Templestream
Meme - No Foundation Without God
There is no possible objective basis of morality without God's existence.
In philosophical debates, Essentialist Divine Command Theory underscores a logical explanation of objective morality based on God's existence. This is a partial outline from a debate linked afterward....
R: Brit offers a very good question: “...how does my opponent defend that these things are good?” How can I defend that moral qualities attributed to God are “actually” good? The question is similar to: What is the standard outside of God that I use to claim to know what goodness is like in order to then claim that God is good? If I merely claim that God represents goodness and goodness is defined by God, then this is a tautology. I can address these questions with the following approaches.
I. Conceptual necessities and possibilities. - Based on the understanding that an objective basis of morality must be non-arbitrary and, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions,” a non-arbitrary moral basis is only conceivably possible if, A) There is a supreme and capable moral authority and law giver that provides perfect moral decrees (see Essentialist Divine Command Theory, IV.4.), or, B) There is a valid and objective locus or standard of morality ( a perfect moral yardstick that applies to all moral agents and all moral questions). There is no possible manner that secular humanism could provide either A or B. It is logically possible, however, that both A and B are possible if God exists. Only a perfect moral being could be capable of providing perfect moral decrees. Therefore, in keeping with our definitions and conditions of “morality” and “objective” as concepts, only God could be considered an objective basis of morality. In this case we do not need to define “goodness” specifically in order to understand that an objective basis of morality must be attached to a concept of “God” - if it is possible at all metaphysically.
II. Empirical evidence confirmed by conventional definitions. - I can define what “goodness” and “morality” are “like” as qualities, without an appeal to God. Brit has proposed to offer an affirmative argument that there is an objective basis of morality. And I concur with Brit that “most of us agree” that there is an objective basis of morality, whether or not it can be logically explained and accounted for. Though we cannot demonstrate and prove that moral qualities exist in a science laboratory, human experience does concur with conventional definitions in a remarkable manner that certain things are “right” and others are “wrong” with these experiences being consistent with concepts such as goodness, honesty, justice, holiness, and so on. I agree with Dr. Craig that, “I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.” In other words, I have strong reasons to believe that “goodness” is an objectively “good” quality before examining what is logically possible as the meta-ethical objective basis. I am not thus arbitrarily “presuming that the [moral] aspects of God's nature are good” - but I have an empirical moral conscience and conventional definitions that testify that these qualities are good and based on Point I, God's existence would be the only possible explanation.
III. Possible historical events. - If we grant God's existence as a metaphysical possibility, then it's possible that certain biblical accounts of Jesus Christ, acting as Messiah, God incarnate, could be based on actual historical events. For example, Peter described Jesus performing an apparent miracle: “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5.8). After living with Jesus for three years, the apostles apparently had such a firm conviction that Jesus was the morally-perfect Messiah that they (and their families) were willing to die for their testimony of Jesus as God incarnate, rather than recant and live.
First, I'd offer that Jesus spoke with a supreme moral authority and no one was apparently able to overcome his moral positions. His apparent goodness was so extraordinary that people came out of nowhere and wept at his feet, even as He forgave their sin (moral error). (Luke 7:36-50). It was not difficult for people to see that His standards were shown to be much higher than average, even assessed as perfect. If we allow the metaphysical possibility of God's existence, then it is possible that Jesus, as God incarnate, displayed perfect holiness and moral authority. One could ask: “How can we verify the standard of an apparent standard?” When John the Baptist doubted Jesus' authenticity, Jesus responded, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Luke 7.22b NIV). Jesus basically refereed to historic prophecies He fulfilled, as only God incarnate could have. These hold veracity, and I agree with Dr. Craig that other evidence, including Craig's four other arguments for God's existence, can be considered as relevant, if I am supposed to offer support as to why it should be considered that an objective basis of morality is based on God's existence. If other arguments support the greater plausibility that God exists, then this offers greater plausibility that objective morality is based on God. As Craig notes, “In the [Craig-Law] debate, Law made the remarkable claim that the cosmological and teleological arguments are not even part of a cumulative case for theism! This is clearly wrong.”
If Christ did indeed live and walk the earth as a perfect moral authority, then the “goodness” and “rightness” of His authority was displayed physically and in action in many circumstances. In this case, “goodness” and “rightness” are identical to the qualities of “Messiah-ness” or “Jesus-ness” that had been displayed. Without “definitions alone” this perfect moral standard was experienced directly in society.
Jesus displayed moral acts and people recognized that these were “good”acts and these His life was morally superior to their own, in fact perfect. The only ones that opposed this conception were those that were offended by the possibility that Jesus was, in fact, God, as Jesus indirectly claimed. He claimed that the true standard of morality was moral perfection (Matthew 5.48). In order for my position to be valid, I don't necessarily have to prove that Jesus was actually morally perfect and actually exemplified it, I just have to substantiate that it is metaphysically and logically possible that He lived a morally perfect life and displayed perfect moral authority (in accordance with 4.I.A). I also want to emphasize that I am discussing a basis of objective morality, not a moral system or applied ethics in this example.
Second, Jesus could be considered the, “living yardstick” and standard of perfect moral authority. If there is ever a discrepancy regarding a manufactured yardstick, then it can be taken and compared to the original metal yardstick which was made precisely as a universal standard. If Jesus is Messiah, then it is metaphysically possible that He embodies perfect holiness and moral purity, as a consistent standard. This state could be considered, “objective” as, “irrelevant to the opinions and preferences of any subjective being.” If Brit can prove that Jesus did not exist, that Jesus was not actually God incarnate, that Jesus committed any moral error, or that Jesus was not recognized as exemplifying a comparatively perfect moral standard, then Brit could remove this possibility. Otherwise, Jesus Christ can conceivably provide support for an exemplary perfect moral standard (a basis - not an applied ethical system) and a logical bridge from “is” to “ought” without a tautology.
If you'd like to see the entire debate so far, it's at this link to Templestream Blog Titled: "Debate: "Secular Humanism Offers an Objective Basis of Morality"
templestream.blogspot.com/2016/05/debate-secular-humanism...
Meme - No Foundation Without God
There is no possible objective basis of morality without God's existence.
In philosophical debates, Essentialist Divine Command Theory underscores a logical explanation of objective morality based on God's existence. This is a partial outline from a debate linked afterward....
R: Brit offers a very good question: “...how does my opponent defend that these things are good?” How can I defend that moral qualities attributed to God are “actually” good? The question is similar to: What is the standard outside of God that I use to claim to know what goodness is like in order to then claim that God is good? If I merely claim that God represents goodness and goodness is defined by God, then this is a tautology. I can address these questions with the following approaches.
I. Conceptual necessities and possibilities. - Based on the understanding that an objective basis of morality must be non-arbitrary and, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions,” a non-arbitrary moral basis is only conceivably possible if, A) There is a supreme and capable moral authority and law giver that provides perfect moral decrees (see Essentialist Divine Command Theory, IV.4.), or, B) There is a valid and objective locus or standard of morality ( a perfect moral yardstick that applies to all moral agents and all moral questions). There is no possible manner that secular humanism could provide either A or B. It is logically possible, however, that both A and B are possible if God exists. Only a perfect moral being could be capable of providing perfect moral decrees. Therefore, in keeping with our definitions and conditions of “morality” and “objective” as concepts, only God could be considered an objective basis of morality. In this case we do not need to define “goodness” specifically in order to understand that an objective basis of morality must be attached to a concept of “God” - if it is possible at all metaphysically.
II. Empirical evidence confirmed by conventional definitions. - I can define what “goodness” and “morality” are “like” as qualities, without an appeal to God. Brit has proposed to offer an affirmative argument that there is an objective basis of morality. And I concur with Brit that “most of us agree” that there is an objective basis of morality, whether or not it can be logically explained and accounted for. Though we cannot demonstrate and prove that moral qualities exist in a science laboratory, human experience does concur with conventional definitions in a remarkable manner that certain things are “right” and others are “wrong” with these experiences being consistent with concepts such as goodness, honesty, justice, holiness, and so on. I agree with Dr. Craig that, “I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.” In other words, I have strong reasons to believe that “goodness” is an objectively “good” quality before examining what is logically possible as the meta-ethical objective basis. I am not thus arbitrarily “presuming that the [moral] aspects of God's nature are good” - but I have an empirical moral conscience and conventional definitions that testify that these qualities are good and based on Point I, God's existence would be the only possible explanation.
III. Possible historical events. - If we grant God's existence as a metaphysical possibility, then it's possible that certain biblical accounts of Jesus Christ, acting as Messiah, God incarnate, could be based on actual historical events. For example, Peter described Jesus performing an apparent miracle: “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5.8). After living with Jesus for three years, the apostles apparently had such a firm conviction that Jesus was the morally-perfect Messiah that they (and their families) were willing to die for their testimony of Jesus as God incarnate, rather than recant and live.
First, I'd offer that Jesus spoke with a supreme moral authority and no one was apparently able to overcome his moral positions. His apparent goodness was so extraordinary that people came out of nowhere and wept at his feet, even as He forgave their sin (moral error). (Luke 7:36-50). It was not difficult for people to see that His standards were shown to be much higher than average, even assessed as perfect. If we allow the metaphysical possibility of God's existence, then it is possible that Jesus, as God incarnate, displayed perfect holiness and moral authority. One could ask: “How can we verify the standard of an apparent standard?” When John the Baptist doubted Jesus' authenticity, Jesus responded, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Luke 7.22b NIV). Jesus basically refereed to historic prophecies He fulfilled, as only God incarnate could have. These hold veracity, and I agree with Dr. Craig that other evidence, including Craig's four other arguments for God's existence, can be considered as relevant, if I am supposed to offer support as to why it should be considered that an objective basis of morality is based on God's existence. If other arguments support the greater plausibility that God exists, then this offers greater plausibility that objective morality is based on God. As Craig notes, “In the [Craig-Law] debate, Law made the remarkable claim that the cosmological and teleological arguments are not even part of a cumulative case for theism! This is clearly wrong.”
If Christ did indeed live and walk the earth as a perfect moral authority, then the “goodness” and “rightness” of His authority was displayed physically and in action in many circumstances. In this case, “goodness” and “rightness” are identical to the qualities of “Messiah-ness” or “Jesus-ness” that had been displayed. Without “definitions alone” this perfect moral standard was experienced directly in society.
Jesus displayed moral acts and people recognized that these were “good”acts and these His life was morally superior to their own, in fact perfect. The only ones that opposed this conception were those that were offended by the possibility that Jesus was, in fact, God, as Jesus indirectly claimed. He claimed that the true standard of morality was moral perfection (Matthew 5.48). In order for my position to be valid, I don't necessarily have to prove that Jesus was actually morally perfect and actually exemplified it, I just have to substantiate that it is metaphysically and logically possible that He lived a morally perfect life and displayed perfect moral authority (in accordance with 4.I.A). I also want to emphasize that I am discussing a basis of objective morality, not a moral system or applied ethics in this example.
Second, Jesus could be considered the, “living yardstick” and standard of perfect moral authority. If there is ever a discrepancy regarding a manufactured yardstick, then it can be taken and compared to the original metal yardstick which was made precisely as a universal standard. If Jesus is Messiah, then it is metaphysically possible that He embodies perfect holiness and moral purity, as a consistent standard. This state could be considered, “objective” as, “irrelevant to the opinions and preferences of any subjective being.” If Brit can prove that Jesus did not exist, that Jesus was not actually God incarnate, that Jesus committed any moral error, or that Jesus was not recognized as exemplifying a comparatively perfect moral standard, then Brit could remove this possibility. Otherwise, Jesus Christ can conceivably provide support for an exemplary perfect moral standard (a basis - not an applied ethical system) and a logical bridge from “is” to “ought” without a tautology.
If you'd like to see the entire debate so far, it's at this link to Templestream Blog Titled: "Debate: "Secular Humanism Offers an Objective Basis of Morality"
templestream.blogspot.com/2016/05/debate-secular-humanism...