Greg Koukl - Grounding Morality

Taken from our blog, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question "Why can't an atheist worldview support belief in objective universal morality?" For more information, visit http://www.str.org.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• greg
• koukl
• str
• stand
• reason
• atheism
• morality
• apologetics
• grounding

[WestonPDX100]

Morality has changed so much since the barbaric morality of the Bible. So clearly there's no such thing as objective morality.

[lanemik]

Mr. Koukl, what support can you give to the idea that a law requires a lawgiver? Consider the laws of logic, do they require a lawgiver? Would the law of non-contradiction require a God to set that law into motion? If so, could God have created the law differently? Could God have seen to it to make it so that an internal conflict in an argument would make it more logical? Of course not. This law transcends even God. Is there a special hell reserved for those who break that law? No, that's silly.

[kevin37ross]

Greg - Your opening claim as it stands is self refuting. To see this ...

Can you "have God" without "having a belief in God? The Christian answer is No. In other words, with no belief in God, you can't have God. If you can't have God, you can't be good (Your first premise) Thus, if you have no belief in God, you can't be good. In order to avoid a contradiction, you need to somehow qualify what you mean by "good" in each case.

[quintessential37]

I believe I could argue that there have been societies where rape was condoned and not seen as "bad". I feel like it is irrelevant however. Even if we allow the premise of objective morality, there is a long way to go to get to god. Why could morality not be a natural law? That is as intrinsic to the universe as thermodynamics? Further, if we allow that morality is beyond the nartural realm, why couldn't morality be the thing that has always existed?

[BlackWolf4830]

(Continued) without the use of religion. He is using his own mind to formulate a reason, and essentially, second-guessing his creator. Religion doesn’t answer moral questions, men do. 

[BlackWolf4830]

(Continued) Homosexuality is bad, getting a haircut is bad, eating seafood is bad, or am I just supposed to take it on faith that it’s wrong? If your answer was the latter, then you can perhaps understand why religion doesn’t answer moral questions.

Even an apologetic pastor who tries to provide an explanation for why a religion makes the moral assertions it does – in areas where the religious texts themselves do not specifically explain or elaborate – he is answering a moral questions....

[BlackWolf4830]

Religion can not explain why rape is bad - it can only scare you out of doing it. Why shouldn't I rape? Because I will burn in hell if I do. Okay. But why is that a good thing? Why would it be a bad thing if I were not to burn in hell because I raped someone? Might does not make right. What is “good”? Is there a reason why I should listen to Leviticus when he tells me

[BlackWolf4830]

An apologetic pastor may perhaps provide a possible explanation for why a religious text has it's moral code a certain way, but if he can't, you are still obliged to take what the religious text has to say on faith. Religion depends on the primacy on faith - it doesn't answer moral questions, it only makes moral imperatives.

[BlackWolf4830]

Why is rape wrong? Because forcing your bits into someone without their consent is wrong. Because statistics have shown that psychological trauma occurs as a consequence of rape.

Not sure how religion could have answered that better. Religion doesn't answer moral questions. The very nature of religion is that it doesn't answer questions - you're supposed to take everything they say on faith. Sure, you may get an answer from a pastor, but you must ultimately take everything on faith.

[veritaslogos]

@AceofDiamonds0 This isn't about "what i want to do", you're now turning the attention away from the topic on to me, bad move. This would make a great example in an introductory to logical fallacies workbook. Asserting that there can be right and wrong answeres to moral problems does not lend itself to totalitarianism, and even if it did it would just be an unfortunate reality. What you've employed here is the slippery slope fallacy, and the ad consequentium. I understand ur concern tho.