Thinking Through the Moral Argument for the Existence of God
The moral argument for the existence of God is often misunderstood, even though it’s not difficult to grasp. This case can be stated in three senteneces; here’s the argument in it’s most basic form:
1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
Conclusion: God must exist.
The first two statements are premises that set up assumed truths. The last statement draws a necessary conclusion (if, and only if, the first two statements are found to be true). Basically, one has to find fault with either the first or second statement — or else agree that God must exist.
So, what’s your answer? Is there something wrong with premise one? Is there something wrong with premise two? Or, do you agree with them both, and therefore believe God exists?
Before you disagree, make sure you understand the argument
If you do not believe in God, then, I am hoping you properly understand the argument. Premises one and two are not saying that morals do not exists if God does not exist … they are describing two things about morals, which can only come from the existence of a Creator of the Universe — namely, that morals are objective and absolute.
So, to properly understand the argument, one needs to understand the terms objective, and absolute.
By objective, we are saying something is true independent of humanity. That 2 + 2 = 4, is true — independent of human preference. It’s objective. On the other hand, that chocolate ice cream is absolutely the best flavor of ice cream there is, is subjective. It’s a human preference.
One has to think about a particular moral, like stealing for example. We seem to be able to agree that stealing is bad and wrong. But, when examining the moral aspect of this action, we are more concerned about why it’s wrong. Is it wrong just because it’s a majority agreement, a consensus, a preference (a subjective wrong)? Or, is it wrong because it’s wrong to steal no matter what society concludes about the matter, (an objective wrong)?
If morals are subjective, then there’s not anything wrong with any action one chooses — other than you might come under the subjective disapproval of what other people might think about your actions, (but that would be their personal problem with your actions — nothing absolutely right or wrong about their disapproval). Again, if morals are not absolute, then there’s nothing absolutely wrong with rape, murder, lying, stealing, and doing however you please. It’s just not in alignment with the majority preference of social order. But, then again social order, is only based on popular opinion. Slavery, for example, would be relative to social opinion. And during the 1830’s in the southern states, it would have been morally okay to own a slave. Now, if you believe that slavery is wrong regardless of anyone’s opinion, (including your own opinion), just because it’s wrong — then you would subscribe to morality being objective and absolute.
The first premise says morality can only be objective and absolute if it stands by the existence of being ordained by a Creator of the Universe. Else, defining right and wrong is purely a personal preference.
The second premise says morality is objective and absolute.
So, where do you stand? Do you disagree with premise one; disagree with premise two; or believe God exists providing the basis for morality being objective and absolute?