Moral Argument for the Existence of God

S

Samuel Stuart Maynes

New Member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kant’s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can ‘know’ nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don’t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume’s famous moral question: “Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?” – What’s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that we must assume that there is One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
 
Hello Samuel and welcome!

For me, this type of philosophical argument, while thoughtful, is in the end circular. The outcome does not suggest we must assume there be Gods, much less there be but one God.

The reason for my interpretation is that too much of the 'if' parts of this type of if/then thinking can not be taken as true beyond any reasonable doubt. They may be true, and then they may not.

To pick just one example. The declaration that without a God there can be no ultimate moral standard. That is not true. Or at the very least it cannot be proven to be true. History has shown us over and over again that Theistic religions are no more moral than any other kind. And history has also shown us too many examples of a Theistic religion acting in the most immoral of ways.

Thoughts?
 
Gordian Knot said:
To pick just one example. The declaration that without a God there can be no ultimate moral standard. That is not true. Or at the very least it cannot be proven to be true. History has shown us over and over again that Theistic religions are no more moral than any other kind. And history has also shown us too many examples of a Theistic religion acting in the most immoral of ways.
Click to expand...
Your argument is
1. If moral standards were based on religion, all believers would observe them.
2. All believers do not observe them.
3. Therefore, moral standards are not based on religion.
Obviously the first premise is not true: people do not always behave in ways logically implied by their beliefs.

The real connection between morality and God involves moral awareness. A male monkey will protect the offspring of other males; a male bear or lion will kill and eat them. From the "selfish gene" point of view, both are viable strategies, but no human society has endorsed the lion's one. Human societies may differ on whether there is such a thing as justifiable homicide and, if there is, how it may be defined, but no society accepts killing merely for convenience.

Humans clearly have a moral sense in the way that animals do not. This sense is innate. As Mencius wrote, if you see a child about to fall down a well, you run and rescue it. Not because you want to be well thought of, but because that's what humans do. The sense can be shown to be rational: Kant's "categorical imperative" may not be a complete explanation, but it's a starting point. This rationality suggests that it is objective.

If animals do not have or need morality, there cannot be an evolutionary pressure to develop it. But if we are created by God with free will, it is natural that we will be given the necessary sense to know how that free will should be exercised.
 
DavidMcCann said:
If animals do not have or need morality, there cannot be an evolutionary pressure to develop it. But if we are created by God with free will, it is natural that we will be given the necessary sense to know how that free will should be exercised.
Click to expand...
Just wonderful: either no need for 'morality' or God created us with free will. Seriously? :D

Please see, as but one example, E. O. Wilson's …Preferably after first reading False dilemma :rolleyes:
 
Samuel, Welcome to the lively debate you began. With all due respect, I disagree with you and Kant.

Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Absolute morals exist, or if they do, that they can derived solely from revealed texts written thousands of years ago. I think our moral sense stems from our consciences, combined with a calculation of what is the greatest good for the greatest number. This necessitates that morals will differ among people and that they will change over time.

That's not to say that society should not prohibit some things that a few consider immoral. This is where democracy or religion steps in with rules of law.

Samuel Stuart Maynes said:
(e.g., David Hume’s famous moral question: “Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?” – What’s it to me?).
Click to expand...

One can have a strong sense of morality without believing in God.I do not prefer the destruction of worlds (or many other things outside my moral code) because I know they are wrong. This I learned from my atheist parents.

Quote from David McCann:

If animals do not have or need morality, there cannot be an evolutionary pressure to develop it. But if we are created by God with free will, it is natural that we will be given the necessary sense to know how that free will should be exercised.
Click to expand...

I agree with GK that animals often exhibit a simple form of morality such as a cooperation, fairness, bonding, and altruism.

Our own morality grew out of our need to live in close proximity to each other with some degree of trust. Our greater intelligence and our greater destructive ability allows and requires us to develop more complex moral codes.




 
We don't need G!d for morals....plenty have shown us that...

Being of and in, and even a leader of a 'moral' belief system doesn't preclude one from acting as if without any morals or compassion....plenty have shown that as well.
 
But the question isn't if an atheist can be moral, is it? Isn't the question: Can morality exist without an Absolute, a divine perfect creator?

There are a couple of things in the OP I disagree with, but I'll hang back a while and see where this goes.
 
Well, if you ask an atheist, morality can exist without an Absolute divine creator because here we are, moral people, without the existence of an Absolute divine creator (in our opinion.) But that argument is not going to persuade a theist so I don't see how we can continue this conversation in meaningful way.

Besides, I think the original poster posited that you can deduce the presence of God from human awareness of morality. It seems that the arguments for God driven morality are getting circular.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. It's what we do with our beliefs or non-beliefs that's important.
 
Yes, I think Kant and the OP is trying to deduce the existence of God, I don't find the reasoning very convincing myself, but it's the topic. I hope to learn something from the other posters here.
 
Zi gong asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?" The Master replied: "How about 'shu' (reciprocity): never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
Confucius, Analects XV.24.

The sage advice of Confucius establishes in his own tradition a universal moral norm: Do as you would be done by. You don't need an absolute to argue the validity and the universality of that, so I think the answer is you don't need to posit a deity to do so. It's just plain good common sense?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I'm actually not sure of that at all, I hope to come to some sort of conclusion sooner or later.
Click to expand...

I would think that the question "can { X } exist without an Absolute, a divine perfect creator?" is unanswerable in the absence on a coherent definition of { X }.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Just wonderful: either no need for 'morality' or God created us with free will. Please see, as but one example, E. O. Wilson's The Biological Basis of Morality. Preferably after first reading False dilemma
Click to expand...
If you read carefully, i didn't actually exclude any other possibility. Perhaps I should have gone into more detail: a common failing of mine is assuming every one is quick on the uptake! As for Wilson, he should stick to his bugs.
 
Tea said "But the question isn't if an atheist can be moral, is it? Isn't the question: Can morality exist without an Absolute, a divine perfect creator?"

Seems to me a lot of the comments have the point of the discussion backwards. The question asked by the OP is not if morality can exist without God. Rather the statement of the OP is that a 'moral argument' can be used to prove that God exists.

The question derived from the original statement would be if one agrees that a moral argument can prove God exists.

My response to that question is no. A moral argument cannot in and of itself tell us whether a God exists. In addition I would also add that a moral argument can not tell us that a God does not exist.

A moral argument is a philosophically structured set of comments. It cannot prove, nor disprove that God(s) exist.
 
For some no evidence is needed...

For others no evidence is enough...


The same argument for thousands of years.... you really think you'll get an answer that will satisfy everyone??
 
Thomas said:
so I think the answer is you don't need to posit a deity to do so. It's just plain good common sense?
Click to expand...
But if I may, the op argues that this "common sense" as you call it has to come from somewhere since no other organism has it. And so it follows, where else would this "common sense" morality come from, if not from a Creator?

I would also add that this common sense morality of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" wouldn't exist within us without a purpose. And the purpose also points to a Creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top