjective, but it would not exist at all. Let's do the comparison once more - would Craig say that if God did not exist, morality would not just be subjective, but not exist at all? I don't think any sane person could say such a thing.

Will G said...

I've always thought that the moral argument was circular and I was surprised that other Christians used it so frequently. And then I realised that it doesn't matter that it's circular because that's not really what the moral argument is about. The moral argument is making an appeal, I think, to one's practical life. A lot of people don't have a problem with believing that all their moral goodness is the result of the way that their genes happened to come together by chance in the womb, and they get on with life. But some people aren't able to believe this and live normally, because it's just too disturbing. So the Christian basically appeals to those who need to believe that there's some kind of 'ultimate' nature to morality for the sake probably, of having a happier personal life.

mpg said...

John

Just bought your book off of Amazon. Looking forward to getting into it.

I have a question about Craig's moral argument: Craig defines "objectivity", in this instance, as external to the mind. But he posits his "objective foundation" in a mind, namely God's. Surely he's equivocating on his use of the word, "objective"? Furthermore, the logic of Craig's argument leads one to conclude that God has no objective basis for his own morality, which again, is a problem for the argument of God as objective basis for morality. I would welcome your thoughts on this.

Anonymous said...

I agree mpg. When it comes to a basis for this so-called "objective morality" there are problems whether the buck stops with human beings or with God. God is not a better answer than the one we have without him.

Let me know what you think of my book. People who've read it say some laudatory things about it.

MC said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB5V7PwEG38

The argument is circular.

Gandolf said...

ahswan said.."Seek4Truth, your 1st premise is even worse; it is highly presumptive as to what God would or would not do, and assumes that He has not already done so. And, the fact that some deny the obvious does not mean it isn't true."

The bible suggests God supposedly made us men in his own image and likeness .

Seek4Truth said..."1) If an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God exists, then God would clearly demonstrate his existence and the difference between “right” and “wrong.”

A man who see`s something that is right or wrong most often tries to demonstrate the reasons .And only the foolish ones that should never be really taken seriously hide themselves away ,grumbling and groaning expecting change to come about without doing anything about it.

ahswan where is the presumption you accuse Seek4Truth of ? ,it seems to me her thoughts are based on at least some logic and common sense.And if we are indeed made in any likeness of this supposed god,then surely that at least suggests some factual evidence that it would not be quite so presumptive to expect he would likely wish to make his presence known and talk about whats right or wrong .As we humans so often do!.

I suggest you presume the bible is correct and whats honest,and so unless you have evidence and facts to back up what you presume if anyones being presumptive here it is in fact you .

You also accuse people of denying the obvious.

Well if it is said we are made in the image and likeness of god.Then it would seem much more obvious for us to expect our actions to be quite similar rather than very different would it not ?.

I suggest you really need to rephrase your words.

It might sound more realistic to be put ,"the fact that some deny the very extremely unobvious does not mean it isn't true".

Because the reason we are here is really through "accepting the obvious",that being that there is a whole lot within faiths that just doesnt seem to make any good sense at all.Thats whats quite obvious here.

Christians suggest we should just accept what is extremely unobvious,as there is little at all that is obvious with any of their claims.

Other than it is quite obvious they would have us have unquestionable faith in almost anything that is wriiten by man,if it happens to personally tickle their tonsils and make them happy.Or it is something that they themselves have been indoctrinated to believe.

Christians that suggest God/s would not behave the way we humans do and suggest our expectations are wrong,i suggest only prove that things written within these books are quite wrong.As for starters we cannot have even been made in the likeness of these gods at all.

We have absolutely no factual evidence at all of how these god/s actually do behave.

We do! however have much factual evidence of how us humans behave.

What point then would be said to be more presumptive ?.That taken from the use of at least some actual factual evidence available through humanity,or that long presumed to be right accepting mere poetic words and ancient allegories which in thousands of years have still produced little/none factual evidence as proof.The mere faithful beliefs in god/s.

I feel FAITH believers calling those who question! as being presumptive ,to be something thats almost laughable.

As faith seems to me to almost be Characteristic, of what presumption actually is.

Jake said...

The point made by Manol is a point that I've noticed before. In general, the arguments for God have the form:

1) If X, then God exists.
2) X
3) Therefore, God exists.

In the Cosmological arguments, X is the universe. In Teleological arguments, X is design or tendency toward ends. In the Moral arguments, it is the existence of objective moral values.

None of these arguments are formally circular. That is, none of them explicitly assume what they are trying to prove. If there is a circularity, it must be found in what is meant by X or "God exists".

But what I think is more interesting is that, logically speaking, X does not need to be ontologically dependent upon God in order for the first premise to be true. In fact, it could be that premise 1 is a (logically) accidental truth, deduced from a conjunction of accidental states of affairs.

So, logically speaking, if God does in fact exist and because the Today show exists, the following argument is sound:

1*) If the Today Show exists, God exists.
2*) The Today Show exists.
3*) Therefore God exists.

(But then the problem is obviously in premise 1*, trying to show that it is true without directly presenting God as justification.)

What Craig et al. attempt to show is that objective moral value and duty IS ontologically dependent upon God, which clearly gives the required first premise. But to this point, Craig seems to only cite existentialists to support his point, as if atheists haven't moved beyond existentialism.

Just some thoughts... Great post.

Aaron said...

Simpler than some of the other comments (the simpler the better!), but what immediately strikes me is that points 2 and 3 are attempts to reverse point 1.

1) If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore God exists.

1) If I cut off the gas supply to my cooker, I can't boil the carrots
2) I can't boil the carrots
3) Therefore I must have cut off the gas supply

Or course, I could have no access to tap water to fill the pot. Or the pot might have a hole in it. Or the cooker's pilot light may be broken. Or whatever else.

A statement that's true one way around cannot simply be reversed. Compare inferences in mathematical proofs and the distinction between two equal statements and two identical statements (different things entirely).

Of course, the statements make too many assumptions in the first place, the biggest one that moral values have only one source.

MH said...

Its correct that this is an invalid argument form:

if P then Q
Q therefore P

However, the god/objective morals argument is an example of the valid argument form, the contrapositive:

if P then Q
not Q therefore not P.

This doesnt imply the argument is correct, just that its a valid form of argument. We would have to all agree that the premises are true for the argument to be accepted, which we clearly dont.

For your example, the contrapositive would be:

If I cut off the gas supply to my cooker then I can't boil the carrots
I can boil the carrots
Therefore I didnt cut off the gas supply

Unknown said...

MH is correct about the argument form -- it is modus tollens, the contrapositive of modus ponens. But, to borrow from his example, I think Craig's first premise strictly speaking is really more like:

"If I cut off the gas supply to my cooker then the peas won't sprout in the spring."

When Craig says: "as you know, the first premise of the moral argument is one that many atheists themselves believe and argue for", I find it very difficult to believe that this is even an honest mistake on his part. He's a smart, well-educated man and he must know better. But in the service of faith, I suppose the 'Noble Lie' comes to look acceptable.

No ethical theory taken seriously by philosophers depends on God for anything. Further, most religious philosophers agree with this. In an epistemic context (knowing what is right or wrong), objectivity means what is "publicly scrutinizable, supported by sufficient grounds which can be assessed for their legitimacy". Hence, God does not count, unless we are able to assess his reasons for the commandments he gives.
If we could assess those reasons, then morality would not be objective because of God's say-so, but because it is rationally accessible to the human mind. If we cannot assess God's reasons and must simply do as He says, moral behavior is just obedience. All of Christianity to one side, obedience is not a satisfactory model of moral choice, since no one but children can escape the duty to evaluate the commandments they obey (check out the Nuremberg trials), and children are not morally responsible, only their parents are. Hence, if God was the only source of objectivity, there would be *no* objectivity.

J. W. Gray said...

Yes, the first premise must be justified because it is highly controversial. Most professional philosophers disagree with it, so his "support" is strange.

What he says:
"The first premise of your parallel argument threatens to beg the question and is not apt to appear more plausible than its negation to someone who is not already a theist. By contrast, as you know, the first premise of the moral argument is one that many atheists themselves believe and argue for. Thus, although the premises of your two arguments are parallel, the support for the premises is quite different."

This makes no sense. Yes, "some" atheists agree, but the "experts" tend not to agree. So, what kind of support does he offer us? Seems to be nothing more than anecdotal evidence or an appeal to false authority. That doesn't help his case.

I wrote about Craig's moral argument for God here:

http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/william-lane-craigs-moral-argument-for-god/