One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God is the moral argument for God. The argument runs as follows:
- Objective moral truth can exist if and only if God exists.
- Objective moral truth exists.
- Therefore, God exists.
In spite of the fact that this argument is very popular among Christian apologists, I do not think it is a sound argument. First, it is not at all clear that premise 1 is true. If objective moral truth exists, then it must be grounded in some kind of transcendent reality that can provide a coherent metaethical framework. But it is not at all clear that theism provides the only coherent metaethical framework. There is Platonism, which grounds objective moral truth in the Form of the Good. There is Buddhism, which grounds objective moral truth in what will enable people to attain Nirvana. There is Hinduism, which grounds objective moral truth in the force of karma. And so on. One cannot just assume that the existence of God is the only possible metaphysical ground of objective moral truth.
Second, as I have argued in previous posts on this blog, there is no universal morality, and it is not at all self-evident that objective moral truth exists. It is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to deny premise 2 and to claim that human morality is merely subjective, a product of biological instincts and social conditioning. Thus, the moral argument for God is unsound.
The weakness of the moral argument for God is just one example of the fact that the use of moral arguments in apologetics is inherently problematic. It will be helpful at this point to distinguish between a “moral argument” and a “moral judgment.” A “moral judgment” is when someone claims “this action is morally wrong” or “this action is morally right.” A moral judgment may be grounded only in a nonrational sentiment or intuition, or it may be grounded rationally in a particular understanding of objective reality. People frequently have arguments about which moral judgments are correct and which are false, but this is not what I mean by a “moral argument.” Instead, by a “moral argument,” I mean an argument that attempts to argue from a moral judgment to something being true or not true in objective reality.
It is quite common for people to make use of moral arguments in an attempt to argue that a particular metaphysical belief is objectively true. However, strictly speaking, by itself a moral argument can never prove that a certain metaphysical state of affairs is objectively true. This is because, logically, moral judgments must be based on a certain understanding of the way the world objectively is, not the other way around. In order to coherently and reasonably explain why someone, morally speaking, ought to act a certain way, one must be able to appeal to reasons that are grounded in objective reality, not mere sentiment and intuition.
Since each religion/worldview has its own particular morality, based on its own particular metaethical framework, there is no universal morality that is independent of any particular religion/worldview, and no moral judgments one can make that do not (at least implicitly) assume a particular metaphysical state of affairs. What this means is that any attempt by an adherent of one religion/worldview to argue that another religion/worldview is false because its moral teachings are immoral is inherently circular and fallacious.
This point was made very clear to me several years ago when I read the autobiography of Gandhi, the famous Hindu social activist. In it, Gandhi claims that the ethical teachings of Jesus Christ are deficient because Jesus teaches us to love all human beings, but does not teach us to love all living creatures and treat all life as sacred. Later, Gandhi recounts a time when he and some others were working on a property infested with deadly venomous snakes. In spite of the danger, they refused to kill the snakes, and just hoped that no one would get bit and die. From my perspective as a Christian, this was quite morally irresponsible, since human beings are much more valuable and important than snakes. But from the perspective of Gandhi’s particular brand of Hinduism, the immoral thing would have been to kill the snakes, since human life and animal life are both sacred. Who is right? Well, it all depends on if Christian metaphysical beliefs or Gandhi’s Hindu metaphysical beliefs are true. There is no metaphysically neutral standpoint from which one can judge which religion’s moral teachings are “superior” and which are “inferior.”
So, can moral arguments have any legitimate role at all in reasoned arguments about religious beliefs? The answer is yes. While moral arguments can never by themselves prove that a certain metaphysical state of affairs is objectively true, what they can do is be used to point out inconsistencies in another person’s worldview or articulated set of beliefs. One can point out that the moral judgments someone has articulated cannot be reasonably explained in light of the metaphysical beliefs they have articulated. Or, one can argue that a certain idea or course of action someone has proposed will lead to results which, according to moral judgments they themselves have articulated, are morally problematic. By exposing inconsistencies in another person’s worldview in this way, one can potentially inspire them to rethink and modify their beliefs (though just how that modification will proceed may be unpredictable).
What this means for Christian apologetics is that Christians cannot reasonably argue that Christianity is true because its moral teachings are inherently “superior” to the moral teachings of other religions. Nor can non-Christians reasonably think to undermine Christianity by arguing that its moral teachings are “immoral.” However, non-Christians can try to undermine Christianity by arguing that its moral teachings are inconsistent; for example, they can try to argue that the moral teachings of different parts of the Bible directly contradict each other. And Christians can argue that Christianity is reasonable by showing how the moral teachings of Christianity are in fact coherent and consistent. It is this task which I will take up in my next post.