The moral argument for the existence of God is not an easy one to pin down. However, this appears to be what is generally meant when it is mentioned:
Premise one: Moral absolutes necessitate an moral law-giver on the level of god.
Premise two: There are objective moral absolutes we all feel should apply to everyone.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
The objections tend to come on whether the first premise is sound or not, though some will also attack the second premise.
However, allow me to introduce a different version of the moral argument, one which happens to coincide with at least part of Kant’s philosophy on morals and their existence. But first, some definitions.
Moral and Immoral: The sense of duty about how we treat other humans, animals, and the physical world. An action can be not moral and not immoral at the same time. Ex.: tossing a rock into a lake. It could be moral if it was to scare away a predator, or immoral if its intent was to hurt someone, or neither if it was to skip a rock over the water. So when I label an action as not moral or not immoral, I am including the categories of both the opposite and the neutral.
Universal or Absolute Morals: Morals which most agree should apply to most people in most circumstances. Ex.: Most would agree that it is wrong to steal from another person, to kill another person, etc. There may be circumstances that would make those events the least-of-all-evil actions, but they would still be considered immoral nonetheless.
Relative Morals: Morals which apply to a culture, group of people, or an individual, but are not applied to all of the human race. Ex.: the prohibition in some cultures for women to show their breast in public, but in other cultures, it is acceptable and few would consider it immoral to do so in those cultures. This is not to suggest that because a culture accepts something as not immoral, that it falls into this category. For example, several cultures through history accepted slavery as not immoral, but we would tend to put the idea that one could own another human as an universally immoral concept.
Determinism: The concept that our actions are caused by a preceding action, and that it will happen the same way no matter how many times one might be theoretically be able to replay events. Therefore all our actions are, of necessity, determined and there is no free will involved. There are variations on that concept, but that is the basic idea.
Free Will: The understanding that in certain areas of our lives, that we are free to choose between two or more options, and that if we were theoretically to replay an event, that we could make a different choice than we made before. Or, to put it in the negative to the above, there are decisions we make that have no cause, forcing us to go one way or the other, but we are truly free to make a choice.
One of the axioms that I agree with Immanuel Kant on is the following—and so constitutes our first premise:
For morality to be possible, free will must exist.
This should be a self-evident claim, though I’m sure there are those who would attempt to refute it. However, I nor anyone else, could be held accountable for an action being moral or immoral if all our actions are determined and we are not free to choose. Ex.: If a bear kills someone, we cannot reasonably say that the bear acted immorally. Sure, such an event would be tragic, but the bear was acting according to instinct, and so had no choice but to kill the person. It wasn’t the bear’s fault; it couldn’t help itself.
However, we do perceive that there are moral and immoral actions that we universally apply to most everyone else. Even atheist who hold to a deterministic view of the world will tend to have a moral code that they expect others to live by. There are, indeed, atheist who are more moral and righteous than many Christians. Yet, the problem is, if they followed their determinism to its logical conclusion, they have no basis upon which to suggest that any action at all is intrinsically moral or immoral. Yes, including slavery, as Matt Dillahunty is fond of using. Matt is a well-known atheist within that community.
That leads us to our second premise:
Since universal morality exists as concepts that we have, we must have free will.
So, the question is how do we get from determinism to free will? Because, if all we can know about our world is what can be measured and observed, then we are stuck with determinism. Because in this world, we do experience a cause and effect relationship with everything. Since we do have these universal concepts of morality that we expect others to obey, that must indicate that there is something or someone beyond this physical world who provides an opportunity for free will to be effective. This leads us to our third premise:
If we do have free will, it must come from a creator.
“Whoa, Rick,” I can hear some suggest, “How do you make that leap? Aren’t you making a ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy?”
It involves a sub-set of premises to arrive at that conclusion. So, no, I’m not merely sticking God in because I don’t have any other explanation.
First, morals cannot be defined arbitrarily by a deity, as some accuse Christianity of doing. Indeed, some groups do present it that way, but for morals to have any real force beyond a god saying something is immoral or moral, it has to be based in some reason beyond an arbitrary edict by a god. In other words, we are assuming that such a god would have a reason for his decisions on what is moral and immoral. He wouldn’t make it up out of thin air.
Second, it has to be a creator, because only a creator would be able to create with a purpose. You have to have a purpose established before you could make morals about such a creation. Because morals involve what supports the purpose, as well as immorality being what defeats that purpose.
Additionally, in order for us to be able to have free will, we would have to be created to be a part of that creator’s image and likeness. If we are bound to this world only, then we are determined just like all the other animals.
So, in order to have free will, we would have to be created to be a part of the creator’s world as well as created with a purpose that gives context to actions that are immoral and moral.
The conclusion then is:
A creator exists.
That leads us to calling this creator “God.” Not necessarily the Christian God, but a god. Though, naturally, I believe it is the Christian God, but that involves theology and revealed knowledge which is beyond the scope of this philosophical argument from reason.
So the summary of the propositions and conclusions are:
P1: For morality to be possible, free will must exist.
P2: Since universal morality exists, we must have free will.
SP1: Universal morals necessitate having a created purpose.
SP2: This world is deterministic and unable to provide a purpose or free will.
SC: Therefore, free will would require that we must be part of a creator’s world.
P3: If we do have free will, it must come from a creator.
C: Therefore a god/creator exists.
What do you think?
