These are the standard objections to argument #14 on the list provided here...
The argument is presented as follows:
1 Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2 Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
3 But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4 Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct
Common Objections
Overall the argument does not appear to be an argument for God but rather it is an argument that objective morality (if it exists) is somehow a requirement of a "religious view". Does that mean any religion? If we adopt Buddhism or Humanism as our religion, and accept that suffering is an aspect of sentient life and morality comes from the knowledge, learning and emotions of human beings, then a god isn't necessary (but of course, she/he/it might exist anyway). If the authors are arguing that Christianity is the source of moral obligation, they are ignoring the evidence that secular moral codes existed before the Bible (such as the Code of Hammurabi). The use of the word "atheistic" as the only alternative to "religious" is also misleading. Perhaps we should interpret "atheistic" and "religious" as "physicalist" and "nonphysicalist," respectively.
Regarding the detail of the argument...
Premise 1 is unsupported. Also - who are the "we" that it refers to? If it is the human race, then premise 3 is confusing because premise 1 is therefore stating that "we are all " (atheists and theists) "really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil." The claim that "our duties arise from the way things really are, and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions" supports a biological and empirical explanation for morality. Our "desires and subjective dispositions" are also a result of our biology. Nothing in this premise indicates that God exists.
Premise 2 doesn't make sense as written but perhaps does make some sense if we assume the author meant "physicalist" and " non-physicalist".
Premise 3 asserts that the atheistic view of reality is incompatible with there being moral obligation. This is unsupported and factually incorrect. An "atheistic view of reality" is a view of reality that does not include gods but it is obviously possible to have moral obligations without gods. This premise as written is identical to saying that morality has to come from God, but that's what the argument is trying to prove, so it's just a circular argument. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that belief in a god led to superior moral behaviour, that would not demonstrate that God existed (cf Father Christmas).
If we change the wording of this premise so it refers to "physicalist" and "non physicalist" then again the argument fails because there are "physicalist" explanations for the source of moral obligations. For example, we are obligated to the people around us because we literally cannot live without their cooperation - and vice versa.
The argument confuses cause with explanation. Premise 1 states that moral obligation is a universal fact. Premises 2 and 3 are arguing about different explanations for why normal people share the same moral obligations and ruling out the physicalist explanation for no apparent reason.
The conclusion makes a sudden leap from "morality" to "reality". The religious view of reality includes a vast number of gods, supernatural entities and incredible stories promoted as being historical fact. Whatever argument there may be regarding the morality of atheists, this is not sufficient to assert that the religious view of reality is correct. It is also wrong to assume there is a "religious view of reality" (singular). There are thousands of religions and thousands of different and contradictory views of reality, each presented as factual.
There are also multiple and contradictory religious views on moral issues, for example: euthanasia; stem cell research; abortion; capital punishment; healthcare; foreign aid; gay marriage; birth control; pacifism: etc. In other words, there is no single "religious view", not even within a single religion. The sacred texts used to justify moral decisions are interpreted to suit the moral views if the interpreter. This is why several people can interpret a sacred text in contradictory ways and simultaneously vouch for the accuracy and authority of the source text.
Some further general points...
Morality has no meaning unless there are sentient beings who are capable of experiencing suffering and understanding the suffering of others. It doesn't matter if they are atheists or theists. It doesn't make sense to assume there are objective moral principles existing without such sentient beings to judge and measure morality. Human morality is experienced, discussed and analysed by human beings, and always has been. Moral standards are re-assessed continuously over time, as cultures evolve.
If I say there I have an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. Neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry.
The authors are presenting their arguments from a Christians point of view, so if they were to counter that their religion obliges them to feed the hungry, we could, for example, point to the millions of Christians who don't feel obliged to feed the hungry, who have money saved that they could use to feed the hungry, but choose not to. If there are Christians who say they only feed the hungry because they are obliged to do so by their religion, then it implies they are being commanded to behave in a charitable way, rather than being charitable.
(Obviously if the authors of this argument were representing a different religion, the logic would be the same. The word "Christian" could be replaced with any other religion.)
No comments:
Post a Comment