Axiological+Argument

= = = = = = =Axiological Argument =  This argument, also simply known as the Moral Argument for God’s existence, affirms that objective moral values exist and thus establishes that an objective moral value Maker (GOD) exists. In a logical sense, the argument goes like this:


 * 1) //If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist //
 * 2) //Objective moral values and duties do exist //
 * 3) //Therefore, God exists //

Now, if premises 1 and 2 are correct, it follows logically and necessarily that 3 is true. So, the question is, are the premises true? Well, let us dissect each one and see.

__//Premise 1 //__

 * //If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist //**

This premise is affirming that if God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. To ensure we are all on the same page, I think it is important to define some terms that come from this first premise:
 * **//Objective Moral Values.//** You may wonder what is meant by “objective” moral values. Well, //Merriam-Webster// defines objective in the following way: “of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind.”[1] So, with that, when we say objective moral values we mean there exist in reality moral values that are independent of peoples minds, opinions or perceptions – good and evil are not just something we make up but actually exist. On the flip side, when you say moral values are subjective, you are meaning that moral values are internal, inside, based upon a persons own mind, opinion or perception – in short good and evil are just made up by each individual person (they are just preferences).


 * //**Values and Duties.**// This is an important point to make so bare with me. Notice in the first premise it says “objective moral values and duties.” Well, it is important to distinguish between moral values and moral duties when we are talking about the Moral Argument. “//Values// have to do with whether something is good or bad. //Duties// [on the other hand] have to do with whether something is right or wrong.”[2] You may first think there is no difference but if you think about it you will see there is a huge difference. You see, moral values may exist such as good and bad but without moral duties there is no //obligation// (no duty) for me to obey those moral values! Something can be good in and of itself (say tolerating other’s religions) but without a moral obligation (a duty), there is no reason for me to do the right thing and be tolerant! “So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something being obligatory.”[3]

So, with those two sets of terms defined, we can now move on to defending premise one. We will do so by asking and then answering a few questions.

First off, “Do objective moral values and duties require God?” This is a really good question and to answer it I would actually like to ask a counter question to it, “If God does not exist, then where do objective moral values and duties come from?” With that counter question it becomes clear that the answers are unsuccessful for the skeptic or atheist. The most common response is that moral values are a product of evolution – they are just another step in the naturalistic evolutionary process. As Michael Ruse, an avid evolutionists and philosopher of science said:

//The position of the modern evolutionist…is that humans have an awareness of morality…because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth….Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think they are referring above and beyond themselves….Nevertheless…such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…and any deeper meaning is illusory//.[4]

So, with that, morals are just like hands, feet and teeth – just another appendage added on to the ever evolving blob of primordial sludge known as human beings. However, there are several things very problematic with this belief. First off, evolution does not teach //“Survival of the Most Helpful”// it teaches //“Survival of the Fittest.”// For example, in the Animal Kingdom, antelope fleeing from a pack of cheetahs do not stop to help their wounded brethren – on the contrary they flee all the more and allow the weakest of the herd to be devoured while the stronger survive. However, this is many times reversed with humans. For example, when an apartment is burning down, what is it that makes the “stronger and fittest” of people turn back to help a child or elderly person (who would be classified as weak and unfit in the evolutionary process) out from the flames? Is that survival of the fittest? Is that evolution at work? I do not think so. There is some Force greater that drives a person to do good – to feel obligated.

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Now, naturalistic biologists may say that the situation just mentioned is a product of the “herd morality” that exists among //Homo sapiens//; which is some broad binding “natural moral code” that the whole herd possess to function and stay alive.[5] However, there is not reason to believe that this “herd mentality” is objectively true – it is not some necessary all encompassing binding force for all humans. It is highly probable, left to natural causes (without God in the picture), humans could have evolved differently and had very different moral values.[6] Furthermore, evolutionists make it clear that there is nothing morally “special” about humans. Richard Dawkins has stated of human worth that, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference….We are machines for propagating DNA<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">….It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”[7]

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">More important than arguing that atheists/humanists/materialists and the like do not have grounds for objective moral values, is the important fact that they can not ground moral duties! This is where their argument falls apart. Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that moral values (like love, tolerance, justice, selflessness) exist and are the sole products of socio-biological evolution. Now, moral values may exist but there is no DUTY or OBLIGATION to obey them! If you think there is some force (other than God) that makes it a duty to obey those moral values, then I ask, “What is it!?” What is the objective moral measuring rod that makes those moral values an obligation to obey? For specific examples, why should I not kill an innocent child? Why should I not rape a woman? Why should I not commit incest? Is “Nature” the moral measuring rod in all these cases? Is “Evolutionary Process” the moral measuring rod in all these cases? Is “Society” the moral measuring rod in all these cases? If any of those solutions are the measuring rod for moral values and duties, then they are poor choices and ultimately meaningless.

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The only response a naturalistic thinker can go with their argument is to say that “whatever contributes to human flourishing is morally good and whatever detracts from human flourishing is bad.”[8] However, this explanation does not “cut the cake” so to speak. You see, even the **//moral value//** “something is good if it contributes to human flourishing” can not be asserted as a **//moral duty//** in a naturalistic/atheistic worldview. It is not a matter of there being the moral value “something is good if it contributes to human flourishing” but rather WHY obey that moral value. Furthermore it may be noted, WHY would “something is good if it contributes to human flourishing” have a moral dimension at all? Why would it be wrong to deter human flourishing?

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Another approach that atheists/naturalists/skeptics and the like go with morals is to assert what is called //Atheistic Moral Platonism//. This view evolved out of the thinking of Plato who, although he believed in the gods and some “God” he also believed moral values existed objectively just by themselves – in short moral values just existed![9] With that, modern day atheists have run with this kind of thought and have asserted that moral values (such as love, justice, mercy, and tolerance) just exist timelessly and are not grounded in God. There are several things wrong with this approach:
 * 1) <span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin-top: 0in;">//Firstly, this position is just plainly incomprehensible//. What does it mean to say, “Justice, Love, Tolerance, and Mercy all just exist?” In other words the position is that from the moment the universe came into being, all these moral values just sprang into existence and are just there existing (part of the “moral fabric” of the universe or something). However seems ridiculous to say that in the absence of human beings that moral values just exist “out there” – it seems that moral values are products of persons ( in other words values do not exist apart from people), not just abstract entities existing in the great beyond.[10]
 * 2) <span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin-top: 0in;">//Secondly, this position does not take into account moral duties//![11] You see, if these great moral values exist “out there” as part of the universe, there still remains the question: “Why am I obligated (or duty bound) to obey them?” Who cares if Tolerance just exists “out there”? Why should I show tolerance to others? The answer is I am not obligated to show tolerance or to show any other moral value.
 * 3) <span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">//Thirdly, this position is highly improbable with blind-evolutionary processes//. Without a God, it is quite ironic and actually “fantastically improbable” that just by “blind evolutionary” processes (by chance) humans evolved in such a way that they just “naturally” corresponded their ethics codes to those abstract moral values that just are “out there” existing in the universe.[12]

//__<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Premise 2 __//

 * //<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Objective moral values and duties do exist //**

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">So, we have established that without God there can not be objective moral values. Now, in premise 2 we need to establish whether objective moral values actually exist! The question thus that remains is: Do objective moral values and duties exist that are binding on all people, in all places at all times? That is a big question to answer, but let us see what we can do.

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">//Firstly//, we can know that objective moral values exist if it can be established that God exists. Now, this may sound circular to the whole moral argument but let me explain. We have already discussed two scientific arguments that God exists (the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument). Now, based upon those two arguments (and other arguments aside from the Moral Argument) it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists. From just those two arguments we have seen that the universe came into being from an uncaused Cause and was designed specifically for human life. From those arguments we have established that the Cause of the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and personal (that is the Cause is a disembodied Mind). Now, a personal all powerful Being would have the properties of what a Mind does, which includes ethical codes and values (moral values). Based upon that, we can say that objective moral values exist because they are simply qualities of an already existing all powerful God who possesses such qualities.

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">//Secondly//, getting back specifically to the Moral Argument, we know objective moral values exist based upon our own moral experiences. People may say that morals are subjective or relativistic all day long, but the first time you wrong them, then everything changes. That is when you hear “That is not fair!” or “You shouldn’t judge!” or “You should be more tolerant!” All of those outcries are moral outcries saying that it is wrong for all people at all times in all places to be unfair, judgmental, and intolerant. You see, “the Moral Law [may not] always [be] the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”[13]

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Furthermore, we can experience real good and evil when we hear of child rape, men beating women, religious persecution, and so forth – we do not think that these are just merely preferences. No, we assert (all the collectivity of humanity) that these are acts that are wrong (they are evil) for all people, in all places at all times. For a more specific example, think of the Holocaust. Was killing 6 million Jews morally wrong for all people in all places at all times? If you say no, then on what grounds do you affirm that moral position? What moral measuring rod do you use? To think that such evil things are not wrong is to simply be a hard-lined morally bankrupt person.

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I end this discussion of Premise 2 with a quote from //C.S. Lewis’ __Mere Christianity__// pertaining to objective moral values:

//<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another; you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something — some Real Morality — for them to be true about. //

__//<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Premise 3 //__

 * //<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Therefore, God exists //**

<span style="color: #424e80; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">It follows logically from Premise 1 and Premise 2 that Premise 3 is correct. Now, based upon the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument and now the Moral Argument, I think we have sufficiently established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that God exists.

[1] [] [2] Craig, William Lane. //__On Guard: Defending Your Faith With Reason and Precision__//. (Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook. 2010) pg 130 (emphasis added) [3] Ibid 130 [4] Quote cited in: Craig, William Lane. //__Reasonable Faith.__// pg 174 [5] //__On Guard__//. 132  [6] //__Reasonable Faith__//. 132 [7] Quote cited in: Craig, William Lane. //__Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics__//. 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008) pg 174 [8] Ibid 177 [9] //__On Guard__//. Pg 136 [10] Ibid pg 137 [11] Ibid pg 137 [12] Ibid 138 [13] Geisler, Norman and Frank Turek. //__I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist__//. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004) pg 175