The Moral Case for Christian Theism

1. A Moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. 2. There is an objective moral law. 3. Therefore there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.

There is an objective moral law. Atheism fails at explaining this moral law. Christianity succeeds at explaining this moral law. Christianity has the only logical, reasonable grounds for morality

We are NOT saying that Atheists are immoral. The point of the Moral Argument is: All Atheists have a moral code (they cannot avoid it). The Atheist system fails to provide a basis for a moral code. By agreeing that morality exists, the Atheist provides the critical premise in The Moral Argument for God.

Atheist Position Problems with the Atheist position Atheist Responses Christian Position

Atheist Position Problems with the Atheist position Atheist Responses Christian Position

All phenomena can be sufficiently explained with matter, energy, and time. No explanation requires God or the supernatural. All attempts to use God as an explanation are insufficient.

“Everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included...” Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, page 596.

“What it insists on is that the world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human …” The Oxford Guide To Philosophy, p. 640

“The widespread acceptance of the doctrine now known as the ‘causal closure’ or the ‘causal completeness’ of the physical realm according to which all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes.”

“… with an intellectual conviction that the material universe exhausts all reality. The natural world, being all there is …”

“An atheist in this sense [of philosophical naturalist] is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 14.

“Everything we are and do is... described by physics. We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe.” The Center For Naturalism

“From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn.” The Center For Naturalism

“As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system... It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behavior.”

“From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections.”

“Individuals don’t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn’t have done other than what they did.”

“Each of us is an unfolding, natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself.” “Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self- caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do.”

“The way we develop from newborns into adults is a process of cause and effect, and we can explain our character and motives as results of that process, one that has made our brains the way they are. Similarly, we can understand our feelings and behavior as being fully caused by the brain and body. This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.”

“We are fully physical creatures, fully caused to be who we are. We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions.”

“We are fully physical creatures, without souls. Since we are fully caused to be who we are and act as we do, we don’t have contra-causal free will.”

“We don’t have free will, defined as the power to do something without yourself being fully caused to do it... Now, many people think they do have this power, but to have it, you’d have to be disconnected from nature in some way, and naturalism says that there is no way in which we are disconnected from nature: we are completely included in the natural world.”

“This means that everything we are and do is caused, which means we don’t have free will in the sense defined above, what we might call “contra-causal” free will. We aren’t “first causes” and we don’t cause ourselves - nothing in nature does this, so far as we know. We are not "causally privileged" over the rest of nature, that is, we don't get to cause without being fully caused ourselves.”

Daniel Dennet Richard Dawkins Sam Harris William Provine B. F. Skinner Richard Double, Edinboro U., “The Non-Reality of Free Will” Derk Pereboom, Cornell U., “Living Without Free Will” and “Meaning in Life Without Free Will” and many others

We are NOT saying that Atheists are immoral. Atheist & Naturalists have a system of morals and ethics. Sam Harris: “We can find secure foundations for ethics and the rule of law without succumbing to any obvious cognitive illusions.“ (The End of Faith, p )

Atheist Position Problems with the Atheist position Atheist Responses Christian Position

here

1. There is no way to get from an naturalistic “is” to a moral “ought” 2. Morality is in the realm of “ought”

But we all know there are things in the world that ought not happen.

. “Why has the world gone wrong?... My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got 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? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?” Mere Christianity

. “A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.”

“This has nothing to do with the fact that physics and chemistry are not yet sufficiently advanced to deal with this question. Even if we allow these sciences another 1,000 years of development it will make no difference, because [these types of questions] demand a totally new and higher level of explanation.” God’s Undertaker, p.55

Atheist Position Problems with the Atheist position Atheist Responses Christian Position

1. Social Contract

1. Social Contract: Does not explain ought: How would we get the idea that a social contract is needed in the first place? No Grounds for Saying Other Societies are Wrong Not Everything We Learn From Society Is Based on Society (Math, Logic) Morals would only be as good as what society agreed on (could not be improved) Whatever society decided was right, would be (we all know this is not the case)

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : Morals are survival behaviors learned through natural selection

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct Not testable (to prove or falisfy) The herd would always be right, which we know it’s not Our instincts would always be right, but they aren’t Why ought the herd survive? Still has no answer for ought; all we would have is what the heard is.

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological:

Claim: Morals are a merely a psychological trait or learned behavior. Response: We cannot get rid of sense of ought, even if we wanted to Value judgments would be meaningless beyond the self (racism is not just a psychological trait) Everyone believes moral evil is beyond the self Does not explain how we get a sense of ought

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework

Claim: Moral statements are valid if they are made in the context of an ethical framework, or moral system.

Claim: “Ethical Statements can be made in the context of a moral framework.” Reply: Who made the moral framework? Why ought we follow it?

Claim: “Moral statements can be made in the context of a moral framework.” Reply: Assumes the moral framework we’re trying to prove Not valid to assume it to try to prove it Still does not explain how we got the sense of ought

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative

Claim: Morals can be established if we all act according to principles that can be applied universally. Reply: Only works within a framework that is assumed to be moral. If Nazi’s were correct, their morals could be applied universally. Still does not explain how we got the sense of ought Immanuel Kant

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative: FAIL 6. Happiness

Claim: The desire for happiness is universal and basic, and therefore requires no explanation. Morals are a form of what makes people happy. We should never do what makes others unhappy; this is a basic concept that requires no explanation. Response This is utilitarianism, and subject to its problems.

Utilitarianism: What makes the greatest happiness to the most people is what ought to be done. John Stuart Mill

Claim: What makes the greatest happiness to the most people is what ought to be done. Reply: No way to measure happiness. Is it OK if a few people suffer? John Stuart Mill What if the greatest happiness is to kill some people? Still does not explain ought

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative: FAIL 6. Happiness: FAIL 7. Emergent Property:

Claim: Morals are a property of nature that emerges from advanced brains or some natural process. Morals emerge and are just there. Reply: Morals are fundamentally different than all other natural forces, such as gravity or electricity. No evidence for this. It cannot be measured.

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative: FAIL 6. Happiness: FAIL 7. Emergent Property: FAIL 8. Part of Reality:

Claim: Morals are a non-physical part of reality. Morals are a built into the fabric of the universe. Ought is a universal, objective sense that everyone has. Reply: YES ! This is from God, and is the premise of the Moral Argument.

1. Social Contract: FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative: FAIL 6. Happiness: FAIL 7. Emergent Property: FAIL 8. Part of Reality: YES ! This is the Christian position.

Atheist Position Problems with the Atheist position Atheist Responses Christian Position

Ought is a moral law which has no meaning unless it comes from one mind to another. “Ought” “good” or “bad” mean nothing unless it is to a person.

There must be a universal moral law, or disagreements would make no sense.

Moral criticism is meaningless unless there is a universal moral law. No society would be able to criticize another unless there is a universal moral law.

If there were no moral law, we would not make excuses for breaking the moral rules, as we all do.

“Is it always morally true that all morals are relative?” “All morals are relative”

The only way we can determine if something is better or worse is to have an absolute to measure it by.

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. C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 25.

How then does it come about that men who talk as if we could stand outside all moralities and choose among them as a woman chooses a hat, nevertheless exhort us (and often in passionate tones) to make some one particular choice? The Seeing Eye, p C.S. Lewis

I assert that wherever and whenever ethical discussion begins we find before us an ethical code whose validity has to be assumed before we can even criticize it.” (The Seeing Eye, p.74) C.S. Lewis

In Summary: Oughts are moral law, which require a mind, otherwise they are meaningless. Moral comparisons require a universal moral law. Moral statements (ought) cannot come from the physical world (is). There is a universal and objective moral law. There is a universal Moral Law Giver.

“Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy.’” Leviticus 19:2

“There is no one holy like the LORD.” 1 Samuel 2:2

“The LORD Almighty will be exalted by His justice, and the holy God will show Himself holy by His righteousness.” Isaiah 5:16

“Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.” 2 Corinthians 7:1

“The ordinances of the LORD are true and altogether righteous.” Psalm 19:9

“The LORD within her is righteous, He does no wrong. Morning by morning He dispenses His justice.” Zephaniah 3:5

“The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” Psalm 19:7

1. A Moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. 2. There is an objective moral law. 3. Therefore there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 The wages of sin is death….. …but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ. Romans 6:23 If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 1. Romans 10:9