Posted: Mar 28, 2012 3:41 am
Shrunk wrote:promethean, a couple problems immediately leap out at me.
There are any number of objective moral systems that do not depend on the existence of God.
I would like to hear a description of some objective moral systems that do not depend on the existence of God - or on some other metaphysical extrapolation.
Moreover, you have failed to address the issue of what makes God's commands morally imperative. The Euthyphro dillemma ("Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?")has been around for a long time, but has yet to be resolved by anyone advocating divine command theory, as you are here. And until that dilemma is resolved, there is no logical basis to the claim that morality originates from God.
A discussion of Euthyphro's dilemma is probably beyond the initial scope of the OP, but it is not without proposed solutions. It is certainly not a complete defeater to an objective moral system grounded in God's will. I would lean towards the side that what is good is good because it is commanded by God - and then deal with each objection to this as it is raised.
However my OP is a challenge to the atheistic position of claiming that there are no objective moral values and then behaving as if there were. It is a separate question about whether or not a Christian can justify their moral position. I'm happy to discuss both but not merely the latter as though the former has somehow been easily resolved by the atheist.
Similarly, you do not address the logical incompatibility between an omnipotent, omnscient god and human free will. You simply assert that God gave us a soul, and free will, but don't explain how these can coexist. Do we have the free will to go against the wishes of God? If so, how can he be omnipotent?
Your correct that I do not address these issues in the OP - but am not unaware of them. I see no incompatibility between God's omniscience and human free will. (I would argue that God's foreknowledge of our actions is a result of his privilege position in relation to time - not because the universe is deterministic)
The apparent contradiction between God's omnipotence and human free will is admittedly more complex.
However:
Neither of these address my question to the atheist - which is how do you reconcile free will with atheism? Do you believe in free will? If you do how can you justify the action of a 'will' exerting its influence in a purely physical universe governed by material laws? If you don't believe in free will then why do you act as though you do?
I also don't see how a biological basis to love makes it any less real, or less wonderful. In the same way, the taste of a really good meal can be broken down to its chemical constituents and how they react with the cells of my tongue. But that doesn't invalidate the experience in any way, nor make it any less essential for me to eat.
This is the aspect of your reply that interests me the most. Here you seem to acknowledge that love is a purely biological/chemical phenomena. (whereas at this stage I think you do believe in objective moral values, and do believe in free will - but you haven't provided an argument for how that is possible in an atheistic framework - instead you've criticised that Christians can't either.)
If 'love' is just a chemical process then I think it does 'invalidate' the experience. If I believed that all my 'meaningful' relationships were actually just chemical reactions playing out their predetermined physical reactions then I would feel that they weren't genuine relationships. They lose their meaning and significance if the people within them aren't making genuinely free choices, self sacrifices and showing care for one another. Here we can agree to disagree. And here I think you are submitting to an atheistic illusion. If you say to another individual that 'I love you' you are propping up an illusion that you know is false.
Thankyou for your thoughts.