Do objective moral values point to a Creator?

2/24/2015

Through a mutual friend Project 315 had the pleasure of meeting Dave Luttbeg. Dave is an atheist willing to defend what he believes to be true in the public square. Our introduction over breakfast resulted in a very fun interaction over the legitimacies (or lack thereof) of our respective worldviews. Dave has graciously agreed to a debate against (and hosted by) Project 315. The following parameters and initial topic (understanding the debate may stretch to other topics) were agreed upon by both Dave and Project 315...

The topic will be – Does the existence of objective moral values and duties point to a Creator?

(1)    Project 315 will open the debate by responding to the blog topic first.

(2)    Dave will respond second.

(3)     Once a response has been posted the opposing side will have five days to respond.

(4)    In the event a response is not posted within 5 days the side having posted most recently has the floor again for a second consecutive post.

(5)    If there is no response after a second consecutive post within 5 days the debate will be declared finished.

(6)    Two additional ways for the debate to be declared finished

a.       Both sides agree it is over

b. We understand that sometimes logical fallacies are committed inadvertently but if one side continually uses them with reckless abandon the entire discussion may need to be aborted because it will make the discussion too cumbersome to advance.

No “winner” will be declared; it will be up to those following the debate to decide for themselves.

9 Comments

Project 315

2/24/2015 07:09:33 am

Project 315...

Objective morality

P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

P2: Objective moral values do exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

It is important to know what the moral argument is an argument for (A), and what it is not an argument for (B).

A. This is Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. While Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Deists all differ in the specific details (revelation, salvation, morality, etc.) and attributes of the Unmoved Mover, they are in agreement with an UNCAUSED CAUSE of the universe that is BEYOND/TRANSCENDS the universe (time, space, and matter). In short, we have a common denominator here with Aristotle in his description that is consistent with a MONOTHEISTIC “God.” This God is an inference to the best explanation of WHAT WE KNOW philosophically. This is the transcendent Super Intelligent Being the Intelligent Design scientists infer from what they know scientifically (biogenesis, information in DNA, and the irreducible complexity of the cell). And this is the Supreme Being/Ultimate Good (i.e. the highest standard of moral perfection) we infer is communicating to our CONSCIENCE right before we do something evil, the grounding for the guilt we all experience after we have done something evil, and the tugging on our hearts to be respectful and generous towards others.

C.S. Lewis summed up the moral argument this way:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

B. This is the Trinitarian view of God (i.e. the Christian God of the Bible). This God is reasoned to through WHAT WE KNOW historically (the fulfilled prophecies, life, death, resurrection of Jesus, and origin of the Christian faith), plus WHAT WE KNOW theologically (the theological significance of The Trinity--see "Philosophical problem of Unitarianism"), plus WHAT WE KNOW through our personal experience with the Holy Spirit.

The moral argument is NOT an argument for B. It is an argument for A. But atheists treat the argument as if it’s an argument for B, and then they waste time attacking The Old Testament as if that is somehow a defeater for A. We can talk about whether the God of the Bible (B) is the best description of "God" (A) later, but the moral argument is not intended to argue for the Trinitarian view of God (the Christian God of the Bible). The argument is intended to argue for A. Why are we arguing for A and not B? Because A is like algebra and B is like calculus. It will be pointless to try to talk calculus with someone who rejects algebra. One needs to understand and accept the laws of algebra before you can talk calculus with them.

David Luttbeg

2/26/2015 07:25:41 am

The concept of objective morality pointing to a creator is nonsense. You do not need any God for objective or subjective morals to exist. Morals are decided by humans independent of any God. Religion is not a requirement for morality. We can come to our own conclusion that murder is morally wrong.

Charles Darwin discovered natural selection. Darwin found there is a biological explanation for the way we think. As humans evolved there was a selective advantage for large brains. These large brains gave us the capacity to be intellectual, have culture, language, and other products of intelligence including morals. Humans care for others and have compassion for selective reasons. Humans that care for others evolved into populations that were better fit and were better able to reproduce. Man is a social animal and there is a selective advantage to the way we think.

Evolution gave us the moral capacity, and each generation passes down a set of favorable morals to the next generation. Through reason each generation creates the society that we want to live in. Morals are, basically the rules by which our social groups function. For example, we believe in being kind to animals, this was developed through a consensus of reasoning. We know this is right without needing a God to tell us this. Since humans are social animals, so it is also expected that, like other social animals, we would have rules which regulate group behavior. An example of a rule that is moral that benefitted humans is trustworthiness. Humans who are more trustworthy within a population will have more transactions, which will make them more prosperous and more represented.

The fact that humans have developed morals, and that they have evolved over our recorded history shows it’s a product of human social evolution and not a god or divine fiat. Some examples of this moral evolution over time are the way we currently treat women, don’t hold slaves, and that we allow people of different ethnicities to marry. The advancements of many moral standards have led to a more successful society.

Talia K.

2/27/2015 11:34:28 am

I agree with David

project315

3/2/2015 08:39:30 am

*Note* This debate is between project315 and David Luttbeg so all other comments will be deleted.

This is a lengthy response so we will divide it in 3 major areas:

--Difference between SOCIAL NORMS and MORALITY

--MIND DEPENDENT vs. MIND INDEPENDENT

--THE GROUNDING PROBLEM

SOCIAL NORMS AND MORALITY

Your response seemed to have blurred the line between A) SOCIAL NORMS (e.g. manners, etiquette, customs, etc.) and B) MORALITY (e.g. evil, wickedness, malevolence). For the sake of clarity and simplicity let’s focus on the difference between what is considered socially unacceptable/rude and what is immoral/evil.

Examples of A): belching at the dinner table, putting elbows on the table, not removing shoes before entering a home, chewing with your mouth open, picking your nose, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group can change from culture to culture, and “evolve” over time; however, this means that this group is SUBJECTIVE/mind dependent.

Examples of B): Rape, torture, murder, child abuse, and I could go on but I think you get the idea. Actions in this group are evil regardless of whether or not a society recognizes it as evil. That is, the word “EVIL” is an accurate description of how the action relates to Ultimate Reality. This means that this group is OBJECTIVE/mind INDEPENDENT.

MIND DEPENDENT vs. MIND INDEPENDENT

The truth or reality of a “thing” that is mind dependent hinges on the way an individual thinks or feels about the “thing” in question. The tastiness of ice cream is a perfect example of a “thing” dependent upon the mind. A personal anecdote works well here; my favorite ice cream is Pistachio Almond but my wife can’t stand it. Consider the following statement – Pistachio Almond ice cream is delicious! Is this a true statement? The correct answer is it DEPENDS. The truth of the statement “Pistachio Almond ice cream is delicious” is SUBJECT to the individual making the statement.

In contrast, the truth or reality of a “thing” that is mind independent is true regardless of how an individual thinks or feels about the “thing” in question. The solution for the equation [5 + X = 8] is a great example of a “thing” independent of the mind. The fact that “3” is the solution to the equation [5 + X = 8] is true under any circumstance including whether or not I have any knowledge of the equation in question. That is, no matter how sincerely an individual believes the answer to be something other than “3” the truth of the “thing” in question remains unchanged.

You mentioned the way we currently treat women, don’t hold slaves, and allow people of different ethnicities to marry. That is definitely a change, but is it a change for “THE BETTER?” We all recognize that the changes here are a moral improvement. But, by what objective measuring stick are you using to make that judgment? You see, we can explain coherently within the confines of our worldview why those actions are a moral improvement, but the only thing the atheist has to work with is to speculate some long term survival benefit. The bottom line is these changes are either CREATED (by a society) for survival adaptations, or we DISCOVERED ways of being more aligned with THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF GOOD (GOD).

If (keyword here is “IF”) survivability (Darwinian morality) is your standard for morality, and a society REASONS that the weak, disabled, and elderly are a disadvantage and not an advantage to survival, would it be OK to kill the weak, disabled, and elderly? After all, as you said, “Man is a social animal and there is a selective advantage to the way we think, and through reason each generation creates the society that we want to live in.”

As with most debates on this subject there seems to be some confusion on what we are claiming.

1. The question is not: Must we BELIEVE in God in order to live moral lives? Many atheists live morally in a way that puts some "believers" to shame.

2. The question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? Of course we can; however, any system formulated will be SUBJECTIVE. Furthermore, it is impossible to formulate a meaningful system of morality or ethics without assuming PURPOSE. Therefore, the atheist/naturalist who explains our existence as time+matter+chance, i.e., just random molecules bouncing around in space, i.e., devoid of any ultimate meaning, value, and purpose, does not have the resources available in their worldview to explain OBJECTIVE morality (which is metaphysical).

“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn&

project315

3/2/2015 08:52:13 am

Cont...

“We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”-- Kai Nielsen

THE GROUNDING PROBLEM

3. The question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? I know many atheists who recognize torturing babies for fun is OBJECTIVELY evil (i.e. it is evil in any place at any time). The difference is that the theist has a transcendent anchor (God's nature) to ground that OBVIOUS objective truth; on the other hand, the naturalist worldview has been tried (to ground this OBVIOUS objective truth), and found wanting.

As humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ONTOLOGICAL foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

This is known as "the grounding problem" for atheists/naturalists (regarding OBJECTIVE morality). All attempts to solve this grounding problem have failed because they commit the "IS-OUGHT FALLACY". In fact, I will make a prediction that any attempt by you (or any atheist for that matter) to provide some objective point of reference to ground OBJECTIVE morality will either assume OBJECTICE PURPOSE (which your worldview cannot account for) or commit the is-ought fallacy.

Lastly, I would like you to clarify your view as much as possible to advance this discussion precisely. Could you tell me if you agree with this quote from Michael Ruse. If you disagree with this quote please explain why:

The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness 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 when someone 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. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

David L.

3/14/2015 05:30:31 am

The first issue I will respond to is the issue of blurring social norms and morality. Social norms and morality evolved through evolution due to evolutionary advantage. Please review my previous response on evolution. A meaningful system on morality can occur without a god and without assuming purpose based on evolutionary processes. We can as a society determine that certain things are evil. It can occur by well thought out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society you would want to live in. This occurs through a consensus of reasoning.
The second issue I will address is your argument mind dependent verse mine independent. I will answer as follows. Your argument contends that god’s morals were always right never wrong, never evil. I would argue that some of the things god has inserted in the bible were evil. Some of these things that are evil we can determine through a consensus of reasoning. Then later as society progressed, we have moved away from these evils. Examples of religiously based absolute morals that I would consider evil, include stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, and punishment for breaking the Sabbath. I really would not want to live in a society based on these rules. I want to live in a society based on reason.
You stae that the only thing the atheist has to grasp at is to “speculate” some long term survival benefit for moral improvement. Using the word speculation here does a disservice to science and the scientific method. A 1991 Gallop study showed that 95% of American scientists believe that evolutionary theory as the only theory that can account for the observations in many fields of study, including anthropology. This line of argument is not “speculation”, it is a scientific consensus based on the scientific method. This process is how we determine the world around us. The vast bulk and weight of science is behind evolution.
Regarding your point on if we follow Darwinism we should just kill the week. Darwinism is the reason we exist. We don’t need to use survival of the fittest as a guide for living. We don’t need to use Darwinism for a public policy. We can still use reason to create the society we want to live in.
The third issue you address is the grounding problem. Your argument claims that the theist has a transcendent anchor (god’s Nature) to ground this obvious objective truth. You are suggesting that something is good because someone or something has told you it is. In reality all you are asserting is that some invisible silent authority that is indistinguishable from an imaginary being is justifying your actions. This is out of date speculation that flies in the face of scientific advancement. Morals come to us through evolution and human reason.
Finally regarding the Michael Ruse quote, I agree with it in so far as morality is an adaptation just like hands and feet. They evolved because they were successful for survival and therefore increased its representation in the gene pool.

project315

3/18/2015 09:21:58 pm

Major topics:

• SOCIAL NORMS (MIND DEPENDENT) AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY (MIND INDEPENDENT)
• EPISTEMOLOGY vs ONTOLOGY
• MEANINGFULNESS
• “REASONED DISCOURSE ON THE TYPE OF SOCIETY YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN” IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDING FOR OBJECTIVE MORALITY
• WHAT SCIENCE CAN AND CANNOT TELL US
• THE LOGICAL OUTWORKING OF THE ATHEIST WORLDVIEW

SOCIAL NORMS (MIND DEPENDENT) AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY (MIND INDEPENDENT)

Quoting you: “The first issue I will respond to is the issue of blurring social norms and morality.” >>>You didn’t respond to the "BLURRING" (i.e. disregarding the DISTINCTION) of social norms and morality. You blew right past it without even addressing whether or not you agree with the DISTINCTION between social norms and morality. Our claim is the following: social norms are SUBJECTIVE/MIND DEPENDENT; on the other hand, morality/immorality (e.g. rape, murder, and child abuse) is OBJECTIVE/MIND INDEPENDENT--that is, rape, murder, and child abuse are bad/evil/wicked REGARDLESS of any society that might have a “well-thought-out, argued, and reasoned discourse” on why they would want to live in a society that allows these abhorrent actions.

Additionally, it appears that you are begging the question of whether or not objective morality is merely a survival adaptation by assuming the conclusion in your point (premise): “Social norms and morality EVOLVED THROUGH EVOLUTION due to evolutionary advantage.” Whether or not morality MERELY evolved through evolution (i.e. whether or not evolution is a SUFFICIENT explanation for objective morality) is the very thing in question/what we are debating. While evolution might be sufficient to explain SUBJECTIVE/MIND DEPENDENT social norms, it is INSUFFICIENT to explain OBJECTIVE/MIND INDEPENDENT MORALITY.

EPISTEMOLOGY vs ONTOLOGY

Ontology is about what is true and epistemology is about METHODS of figuring out those truths. Your responses are epistemological and don't address the ontology of objective morality. Keep in mind our argument is NOT how we know murdering and eating a human is EVIL. Rather, we are debating the ONTOLOGY of WHY murdering and eating a human is OBJECTIVELY EVIL and WHAT ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION is there available to best explain the truth of this (if we have good reason to believe it is OBJECTIVELY true and not just illusory--as Michael Ruse believes).

It seems the best ontological foundation you can come up for objective moral values and duties is the REASONING of conscious beings to DECIDE what is objectively moral, but this means the morality is MIND DEPENDENT and thus, it is ULTIMATELY SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE.

MEANINGFULNESS

Quoting you: "A meaningful system on morality can occur without a god and without assuming purpose based on evolutionary processes." >>>A "MEANINGFUL" system on morality can occur without God? Remember, if atheism is true, we are just random molecules bouncing around in space--no different than a pile of leaves or a swarm of mosquitoes with a short insignificant period of existence that will ultimately decompose in the ground and be forgotten along with everything else when the universe dies a heat death. If there is no God, how could anything that happens in this pointless universe (including our human existence) be ultimately MEANINGFUL? If we came about for no reason, and we are headed to no reason (heat death of the universe) then how could there be anything of any ULTIMATE purpose or meaning now? There is no "meaning" to random molecules bouncing around in space. If atheism is true, this universe is eventually going to die a heat death; therefore, everything that happened before that—regardless of what these random molecules that have arranged themselves into what we call "humans" might have perceived for a period of time—is ultimately meaningless.

Bottom line: If our worldview is correct, morality and this conversation we are having is meaningful. If your worldview is correct, however, not only is any system of morality meaningless, this entire conversation is meaningless. A system on morality can occur without God, just as a "system" on the best flavor of ice cream can occur without God, and they are just about as meaningful as each other.

“REASONED DISCOURSE ON THE TYPE OF SOCIETY YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN” IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDING FOR OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Quoting you: “things that are evil we can determine through a consensus of REASONING,” and “Morals come to us through evolution and human REASON.” >>> You are trying to ground OBJECTIVE morality in REASON. Whose REASONING—the Nazis, Communist Russia, ISIS, or anarchists? You go on to say: “We can as a society determine that certain things are evil. It can occur by well-thought-out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society you would want t

project315

3/18/2015 09:27:25 pm

Cont...
Quoting you: “things that are evil we can determine through a consensus of REASONING,” and “Morals come to us through evolution and human REASON.” >>> You are trying to ground OBJECTIVE morality in REASON. Whose REASONING—the Nazis, Communist Russia, ISIS, or anarchists? You go on to say: “We can as a society determine that certain things are evil. It can occur by well-thought-out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society you would want to live in. This occurs through a consensus of reasoning.” Would you say that “having a well thought out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society one wants to live in” is a SUFFICIENT condition to having a “meaningful system on morality?”
If so, you should have no problem with the Nazis or the Spanish Inquisition, so long as they had "well thought out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society they wanted to live in" correct? What makes those societies any less moral than another society's "well-thought-out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society they want to live in?" The point is, there is no logically consistent objection you can raise because on your view--whether you acknowledge it or not—IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE. Raising an objection to a society's well thought out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of society they want to live in is about as meaningful as raising an objection to someone's well thought out, argued, and reasoned discourse on the type of ice cream they want for their party.

CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS

Quoting you: “the second issue I will address is your argument mind dependent verse mine independent.” >>>Our address of mind dependent vs mind independent was not an argument; it was for CLARIFYING the difference between subjective and objective.

Quoting you: “Your argument contends that god’s morals were always right never wrong, never evil.”>>>Our argument contends that God’s nature was/is/always will be right and never wrong/evil. As St. Anselm saw, “God is by definition the greatest conceivable being and therefore the highest Good. Indeed, He is not merely perfectly good; He is the locus and paradigm of moral value.”

Quoting you: “I would argue that some of the things god has inserted in the bible were evil.”>>> We know how bad you want to talk calculus, and we would love to talk calculus with you; however, there are prerequisites to be able to comprehend and communicate biblical issues coherently and consistently. Please see our initial post on this debate. We are arguing for (A), not (B). We have not invoked the Bible in this debate as that will further complicate things.

This discussion is cumbersome enough with just the few layers we are dealing with (physical vs metaphysical, objective vs subjective, and ontological vs epistemological). Bringing the Bible into the discussion will add too many layers. We need to get through these basic layers before we can discuss the multi-layered Biblical theology—genres of the Bible, the nation of Israel, the prophecies of Jesus, the power of sin, the Law and how it kept the nation of Israel under guard/protective custody until the way of faith in Jesus was available to them (see Galatians 3:23-25) are all layers that need to be taken into account when interpreting the Bible (especially The Old Testament).

Quoting you: “You state that the only thing the atheist has to grasp at is to “speculate” some long term survival benefit for moral improvement. Using the word speculation here does a disservice to science and the scientific method.”>>> Let’s look at our original comment: “You mentioned the way we currently treat women, don’t hold slaves, and allow people of different ethnicities to marry. That is definitely a change, but is it a change for “THE BETTER?” We all recognize that the changes here are a moral improvement. But, by what objective measuring stick are you using to make that judgment? You see, we can explain coherently within the confines of our worldview why those actions are a moral improvement, but the only thing the atheist has to work with [WITH REGARDS TO WHY THOSE CHANGES ARE FOR “THE BETTER”] is to speculate some long term survival benefit.”
I don’t know if you are purposefully dodging the fundamental question we asked or you are confused. I will ask the question again: WHAT OBJECTIVE MEASURING STICK ARE YOU USING TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT that women’s suffrage, the emancipation of slaves, and miscegenation are a “MORAL IMPROVEMENT?”

project315

3/18/2015 09:37:32 pm

Cont...
Quoting you: "We don’t NEED to use survival of the fittest as a guide for living/public policy. We can still use reason to create the society we want to live in.">>>We never said atheists/naturalists NEED to use a survival of the fittest system. What we are saying is that IF a society were to use a survival of the fittest system, you have absolutely no coherent ground to stand on to say, "Hey stop that (murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly); what you are doing is evil/ wrong!" The Darwinist society would rightly respond, "we came about through survival of the fittest and we want to continue to thrive by keeping only the fittest." And, according to you, as long as they "reasoned" to their position of "the type of society they want to live in", their system would be just as moral as the system that you want to live in. In fact, if anyone tried to object and stop them, they could easily accuse the ones interfering (with "the type of society they want to live in") as being evil/immoral.

Quoting you: “Your argument claims that the theist has a transcendent anchor (god’s Nature) to ground this obvious objective truth. You are suggesting that something is good because someone or something has told you it is. In reality all you are asserting is that some invisible silent authority that is indistinguishable from an imaginary being is justifying your actions.”>>> This is a mischaracterization of what we are claiming. First, having something that is “told to us” (through the Bible is what you were referring to correct?) is a SUFFICIENT condition to know what is good/evil (if we have good reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God—and we do), but it is not a NECESSARY condition to know what is good/evil. Necessity excludes other methods or possibilities, sufficiency does not. We all have a conscience that “speaks to us” when we do wrong. Many times our conscience makes us feel guilty about things we were never “told” were wrong. Why is that? Maybe we feel guilty because we actually are guilty. But we can only be guilty if we have done things that are not GOOD. When we say there is such a thing as GOOD, we are assuming there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW—on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When we assume there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW, we must posit a moral law GIVER. If there is no moral law GIVER, there is no MORAL LAW. If there is no moral law, there is no GOOD. If there is no GOOD, then there is nothing to feel guilty about—but we do feel guilty!

Second, remember, God BY DEFINITION is the greatest conceivable being and therefore the highest Good. Indeed, He is not merely perfectly good; He is the locus and paradigm of moral value. This is hardly “indistinguishable from an imaginary being (e.g. the Minotaur, a centaur, a satyr, a vampire, etc.).”

Third, we are claiming all actions by those who bear the image of God (THE PARADIGM OF GOODNESS) will be measured/judged against this PARADIGM OF GOODNESS (i.e. “GOD”).

WHAT SCIENCE CAN AND CANNOT TELL US

Quoting you: “This is out of date speculation that flies in the face of scientific advancement.” >>>Science can tell the Nazis the most cost effective way to kill the Jews, but science cannot tell the Nazis why they OUGHT NOT kill the Jews. Science can help us get what we value but science cannot tell us what we OUGHT to value. This is the IS-OUGHT problem we mentioned earlier.

THE LOGICAL OUTWORKING OF THE ATHEIST WORLDVIEW

Since you didn’t answer this question in your last response, I will ask this question again: If a society REASONS that the weak, disabled, and elderly are a disadvantage, and not an advantage to survival, WOULD IT BE OK for that society to murder the weak, disabled, and elderly? After all, “Man is a social animal and there is a selective advantage to the way we think, and through reason each generation creates the society that we want to live in. ”

It’s understandable why you don’t want to answer this question. You have the logical outworking of your worldview staring you in the face. If you DENY that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then you deny your worldview (and contradict what you said in your last post). On the other hand, If you AFFIRM that a society should be able to “reason that there is a selective advantage” to murdering the weak, disabled, and elderly (and follow through with that reason), then you deny your humanity.

Do objective moral values point to a Creator?

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Archives