Moral Argument for God

I recently listened to a debate between a Christian apologist (William Lane Craig) and an Atheist. The apologist brought up an argument that I have heard a million times and have failed to be convinced by. However, it seems that their opponents allways seem to choke on it. I often find myself screaming at them, what seems to me anyway, to be the obvious refutation.The argument in question is the moral argument for gods existence. It goes something like this: Then apologist will go on to say something along the lines of:"So, since my opponent rejects the idea of god, then he has no objective basis to say that Hitler, Rapists, or murderers are wrong."For some reason the Atheist invariably chokes on his refutation and flounders with some logical acrobatics. I assume because his only two resources are to say that there is no objective morality (which would derail the conversation), or to try and defend an Objective Morality sans god.Almost all that I have seen/heard take the latter and fail miserably to defeat the apologists claim.But I always find myself screaming, "morality only exists in the human world, when is the last time you worried about the treatment of factory farmed chickens as you devoured a bucket of KFC?"Further, how is a product of human society (i.e. Morality) prove god? It proves god as much as tribal dances, cars, and my sneakers. They are all things humans made up.I think the draw of this argument is that it leads the Atheist to look like someone who supports Hitler and rape, since it pushes him to say that there is no objective standard of morals. And no one wants to say that those things are good things.I dunno, does anyone else have some good rebuttals to this, most irritating, apologist ploy?This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 10:38 AM

This is not a good defense, I have seen it before, and the argument usualy goes this way:"So you agree that the laws of math exist? And these are real intangible things dependent on the objective laws of logic. The laws of logic are real, intantgible things that require an entety to impose the laws. This intangible thing is god"Or somesuch.I have also seen Athiests balk on this rebuttal for similar reasons as the moral argument. The apologist will claim that logic comes from god, therefore the athiest must presupose god to assume logic.How do we counter this?

You obviously know little about animal social behavior. WITHIN animal societies there are internal relevant morals. A wolf pack for example has certain codes of behavior rules etc. Wolves make friends, have relationships, help each other out, fight for justice within their ranks and so on.As you move on to more sophisticated animals such as dolphins and monkeys you find even more telling behavior. They help out their elderly by bringing them food, "prosecute" offenders within their social circles, "punish" their youngsters for bad behavior.Animal societies are very complex social structures, and are hardly as anarchic as you state.Infact, animals often extend altruistic behavior beyond their species. This is evidenced today by a story on NPR feturing a hippo who has made friends with a giant tortoise: Now...Since animals obviously have their own internal social morals, just like us they don't apply them beyond their ranks. (save for a few exceptions as noted above)Whereas lions are unlikely to stalk their pride mates and kill them, when it comes to wildabeast all bets are off.Likewise, it may be wrong to cage a person, force feed him for 10 years, kill him brutaly, then eat him. But us americans do this dayly to millions of chickens.EDIT: Here is the NPR story BTW:A Hippo and Tortoise Tale : NPRThis message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 04:59 PM

Yes, and no.I think it's a fallacy to assume that even our "disharmony" with nature is something unique. Many animals have screwd themseleves over thrugh, overgrazing, overpopulating, over-this, over-the other thing.Many species die out because a new predetor is introduced by natural means. An earthquake makes a land bridge, overgazed land forces the herd to go elsewhere bringing with them lions, who soon make short work of the natives of wherever they migrate.It's the same for mankind. Nature will go on and maintain it's homeostasis even if we manage to kill ourselves off in the process. Yes they do. Monkeys have been observed practicing deliberatly deceptive behavior in order to get their way. They fool each other to get more food, a fav. toy, etc. Again this is not true. Different pods of whales, troops of monkeys, and packs of wolves, show markedly different behavior from each other. Different "traditions" are evident in one group vs. another.These "traditions" do not necisseraly provide any evolutionary advantage. But they do help with cohession of the group. Nothing we do seperates us from nature. We are very much a part of it. Simply because our influence resounds thrugh the environment, only makes us more intrinsicaly linked with it.Just as the eukeriotic bacterio millions of years ago put the oxygen in the air, so are we modifying the world. I would also note, that we are also keenly aware of the effects we are having and increasingly make more efforts to control them. I actually happen to think we are a pretty remarkable creature. We have a rather long lifespan, that is ever increasing, and brains that make us capable of some phenomenal feats. I think we already have.

Are you implying that we are devoid of instinctual behavior?Babies invariably begin babbling at around a year after birth. If they don't it could be a sign of a developmental disorder.Does the baby consciously choose to begin babbling? Of course not. It is the instinct for speech kicking in.A baby instinctively recognizes his mothers face and can pick her out long before the brain is capable of discerning other faces. This is not a choice either.Likewise, our social instincts make us want to belong to a group. As we mature we find that acceptance is something we all desire in one form or another. Those who shun it, often have antisocial disorders.Just because we express instincts on a higher level than animals, does not mean we don't posses them.The same developmental/behavioral studies we perform on young children bellow age 3 can be repeated almost exactly for chimpanzees. Certainly much of our humanness must derive from instinct. Yes, exactly. Kind of like a platoon in the army, a group of peers at your local high school, coworkers, Mt. Climbing buddies.We humans do it all the time, it's the same thing. The animal is helping his friends, because he likes them, and he knows that if he does so his friends will help him.WE DO THE SAME THING!Saying that humans are Animals and that we have Instincts is not dehumanizing, just as saying that a wolf is an animal and has instincts is not dewolfizing.That is simply a silly concept.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 07:44 PM

I think you do not understand what an instinct is. Instinct does not mean that the animal is a mindless automaton, like in us, it simply provides the impetus for certain actions.For example:My dog has puppies, her instinct is to keep anyone and everyone away from them. At first she would growl at me when I aproched to inspect the litter. She was unsure what I would do, and her instincts provided impetus for her to be alarmed and issue me a warning.When she saw I was not a threat to her puppies she allowed me to inspect them. Keep in mind, she won't allow the other dogs we own near them, but she allows me because she trusts me.Now... this says two things to me. The dog a) made a conscious decision to not simply chase me off by snapping at me. She knew from prior experience that I am her friend, I feed her, play with her, and take care of her. She chose not to jump to a conclusion about my intentions. She was even friendly enough to give me a warning by growling. b) After it was shown that I meant no harm, she now trusts me around her pups.If my dog was an automaton, she would have roboticly barked at me and chased me away, instead we have a creature assessing a situation based on her instincts, then proceeding to make a rational decision about how to react to those instincts.If this doesn't blow your misguided assumptions about animals right out of the water I don't know what will. Oh really? How about this famous tale: Or how about bobby: Greyfriars Bobby - WikipediaAnd as a personal anecdote:My dog once lunged infront of me to protect me from an attacking dog. My dog stood his grownd and kept the other dog away from me even though he got torn up pretty bad. I was not hurt, and my dog had several stitches put in.So I don't know what your talking about. Alltruism is exibited by many animals in many forms.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 09:33 PM

On one level we do, after all we do things because OUR feelings tell us to do it. So yes, we do things to gratify ourselves.But saying that there is no altruism is silly:What those firemen did on 911 was altruistic, because they willingly walked into the jaws of death in the hopes that others would survive. This is an altruistic act, it dosn't matter if on some level the act is meant to gratify a primal sense of duty or something, it dosn't make the act any less selfless. I think we fit quite well within both these deffinitions.

Yes, I don't deny that we have a horrifying effect on the world, and in no way am I suggesting that what we have caused in the environment is right. But it's funny you should bring this list up as I was recently reading a national geographic which discussed endangered species.They have quite an extensive chart a small section of which is devoted to 'Unknown Causes'. At least a few species are endangered not for fault of man, but for the following reasons:-Poor Reproduction Rates
-Poor Competitors for resourcesThis tells me, that at least some animals just plain suck at surviving.Specific creatures whos extinction can be traced to natural predation, climate change and so on, includes many species of dinosaurs, the giant mammals of the Ice Age. And scores of other creatures that have disapered from the planet over the ages.The biodiversity of earth is a record of only those who survived, we stand on the bones of billions of species that expired long before we ever arived. So yes, animals do die out naturaly.Now, we were put on this earth by nature, our effect on the earth is thus natural.As to equilibrium, I find it interesting that our big brains allow us to cause great harm and at the same time remedy that harm.

Ill just add to this. We are part of nature, what we do is due to our nature.The equilibrium is achived when those we affect adjust to us.When the ice ages began and scores of creatures just couldn't survive and died off, no one was whining about the big nasty winter, it was adapt or die.Many creatures Rats, Roches, Dogs, Cats, Pigeons, and Even eagles, have adapted to live in even the most urban of settings. So just because we seem to be having a big effect on things dosn't make us all evil and awfull.When the eukeriotic bacteria filld the air with then poisonus oxygen and changed the cource of nature for ever, were they evil bastards?With that said, I don't think humans suck. I like being human, I like the things I can do, and I think our human abilitys allow us to achive the same level of coexistence you desire.Do we do it now, unfortunetly no, but I am optamistic.

Rahvin,I agree with you whole heartedly. I don't think that whatever we do is right, I agree with conservation, and the measures we take to protect certain endangered species.I was just noting that what 1.6 was saying about humans being so terrible and such was a bit harsh. That this happens in nature all the time despite our intervention.And like the bacteria, for a long time in human history we weren't aware of the effects we were having, so in a sense we are a bit innocent of it. But as time goes by you see more and more efforts being made to sustain the environment, I believe this is a good thing and a testament to the fact that humans are not all a giant pack of a-holes.But ultimately, as careful as we try to be, we will displace some organisms, we will impact the environment to some degree, this is nature and it cannot be helped. However, what we can help, we should.Furthermore, some mass extinctions we have caused are for the btter:i.e. Small Pox, Pollio, and scores of other deseases now unknown in the world.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-20-2005 03:08 PM

Well, then I must ask, how do you define instinct?Because the way you describe it here, instinct implies some level of descision making. After all, the animal has to make a choice what is a threat and what is not. Her instincts might tell her one thing, but she has the capability of learning to differentiate. This tells me that some level of rational mind is a t work.Remember, I am not saying that animals reason on the same level as us, mearly that it's a matter of degree. They may not do calculus or philosphy, but they do make descisions and negotiate problems.Another dog story (you may have noticed I'm a dog lover ):My dog Tes liked to get into the trash can in the kitchen. We would get home and there would be garbage on the floor and we would scold her accordingly. Eventually this stopped. But trash kept turning up outside! None in the kitchen where she would leave it before.The can wouldn't be overturned either.One day I caught her doing something very peculiar, she was rooting thrugh the trash, got a clump of it. Kicked it out the kitchen door into the yard!How can this be mearly instinct? There has to be some sort of conscious mind, devising plans, and making descisions.Can instinct encompass descision making?

To CA and the others, Im realy interested in the Animal consciousness/instinct debate weve been having. But we should open a different thread. If your all up for it, say Ay. hehe

Yes. I agree with this and the (not-quoted) preceeding. Yes, and no. As you said, it is a mater of perspective.First off, an asteroid has no consiousness, a human does. Therefore there is much significance to our existance. That is, significance to us. After all, in order to signify anything you need a concious entety to signify to.Now, in the grand cosmic scheme of things, I suppose we aren't that big of a deal. But who cares about that, we are alive here and now. And our experience of reality is very important to us and our happiness. How does this follow? Suppose I wanted to look at the universe from the perspective an ant, a swallow, an amazonian indian. The meaning of life would probably change significantly with each one, assuming god, why do we need his perspective of things? Were doing just fine down here without it. These are assertions. Can you prove that if there was no God there would be no reason? I am an agnostic atheist, yet I consider myself a reasonable person. But this is the thing, God or no, we are very significant! If god does not exist, we are still significant. Because we are significant to ourselves, ultimately that is all that matters. There is no universal morality. Morality changes based on who we apply it to and who is applying it. As stated before we do not apply the same morals to animals we do to ourselves, likewise we don't apply the same morals to other cultures as we do to ourselves. Morality is an objective construct established by society to maximize happiness and eliminate suffering (yes, I know not all societies are very good at this, but it's the intent anyway). Why is this idea discomforting to you? Assume it was, what implications does this have for you?Will you go out rape steal and murder?

It's perfectly logical. Just because we have reason, dosn't mean there has to be some sort of greater reason.Have you ever thought of the idea that we are the reason the universe poseses?Asuming we are the only inteligent life in the universe, effectively we lend it reason. Thus, the universe is a thinking entety. i.e. If I took your brain away and put it in a vat, your body would cese to be conscious, but your brain would continue to "run" your personality, thoughts and so on. You (your brain) lend your body reason. No it dosn't. It simply implyes that the universe can create inteligent thinking lifeforms. Yes it is temporary, it is also real. Liz, life is short on a cosmic scale, but to us here on earth, its a pretty long time. We like to live and be happy. Our consciousness is REAL, we experience it don't we?If there is no god and it is all random cosmic phenomena, does that make you any less real? Any less conscious?Does morality disapear if god does not exist?I say it dosn't.

Ya, so? Does it make it any less relevant to our experience of the world? No. Morality helps us get along, thank goodness for the 'playground rules of survival'. I don't see it as a reduction, it's a statement of fact. And It is not offensive at all. We have meaning because as conscious beings we have the ability to ASIGN meaning. The man on the moon would be nothing without us.Further, have you ever looked at the pretty patterns in the colidoscope? Are they less pretty because they are the result of random forces?