Defenders: Excursus on Natural Theology (Part 18): The Moral Argument

Summary

---

Defenders Podcast: Excursus on Natural Theology (Part 18): The Moral Argument

Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: August 10, 2022

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Defenders marks the beginning of Dr. Craig’s exploration of the moral argument for God’s existence. Moving on from cosmological and teleological arguments discussed in prior sessions, Dr. Craig unpacks what it means to say moral values are “objective,” distinguishes moral “values” from “duties,” and presents the classic syllogism for the moral argument. The discussion centers on whether objective moral values and duties require a grounding in God, and address common misunderstandings and objections to this line of reasoning.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to the Moral Argument

• Dr. Craig frames the question: "Can we be good without God?"—not as a question about personal moral behavior, but about the foundation for moral values.

• He clarifies:

  “It would indeed be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without believing in God. But that wasn’t the question. The question was, can we be good without God?” (01:39)

• The main philosophical question:

  • Are moral values independent realities, or mere conventions or preferences?
  • If objective, what is their foundation?

2. The Moral Argument Formulated

• Dr. Craig shares the syllogism central to the moral argument:

  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.

  “This simple little argument is logically ironclad. If the two premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and logically.” (04:31)

3. The Power and Paradox for Modern Listeners

• Many, especially students, accept both premises due to cultural values like tolerance and the rejection of imposing one’s views—yet rarely consider the logical implications.
• Notable anecdote:

  “I remember talking once with a non believer who would jump back and forth between the two premises... It would have been funny had it not been so pitiful to see someone floundering in this way so simply out of a vain attempt to avoid God.” (06:16)

4. Key Distinctions Clarified

a) Values vs. Duties

• Values: Good/bad—concern with moral worth

• Duties: Right/wrong—concern with moral obligation

  “...there's a difference between what is good and bad and what is right and wrong. Good and bad has to do with something's moral worth, and right and wrong has to do with something's being obligatory.” (10:00)

• Example: Becoming a doctor is good, but not obligatory.

b) Objective vs. Subjective

• Objective: Independent of people’s opinions (including societal consensus)

• Subjective: Dependent on personal or collective opinion

  “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of what people think about it.” (10:18)

• Holocaust example: Even if universally accepted, still objectively wrong.

• Platonic “mind-independence” discussed: Dr. Craig justifies using “independent of human opinion,” as including God in "mind-dependent" makes the distinction trivial.

c) Absolute vs. Relative

• Dr. Craig distances the discussion from “absolute vs. relative,” focusing on objectivity within relevant circumstances:

  “I’m not claiming that there are absolute moral values as opposed to values that are merely relative, but rather that in whatever circumstances one finds oneself, there will be a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do.” (13:09)

5. Defending Premise 1: If God Does Not Exist, Objective Moral Values and Duties Do Not Exist

a) Moral Values: The Problem for Naturalism

• On naturalism, humans are accidental byproducts, not inherently morally valuable.

• Science is descriptive and morally neutral. Moral values are not discoverable in scientific investigation.

• Notable quote (citing Dawkins):

  “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being.” (17:20)

• Morality appears as an evolutionary and social “herd morality,” not objective truth.

• Darwin’s insight: Had humans evolved like hive bees, different values would be deemed “sacred” (e.g., killing siblings).

b) Moral Duties: The Problem for Naturalism

• Without God, humans are just animals—no meaningful moral obligations.

• Analogy: A lion kills, but does not “murder;” a shark copulates, but does not "rape."

• On atheism, moral taboos are evolutionary and social conventions, lacking true obligation.

  “So if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no objective moral law which we must obey.” (22:34)

6. Addressing Common Misunderstandings

• Dr. Craig highlights the frequent confusion between:

  • Needing to believe in God to live morally, versus the need for God as a grounding for morality itself.
  • Moral motivation (why act morally) versus moral ontology (what justifies moral truths).

  “Belief in God is not necessary for objective morality. God is.” (26:41)

Example: Debate with Paul Kurtz

“Kurtz’s point only shows that belief in God [is] not necessary to living a moral, optimistic life. It does nothing to refute the claim that if there is no God, then morality is just a human illusion.” (26:11)

7. Open Discussion/Q&A (27:00–33:04)

• A participant expresses skepticism about premise one, referencing a naturalist who lives morally by “respecting the world” and seeking to preserve society.

• Dr. Craig responds:

  • Affirming someone can live morally without belief in God, but the question is whether their morality is objectively grounded on atheism.
  • Presses: “Why ought society be preserved and protected?” “Why should we avoid inflicting pain?”—questions meant to push the discussion to the grounding for obligations.

• The distinction between subjective and objective morals revisited.

• Misunderstandings about the argument’s focus (it’s not about “good people” or “moral motivation”) are gently corrected.

  “The conclusion to which I’m leading is that God exists. That’s the conclusion.” (31:00)

  “You do the good for the good's sake. You do it because it is good.” (32:25)

  “Are there objective values and duties that are valid and binding independent of our apprehension of them? That’s the question.” (32:51)

8. Closing & Preview

• Dr. Craig concludes the session and foreshadows further exploration and critique of objections to premise one in the next class.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It would be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without believing in God. But that wasn’t the question.” — Dr. Craig (01:39)
• “This simple little argument is logically ironclad. If the two premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and logically.” — Dr. Craig (04:31)
• “Belief in God is not necessary for objective morality. God is.” — Dr. Craig (26:41)
• Citing Dawkins: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference...” — Dawkins (17:20)
• “A lion kills a zebra, but it doesn’t murder the zebra.” — Dr. Craig (21:12)
• “Are there objective values and duties that are valid and binding independent of our apprehension of them? That’s the question.” — Dr. Craig (32:51)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:45 — Introducing the moral argument
• 03:27 — Students’ counterpoints and the articulation of the moral syllogism
• 07:59 — Distinguishing values vs. duties
• 10:18 — Defining objective vs. subjective
• 16:15 — Defense of premise one: exploring moral values without God
• 17:20 — Dawkins quote on moral nihilism in atheism
• 21:12 — Illustration: animals and the absence of true moral obligation
• 23:03 — Clarifying the difference between belief in God and the reality of morality
• 27:08–32:51 — Open discussion and Q&A, with objections and clarifications
• 33:06 — Conclusion and introduction of next week’s focus

---

Summary

This episode delves deeply into the moral argument for God’s existence, stressing the crucial distinction between living morally and the metaphysical grounding for morality. Dr. Craig builds a logical case that objective moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of God, anticipating and addressing common misunderstandings and objections with clarity. The interactive Q&A further illustrates the challenges and nuances of this foundational question in moral philosophy and Christian apologetics.

Transcript

[Announcer]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig Today An Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 18. For more resources from Dr. Craig, go

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

to reasonablefaith.org in our Excursus in natural theology, we've talked about the proper basicality

[Student/Participant]

of belief in God.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

We have looked at the cosmological argument from contingency. We've examined the Kalam cosmological argument and

[Student/Participant]

most recently completed a study of the teleological argument based on the fine tuning of the universe for a cosmic designer.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Today we want to turn our attention

[Student/Participant]

to a new argument, which is the moral argument for God's existence.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And we can begin thinking about this by asking ourselves a question, can we be good without God? Now, at first blush, the answer to this question might seem so obvious that even to pose it is apt to make people angry. For while we Christians find in God a source of moral strength that enables

[Student/Participant]

us to lead better lives than we should have without him, and nevertheless, it

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

would be arrogant and ignorant to claim that non believers do not often lead good moral lives, in fact, lives that

[Student/Participant]

sometimes put our own lives to shame if we're honest.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

But wait a minute. It would indeed be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good

[Student/Participant]

without believing in God.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

But that wasn't the question. The question was, can we be good without God? And when we ask that question, we're posing in a provocative way a question about the nature of moral values. Are the moral values that we hold dear and guide our lives by just social conventions like driving on the right hand versus the left hand side of the road? Or are they merely expressions of personal preference, like having a taste for vanilla instead of chocolate? Or are they somehow binding and valid, independent of our opinion? And if they are, then what is their foundation? Many philosophers have thought that morality provides a good argument for the existence of God. I myself stumbled into the moral argument, so to speak, through the back door. I was speaking on university campuses on the absurdity of life without God, and I argued that if there is no God, then ultimately life is purposeless, meaningless and valueless. In particular, there is no foundation for objective moral values.

[Student/Participant]

Everything becomes relative.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Now, to my surprise, the response of students to this claim was often to insist that that objective moral values do exist. We know that certain things are right and wrong, and therefore certain moral values really do objectively exist. Now, what the student said didn't in any way refute my claim that without God there would be no objective moral values. Instead, what they had done was to un unwittingly provide A missing premise in a moral argument for God's existence, and this is on your handout, we can now argue one. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But two objective moral values and duties do exist, from which it follows logically.

[Student/Participant]

3.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Therefore God exists. Now, this simple little argument is logically ironclad. If the two premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and logically. Moreover, this argument is very easy to

[Student/Participant]

memorize and share with another person.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I had argued by for the truth of the first premise. The students had asserted or insisted on the truth of the second premise. And together the two premises logically imply the existence of God. And I think what makes this argument so powerful is that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, a relativistic age, students are scared to death of imposing their values on someone else. The conventional wisdom is that you can't tell somebody else that they're wrong and you're right. Who are you to judge someone else in that way? And so premise one seems correct to them. But at the same time, certain values have been deeply, indeed I think, unconsciously instilled into them, such as tolerance, open mindedness, and love. In particular, they think that it is objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else. So they're deeply committed to premise two as well. They've just never put the two together to see what the implication is. And this can lead to some very strange conversations. I remember talking once with a non believer who would jump back and forth between the two premises. When we talk about the first premise, he'd agree with it, but deny the second premise. But then when we move on to the second premise, he'd agree with it and deny the first premise. And so back and forth we went with him, unable to make up his mind which one he believed and which one he rejected. It would have been funny had it not been so pitiful to see someone floundering in this way so simply out of a vain attempt to avoid God. So what I'd like to do is examine more closely each of the argument's two premises in order to see what defense you can offer on their behalf and also what objections the non believer

[Student/Participant]

might raise against them.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And here we will be departing somewhat from the outline, so you'll need, if

[Student/Participant]

you're taking notes, to add in some additional points as we go along.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Now let's take a look first at premise one, that if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Before we can say something in defense of this Premise. I want to clarify a couple of important distinctions.

[Student/Participant]

First.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

First, notice that I distinguish between values and duties. Values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now, you might think that this is a distinction without a difference. You might think that good is and right mean the same thing, and the same goes for bad and wrong. But if you'll reflect on it for a moment, I think you'll see that this isn't the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what I ought or ought not to do. But obviously, you're not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you're not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good

[Student/Participant]

for you to become a firefighter or

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

a farmer or a homemaker. But you can't do all of them. So it's simply not true that because something is good to do that it means you have a duty or moral

[Student/Participant]

obligation to do it.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Furthermore, sometimes all we have is bad choices. Think, for example, of the movie Sophie's Choice, where the poor mother has to choose which of her two children are to be sent by the Nazi soldiers

[Student/Participant]

to the concentration camp.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

No matter what she chose, it's a

[Student/Participant]

bad state of affairs.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And yet it's not wrong for her to make a choice because she must

[Student/Participant]

choose in that circumstance.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

So there's a difference between what is good and bad and what is right and wrong. Good and bad has to do with something's moral worth, and right and wrong has to do with something's being obligatory. All right.

[Student/Participant]

There's a second distinction that I want

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

to clarify, and that is a distinction between something's being objective versus subjective. By objective, I mean independent of people's opinion. Independent of people's opinions. By subjective, I mean dependent upon people's opinions. So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of what

[Student/Participant]

people think about it.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us, regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong, even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right. And it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone Agreed that the Holocaust was right. And premise one claims that if there is no God, then moral values and duties are not objective in that sense. Any question about this distinction between objective and subjective?

[Student/Participant]

Yes, Cody?

So I've heard some people ask why you define objective as independent of persons or human opinion. Because they'll say, usually objective is defined as mind independent. But of course, if it's mind independent, then it can't be rooted in God at that point.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

So I think the reason is, Cody, that when people say mind independent, and I can virtually guarantee this, they are

[Student/Participant]

thinking about people, they're not thinking of God when they say, for example, that abstract objects are a mind independent reality, as a Platonist claims, they're not thinking about God, they're thinking about it being independent of. Of human opinion.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And the reason that that is justified, I think, is because then everything becomes mind independent. Or, pardon me, the reason that's justified is that if you say that mind

[Student/Participant]

dependent excludes being dependent on God, then everything becomes mind dependent and the distinction becomes trivial, it becomes meaningless, because then

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

even the existence of the external world

[Student/Participant]

is mind dependent, because it wouldn't exist

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

if God didn't exist. And so the intuitively meaningful distinction between

[Student/Participant]

mind dependent and mind independent collapses. If you say that it means or should encompass God as well.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

You might notice that I don't use the words absolute versus relative. Absolute would mean independent of the circumstances

[Student/Participant]

in which one finds oneself, whereas relative would mean that what is right or wrong, say, or good or bad, would be relative to the circumstances. And I'm not claiming that there are absolute moral values as opposed to values that are merely relative, but rather that in whatever circumstances one finds oneself, there

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

will be a right thing to do

[Student/Participant]

and a wrong thing to do. But one isn't claiming that these are not relative to the circumstances.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

In some circumstances it will be justified, for example, to take a human life

[Student/Participant]

if there's a terrorist about to commit a suicide bombing.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

In other circumstances, it would not be

[Student/Participant]

justified to take a human life if it's an innocent person, for example. So we're not making a claim here

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

about absolute versus relative.

[Student/Participant]

Don't confuse that distinction with the distinction of objective versus subjective. Yes, over here, Drew, I guess, could

you just tell us about existence? Because I don't think we have to commit ourselves to be Platonists to keep everything real and say these things exist and therefore they're beings.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

In your ontology, the word exists or existence in ordinary English has a very light sense.

[Student/Participant]

And it's that sense in which I'm

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Speaking here, you could rephrase it to say something like this, that if God

[Student/Participant]

does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties. And take again, there are to be

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

a light sense in the sense in

[Student/Participant]

which I say there are five Fridays in October. Nobody who thinks that's true thinks that there are objects or things called Fridays

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

which are mind independent objects in the world.

[Student/Participant]

Right, so I'm using the word in

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

a light sense here,

[Student/Participant]

not in a heavy sense. It would commit us to Platonic abstract objects.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

You could avoid the language of existence

[Student/Participant]

altogether or being by just saying that

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

if God does not exist, moral values

[Student/Participant]

and duties are not objective. And that will be a restatement of what I want to say. And then the second premise would be restated. If moral values and duties are objective, therefore God exists, and then you can just avoid any misunderstanding about positing Platonic abstract objects which are virtues or vices. Though we'll come back to this again later on as an alternative to theism, actually.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

All right, well, then let's move to a defense of premise one, and let's begin by considering first, moral values. Traditionally, moral values have been based in God, who is taken to be the highest good. But if God does not exist, then what is the basis of moral values? In particular, why think that human beings have objective moral worth? The most popular form of atheism is naturalism, and naturalism holds that the only things that exist are the things that are postulated by our best scientific theories. But science is morally neutral. You can't find moral values in a test tube. And so it would follow immediately that moral values and duties don't exist on

[Student/Participant]

naturalism, they're just illusions of human beings.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

But even if the atheist is willing to go beyond the bounds of science, why should we think that on atheism human beings are morally valuable? After all, in the absence of God, they're just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Richard Dawkins assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why on atheism is he wrong when he says, and I quote, there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being.

[Student/Participant]

End quote.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

On an atheistic view, moral values seem to be just the byproduct of biological evolution and and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self sacrificial behavior, because natural selection has determined it to be

[Student/Participant]

advantageous in the struggle for survival, so

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

their primate cousins, Homo sapiens, have similarly evolved this type of behavior. For the same reason, as a result of sociobiological pressures, there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of herd morality which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on the atheistic view, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that would make this morality objectively true. Charles Darwin himself wrote in his book the Descent of Man, if men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters and and no one would think of interfering. To think that human beings are special is to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, that is to say an unjustified bias in favor of one's own species. So if there is no God, any basis for regarding the herd morality evolved

[Student/Participant]

by Homo sapiens on this planet, and

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

as objectively true, seems to have been removed. Take God out of the picture and all you're left with is an ape like creature on a speck of solar dust, beset with delusions of moral grandeur. Second, now consider moral duties. Traditionally, our moral duties were thought to spring from God's commandments, such as the Ten Commandments. But if there is no God, then what basis remains for objective moral duties? On the atheistic view, human beings are just animals and animals have no moral

[Student/Participant]

obligations to one another.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it doesn't murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her, but it doesn't rape her. Because there is no moral dimension to these actions.

[Student/Participant]

They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

So if God does not exist, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes these moral obligations upon us? Where do they come from? It's hard to see why they would be anything more than just a subjective impression arising from societal and parental conditioning. So certain actions like incest and rape may not be advantageous biologically and socially and, and so in the course of

[Student/Participant]

human development, they have become taboo.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

But that does absolutely nothing to show that rape or incest is really wrong. Such behavior goes on all the time

[Student/Participant]

in the animal kingdom.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

The rapist who goes against the herd. Morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably. The moral equivalent, as it were, of Lady Gaga. So if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no objective moral law which we must obey. Now, it's extremely important that we clearly

[Student/Participant]

understand the issue before us.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I can almost guarantee that if you share this argument with an unbeliever, someone is going to say indignantly, are you saying that atheists are bad people? They'll think that you're judgmental and intolerant, and we need to help them see

[Student/Participant]

that this is a complete misunderstanding of the argument.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

The question is not, must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There's no reason to think that non believers cannot live what we would normally

[Student/Participant]

characterize as good and decent lives.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Again, the question is not can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God? And again, there's no reason to think that you have to believe in God in order to recognize, for example, that you ought to love your children. Or again, the question is not can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God? If the atheist recognizes and affirms the intrinsic value of human beings, there's no reason to think that he can't work out a secular system of ethics or code of conduct that the believer will largely agree with. Rather, the question is, if God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist? The question is not about the necessity

[Student/Participant]

of believing in God for objective morality.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

The question is about the necessity of

[Student/Participant]

God for objective morality.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I have been shocked at how often even professional philosophers who ought to know better confuse these two questions. For example, I participated in a debate at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania with the late humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz on the topic goodness without God is good enough. And I argued that if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties and no accountability for one's actions. Kurtz, to my astonishment, completely missed the point. He replied, and I quote, if God is essential, then how is it possible for the millions and millions of people who don't believe in God to nonetheless behave morally and ethically on your view? They could not. And so God just is not essential. Many people, indeed millions of people, have been optimistic about life, have lived a full life, and find life exciting and significant. Yet they don't wring their hands about

[Student/Participant]

whether or not there is an afterlife.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

It's living life here and now that matters. Kurtz's point only shows that belief in God not necessary to living a moral, optimistic life it does nothing to refute the claim that if there is no God, then morality is just a human illusion. To repeat, belief in God is not

[Student/Participant]

necessary for objective morality.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

God is.

[Student/Participant]

Is there any question then about that argument for premise one? Yes, here in the back.

I'm sorry, I have a lot of

inner turmoil over this particular discussion.

So I don't see the conclusion as proved that God is required for that. I think that there's a leap there that is unsupported.

All right, can you explain why?

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I mean, how would you respond to what I said? That if God does not exist, then you've lost any objective basis for moral

[Student/Participant]

values and you've lost the source for moral obligation.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Where on the atheistic or naturalistic view

[Student/Participant]

will moral values and duties be grounded?

So from my personal experience, I'll speak from my relationship with my father, because my father would call himself a naturalist. He does not believe in God. He lives in an objective moral framework that is about his respect for however this world happened, it is good and should be preserved and protected. Yes, and however society got to where we are today, it should be preserved and protected. Yeah, but what you're saying is whether he knows it or not, his belief

stem from the fact that God exists.

No, no. Is that what I'm saying? Am I saying that whether he knows it or not, his belief that society should be protected and preserved stems from God? Have I made that claim? I'm not asking you, I'm asking the class. No, no, I haven't made that claim.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

What I've said is that he's right, that objective morality exists and that society

[Student/Participant]

ought to be preserved and protected.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

He's right. That's premise two, you see. But what I'm challenging is I want

[Student/Participant]

to know from his point of view, if atheism is true, why ought society to be preserved and protected? Why think that that is an objective duty that human beings have to preserve this society on this planet?

You know, pain aversion, I suppose, you

know, but so my. I guess my question.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

No, that's a common answer. But then I want to know why

[Student/Participant]

should we avoid inflicting pain on other persons in our species? Animals inflict pain upon one another all the time.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

So why are we different?

[Student/Participant]

Why is it wrong for Homo sapiens, this relatively advanced primate, to inflict pain?

Okay, I'm stumped.

But so

again, from the perspective of my father, and you know, I'm here because I kind of see both sides. I think I see both sides and I don't have black and white certainty in either direction.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Well, now, okay, now don't let certainty become a sort of bugaboo here. All that's required for a successful argument is that the premises be more plausible than their opposites. So even if it's, say 52 to

[Student/Participant]

48%, you should go with what seems more probably true. So I'm not arguing here about certainty,

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

just that I think the premise is

[Student/Participant]

true, that if there is no God, then moral values and duties aren't objective.

Okay, so here was really my question. I'm sorry.

So it's all very confusing and like I said, it's turmoil and I probably shouldn't have spoken first, but on the contrary. So then my question then, or what I've been feeling, is are you leading up to a judgment that objective morals are superior to subjective morals? Because then I could say that maybe my dad lives in subjective morality, right? If that's different because he's decided not to hurt people, because, you know, for

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

whatever reason, subjectively construing this, again, exactly the way I said we should not

[Student/Participant]

construe it, that atheists are bad people. And that's not the argument.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

It is not a judgment about your father or his moral life or virtue. The conclusion to which I'm leading is that God exists. That's the conclusion.

[Student/Participant]

So that's not obvious to me based on the fact that objective morality, for me, there's something missing between the behavioral reality of, like I see it with my friends, raising children when wait till your father gets home isn't scary enough that you have to say, don't let God see that. Don't let God see you doing that. I understand that, but. And from my father's perspective, and kind of from my perspective too, I want to say almost the question of God is a little bit irrelevant because I'm going to behave in a good fashion as I see it, even if it turns out that there was no God. I'm not disappointed in myself. I'm still proud of myself for behaving as though there is one.

Okay, now I think again that you're misunderstanding the argument there. You're asking about the question of moral motivation.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Should I be good? Because, say, God will reward this if

[Student/Participant]

I do, and if I don't, he'll punish me or something. And you're asking about what is the source of our motivation for the moral life. And I'm not even addressing that question. I tend to agree with you that

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

you do the good for the good's sake. You do it because it is good.

[Student/Participant]

And I would consider that under duty.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

What we're asking about Is there a

[Student/Participant]

basis or an explanation for why something is good rather than bad, and why

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

we have an obligation to do certain

[Student/Participant]

things and an obligation not to do other things? Where do those obligations come from?

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Are they just fobbed off onto us

[Student/Participant]

by the evolutionary process and societal conditioning? Or are there objective values and duties that are valid and binding independent of our apprehension of them? That's the question.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Well, we come to the end of

[Student/Participant]

our time, and I don't want to go beyond that. But next time we'll continue our discussion and we'll look at some more objections to Premise one. And perhaps this will help to strengthen the case for Premise one by showing how the objections that are usually lodged against it, I think, ultimately are unsuccessful. So let's bow, shall we, for the benediction.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And now may God, who is the source and paradigm of all virtue and goodness, so form our lives that we would reflect his image and live lives virtuous and pleasing to him through Christ our Lord.

[Student/Participant]

Amen.

[Announcer]

The copyright for the content of this recording is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more, go to reasonablefaith.org.