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:
1. If God exists, then God and God alone decides what is (truly) right and wrong. Without God there could be no ultimate standards of morality.
2. So, if people assumed that God does not exist, then they would be doomed to a life without fixed moral standards. They would have no reasons to think that lying, stealing, or even murder are wrong. According to this view, nonbelievers contribute to the corruption of themselves and the entire culture. (Cf the famous quote associated with Dostoevsky, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted".)
3. Given the above, it is necessary that God exists if society is to have stable standards of morality.
4. Everyone in society either obviously needs or already has stable standards of morality. Therefore, God exists.
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
™ Version 4.2