I'm asked this question a lot whenever discussing the moral argument for God's existence. Usually the argument goes something like this:
1. Every law has a lawgiver. (Premise)
2. There is an objective moral law. (Premise)
3. Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver. (From 1 and 2)
The moral lawgiver is then associated with God. Now, whether this argument is sound or not isn't the point. Rather, what I'm interested in is answering the question contained in this post's title: would I suddenly become immoral, e.g. raping, murdering, etc., if I abandoned my belief in God?
The answer is obviously no. The follow up retort is usually: "then objective morality doesn't depend on God."
This objection is fallacious for the simple reason that it confuses moral epistemology with moral ontology. What the skeptic should say is that "objective morality doesn't depend on belief in God." This is quite distinct from the former assertion. The reason I would remain moral (assuming I'm considered a moral person) even if I abandoned my belief in God is because I would still be created in the image of God. It's just that my hypothetical atheism would be inconsistent with my recognition of an objective moral law.
Readers are free to disagree with the moral argument all they want. In fact, I encourage open debate. However, it's important to understand what the moral argument claims and what it doesn't claim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Doug
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit more complicated than that.
First, let me tell you that I am sometimes horrified by the fact that some Christians (also Catholics) do admit they would start acting immorally if they were to abandon their belief in God.
You say, "The reason I would remain moral (assuming I'm considered a moral person) even if I abandoned my belief in God is because I would still be created in the image of God." But if you abandoned your belief in God, you would not think you were created in the image of God and, if the (rather simplistic) moral argument is correct, you might have a feeling that some actions were immoral, but that would just be a feeling without any ground. If I told you I felt those actions were moral, it would just be a matter of opinion.
A deeper problem is that the moral argument entails that, hypothetically, in a perfect copy of this world, complete with the same kind of inhabitants, with the same feelings,with the sole exception that it wasn't created by God, the same action that is now considerd immoral, would be moral. IOW, in such a world, raping and killing children would be moral.
Walter: "First, let me tell you that I am sometimes horrified by the fact that some Christians (also Catholics) do admit they would start acting immorally if they were to abandon their belief in God."
ReplyDeleteI would also be horrified by this.
"But if you abandoned your belief in God, you would not think you were created in the image of God and, if the (rather simplistic) moral argument is correct, you might have a feeling that some actions were immoral, but that would just be a feeling without any ground. If I told you I felt those actions were moral, it would just be a matter of opinion."
Not necessarily. As you know (and I'm not trying to raise another debate on the matter), I also believe that the objectivity of the laws of logic are dependent on God. Yet, atheists can still perceive the objectivity of the laws of logic. I just happen to think their perception is inconsistent with their atheism. The same would presumably hold with the laws of morality.
"A deeper problem is that the moral argument entails that, hypothetically, in a perfect copy of this world, complete with the same kind of inhabitants, with the same feelings,with the sole exception that it wasn't created by God, the same action that is now considerd immoral, would be moral. IOW, in such a world, raping and killing children would be moral."
As I mentioned, debating the moral argument wasn't the purpose of this entry. However, what you're essentially doing is affirming the antecedent: if there is no God, then there is no objective morality. You say this is a problem, but I say the impossibility of the consequent entails the impossibility of the conditional. So yes, there would be no action that would be wrong if there were no God, but since it's impossible for there to be no action that's wrong, there must be a God. This is a transcendental argument, which has been common since Kant.
Doug
Delete"Not necessarily. As you know (and I'm not trying to raise another debate on the matter), I also believe that the objectivity of the laws of logic are dependent on God. Yet, atheists can still perceive the objectivity of the laws of logic. I just happen to think their perception is inconsistent with their atheism. The same would presumably hold with the laws of morality."
Sure, but now you are admitting that objective morality does not necessarily depend on God.
No, you're conflating moral epistemology with moral ontology. Atheists can perceive moral obligations without belief in God, but that doesn't mean that those moral obligations aren't necessarily dependent on God. I can deny the sun's existence all I want, even while basking in its rays.
DeleteI am not, actually. The porblem is that if you are right and atheist's perception is inconsistent with their atheism, then if you became an atheist, your would realize your perception was a delusion, and there would be nothing really preventing you from becoming an immoral person.
DeleteBut the very fact that you think there would still be something preventing this, is a strong indication that, in reality, you do not really believe that morality is dependent on God.
I probably wouldn't realize the inconsistency. People don't recognize their inconsistencies all the time.
DeleteNo, people do not realize their inconsistencies all the time. But if you abandoned you belief in God I would expect you, as a life-long defender of all sorts of argument for theism, to realize the inconsistency, or , as I do, to realize it is not an inconsitsnecy and hance the moral argument is wrong.
DeleteI might end up an absurdist, believing that there are no objective moral obligations, but acting as if there were. Of course, that's just playing "pretend," which I (as of right now) wouldn't be fond of as someone committed to truth.
DeleteWould I be immoral if I was an Atheist?
ReplyDeleteI think I would weep for humanity because I would go full Dark Lord!
OTOH people who are Atheists and are basically good people...could be Saints if they believed.