The Argument From Morality

[bcbwilla]

Hey everybody! I'm doing a paper for a philosophy of religion class on the Argument From Morality, and I just wanted to see what different people thought about it. The argument generally goes like this: 1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. 2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives. 3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives (from Wikipedia)So I'm really just wondering1)Do you accept this argument? Why?(2) Do you use the existence of morality to strengthen your belief in God?(3)If so, how? If not, why not?Thank you very much. All and any responses are appreciated.

 

[For Life]

Yes I accept this argument. We all have morals, but why? They seem to run counter to our own benefit and instead benefit the group or community. What is behind these morals? What makes us want to do things that benefit the group or community instead of ourselves? There is only one explanation that makes any sense to me. God. God wants us to be good to each other because He loves all of us.If you would like a much better explanation than I can give read CS Lewis book 'Mere Christianity'. He is an outstanding writer and intellect that wrestled with this same question. He started out as an atheist and because of questions like the one you have asked he turned to Christianity and became one of its biggest defenders.

 

[Jilli]

I would like to know what the other 'various alternatives' are.The existence of good and evil, right and wrong, morality and immorality etc to me certainly point to God (and Satan)as being the most obvious and acceptable option and strengthens my belief that there is a God.

 

[bcbwilla]

QUOTE (TuiBird @ Mar 27 2009, 03:05 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71325
I would like to know what the other 'various alternatives' are.
The most common 'alternative' to morals from God is morals from evolution. In the most basic form, one could argue that organisms that live in groups may have an advantage over those who don't. Because cooperation in groups is critical for group stability, the organisms must not be completely selfish. Thus complex social behavior emerges (such as reciprocal altruism).I'm not endorsing one position over the other, I'm just presenting the most common objection to the Argument from Morality.And thanks for the responses! I really appreciate it

 

[For Life]

QUOTE (bcbwilla @ Mar 27 2009, 09:30 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71338
The most common 'alternative' to morals from God is morals from evolution. In the most basic form, one could argue that organisms that live in groups may have an advantage over those who don't. Because cooperation in groups is critical for group stability, the organisms must not be completely selfish. Thus complex social behavior emerges (such as reciprocal altruism).I'm not endorsing one position over the other, I'm just presenting the most common objection to the Argument from Morality.And thanks for the responses! I really appreciate it

So give us the strong points from each position. What makes the most sense?

 

[bcbwilla]

QUOTE (For Life @ Mar 27 2009, 10:10 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71360
So give us the strong points from each position. What makes the most sense?
I already have picked my position for the paper I am writing and I haven't expressed it here because I wanted to see what people's initial impression of the argument is.But since you asked, when considering the possible sources of morality:'From God'Strong points:-God is an adequate explanation (an all powerful being can be invoked to explain anything)Weak points:-A supernatural entity is being invoked'from Evolution'Strong points:-It's a natural explanation-The mechanism (evolution) has been established outside of the argument itselfWeak points:-The argument is 'a priori'

 

[For Life]

So it boils down to faith in God vs. faith in science. I guess you already know where my faith is and I know where yours is. I still hope you read some of C.S. Lewis' work. It could help.

 

[Jilli]

Hi bcbwilla,I know you want other opinions and you are not here to argue for either side but I just want to say that For Life is right -it basically comes down to, you either believe God and everything the Bible says (God is good and therefore all our moralsetc come from Him) or you believe that evolution is correct, and somehow then you have to fit in where our conscience, our laws, our'leanings' for good and evil come from. Probably the way you have been bought up will determine the way you think, unlessyou have 'changed sides' at some stage. Personally I think that the evolution theory (and it IS just a theory - many people do not take it as 'established') has manyweaknesses and loopholes and I fail to see how good and evil can just 'evolve'. If you have no model to base anything on then whosays good is good and evil is evil? (and yet most people DO know) Where did that standard/morality originally come from?

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

I believe God has created a conscience in everyone. However, since no one seeks God on their own (according to the Holy Bible) , there is also a developed desire to "do good"Most of it comes from oddly enough, self righteousness, and the feelings someone get's from doing good as a self rewarding action. Even from the atheistic view, "You don't need God to be a good person" Or from the Deist view, "Just be as good as you can and "god" will reward you" Or even from the Karmic view, "If I do wrong it'll come back to me" Different religions also dictate different morals, such as what fits the society in which they're from.There are also nurtured morals developed from parentals and society around, as a "natural desire not to upset the heard". From the faith view, we realize that our own righteousness is like "filthy rags" to our God. By salvation and grace we are conformed in mind (with the brain still being refered to as a chemically related bio mass of electronic responses to stimuli, and thus still flesh) to be like Jesus, and compelled (not forced) to do what God has commanded in the bible.