New & Improved Deductive Moral Arguments

One of my favorite arguments for the existence of God is known as the Moral Argument (made famous by William Lane Craig). I believe that it is sound and forceful. The deductive syllogism is typically stated as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Click here to watch a short video of how William Lane Craig defends the premises of this argument. Click here to watch Craig offer a more academic approach to defending the Moral Argument in his debate with atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg.

To watch the video corresponding to this article click here.

To say that the Moral Argument has caused a stir in the waters of philosophy would be a gross understatement. Indeed, this syllogism has made such an impact that committed atheists debate amongst themselves as to which premise they ought to reject. For example, in his book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, atheist Richard Dawkins dips his toes into philosophical waters and writes,

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Here, Dawkins is clear that given his atheistic worldview — where there is no creative intent, intelligent design, or objective purpose — there is no genuine evil or goodness. Nothing but, as he says, “blind pitiless indifference.” If that’s the case, then he rejects the second premise of the Moral Argument. But some atheist philosophers disagree. Take Michael Ruse for example, in his book Darwinism Defended (p. 275) he writes: “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” Ruse is claiming, contra Dawkins, that there really is such a thing as objective right and wrong, good and evil.

Other philosophers committed to atheism, such as Erik Wielenberg, want to affirm the truth of the second premise, and thus, they are committed to rejecting the first premise of the argument to avoid any theistic conclusion. Wielenberg proposes that there exists what he calls "basic ethical facts." These are ethical facts that are metaphysically necessary, substantive (actually mean something and are not tautologous), and brute. Brute facts, according to Wielenberg, are facts that need not be explained in terms of other facts. An example of a basic ethical fact is the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. This fact isn’t true in virtue of any other facts, but rather it just is the case that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad. In other words, the fact that causing pain for fun is intrinsically bad needs no explanation. While I am not persuaded by this attempt, it should be noted that Christians possess the resources to explain exactly why causing pain for fun is bad, wrong, and just plain evil. Indeed, we can show that if one causes pain just for the fun of it, then they oppose ultimate and necessary reality. Thus, the view that can explain more of the data (as opposed to writing it off as “brute”) ought to be preferred as a better explanation. While I think Craig’s version of the argument is sound, in order to counter objections made by atheist philosophers like Wielenberg, I often share a modified version of the argument that does not focus on objective moral values, but rather, focuses on objective purpose and ability. Consider a new and updated Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral purpose and obligation do not exist.

2. Objective moral purpose and obligation do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

For those who might be new to this conversation, the first thing we need to clarify is the word “objective.” What is the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth? With Ruse’s statement about basic math in mind, consider the following statement: 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. Can two apples added to two more apples equaling a total of four apples be true for you, but not for someone else? Of course not. Objective truth is true for all persons, even if one subjectively disagrees. If a statement is true apart from human opinion, then it is an objective truth. Mathematical truths are great examples of objective truths. One might have a different subjective opinion about the above mathematical fact, but they would be objectively wrong. Indeed, if a student fails his math test, he cannot reply to his teacher, “Well, that’s just your opinion!” What about this one: Can the statement, “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor” be true for you, but not for me? You might not think chocolate ice cream is the best flavor, but your neighbor might have a different opinion. This is an example of a subjective truth. You can have “your truth” about your favorite flavor of ice cream, but “your truth” does not make it true for your neighbor. Here’s one more: “Hitler’s holocaust was evil.” Can that be true for you . . . but not for Hitler? Obviously not. Indeed, the Nazis were convicted at the Nuremberg trials on the basis that they violated a “law above the law” which is true for all people all the time, no matter what part of the planet they’re from. Holocausts and ice cream seem to be different kinds of things. Let’s look at an expanded version of the updated argument I like to offer:

1. If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

2. If humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature, then objective moral purpose and obligations do not exist.

3. Objective moral purpose and obligations exist.

4. Therefore, humanity is not an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Here’s the deal, if the premises of this valid deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, the question is raised, why think the premises are true? Let’s begin with a defense of the first premise: “If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and determined by nature.” Think about it: If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose. If that’s the case, and humans are a mere accident of nature, then there’s no objective standard – or goal – toward which we were created to attain (no target we were created to hit). That is to say, if atheism is true, then there would be no objective standard – true apart from human opinion – which humans ought to approximate (when thinking or moving our bodies). If that’s the case, and there is no objective purpose to human existence, then it seems that you are entitled to your subjective opinion about what goals humans ought to have in mind, and Hitler is equally entitled to his subjective opinions on the matter. This is the case because if Hitler was not created for the purpose of loving Jews (and everyone else), then killing Jews (or anyone else) does not seem to violate any objective fact or teleological goal about his existence. This is a big problem for any atheist attempting to provide an account of objective morality. But there’s more problems for the atheist. Let’s discuss objective obligations. It seems that if God does not exist, then it’s likely true that humans do not possess the power and ability to think freely in a libertarian sense. That is to say, if God does not exist, then it seems that humanity would probably be completely determined by antecedent (prior) conditions such as the laws and past events of nature. J.P. Moreland and I discuss this in our academic journal article entitled

An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument

. Moreover, these antecedent conditions would be (i) non-rational, (ii) non-moral, and – as Dr. Joshua Rasmussen has pointed out – (iii) “mindless stuff.” Thus, if non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff determines Hitler to think (and how to think) about the holocaust, want to undertake the holocaust, and to actually follow through and kill six million Jews, then it is literally impossible for Hitler to refrain from thinking about, desiring to, and actually undertaking the killing of six million Jews. Hitler could not do otherwise – he could not even think about doing otherwise! The entirety of his thoughts and actions were all determined and necessitated by prior states of affairs (all mindless stuff). It’s absurd to hold persons responsible for the impossible. Thus, if God does not exist, it doesn’t seem as if Hitler should be held responsible — or blamed — for the holocaust. He was nothing but a passive cog or a caused cause. If anything, Hitler was a victim if atheism is true. That doesn’t seem right, does it? However, if God exists, everything changes. This is because If God created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose, then there would be objective facts about humanity irrespective of the subjective opinions from humanity. These objective facts would include moral facts regarding how we ought to live and treat each other. Moreover, if Christianity is true, then God not only creates humanity with specific purposes and teleological ends in mind, but He also endows humanity with libertarian freedom — the power to choose to approximate to the objective purpose of life (or not). Let’s continue to unpack these two vital ingredients that any robust theory of morality must incorporate. First, let’s talk about Purpose Theory.

Purpose Theory

I believe this approach to explaining and defending the Moral Argument is much stronger than Divine Command Theory. I refer to this stronger approach as Purpose Theory (I discuss this in my book,

Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism

). With Purpose Theory in mind, consider the following question. QUESTION: Suppose Christianity is true (which it is). What makes homosexual relationships and gay marriage objectively wrong apart from human opinion? ANSWER: The fact that God created humanity on purpose and for the specific purpose of heterosexual relationships/marriage. Jesus’s words in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 make this clear. God’s creative intent and design plan – His purpose – for human marriage looks like this: ONE man with ONE woman, becoming ONE flesh, for ONE lifetime. If this is true, then there are objective facts about humanity irrespective of the subjective opinions from humanity. That is to say, humanity was “invented” (as it were) and intelligently designed by a God who desires human flourishing for heterosexual sex. For one to choose to use their body for homosexual sex, then, opposes reality and ultimately human flourishing. It’s like trying to use a hammer to chop down a tree — it was not invented or created with that purpose in mind. An inventor who designs and invents a hammer designs it and invents it on purpose and for a specific purpose. Thus, there is an objective fact about the existence of hammers. Let’s have some fun and suppose this hammer has thoughts and thinks that it should not be used to pound nails into wood. Rather, this hammer believes that hammers should be used to screw nails into wood. If this were the case, then this hammer is literally opposed to reality and missing the mark of the intended purpose of the existence of the hammer. It’s literally the wrong tool for the job. The hammer’s objectively false belief will not lead to the flourishing of the hammer, the screws, the wood, or anything else. Similarly, suppose that Jesus was right and that the objective purpose of humanity is to love God, love neighbors, love enemies, and everyone else. It follows then, that Hitler literally missed the mark of reality. He did not love his Jewish neighbor, and thus, was objectively wrong as he missed the teleological target he was created to hit. Hitler’s objectively false beliefs did not lead to his flourishing and was utterly antithetical to human flourishing in general. Hitler’s objectively false beliefs ultimately destroyed the lives of millions and millions of people. Now suppose that God does not exist and that atheism is true (for the sake of argument). If this is the case, then humanity is a happy accident and was not created on purpose or for any specific purposes (including the purpose of flourishing). If this were true, then there are no objective facts of the matter about human marriage or what it was created to look like. If atheism were true, then there would be no goal in mind (that’s true apart from human opinion) about what marriage should or ought to look like. There would be no objective facts about human marriage irrespective of subjective human opinion. So, if God exists, according to Jesus, the objective purpose of human marriage (as an example) is one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. If God does not exist, however, this statement was merely the subjective opinion of a random Jewish carpenter who lived a couple thousand years ago. Who cares? Why should we care? However, if Jesus really is speaking for the Creator He claimed to reveal, then everything changes! (BTW: the historical evidence of the resurrection provides reason to think Jesus was speaking on behalf of the designer of humanity.) Jesus was clear that He believed that God created humanity on purpose and for specific purposes. One of these specific purposes was marriage, and Jesus made it clear that the Creator of the universe also has a creative intent and design plan (a teleology) about human marriage. So, if God exists, there is an objective purpose to human marriage. If God does not exist, however, then objective purpose does not exist. So, given this example, we can see how the existence of God (a maximally great being who desires the best for humanity and created humanity for the purpose of eternal flourishing) makes all the difference. So, we need to account for an objective teleological target (or goal) in order to provide an account of any moral theory that can be referred to as “robust.” That is to say, it's hard (if not impossible) to make sense of a robust sense of objective morality apart from objective purpose. We also need another vital ingredient . . . libertarian freedom.

Libertarian Freedom

It seems that if God does not exist, then human sexual relationships are just as determined as the orbits of the planets. If that’s the case, then homosexual sex is just as “wrong” as the fact that the earth’s orbit is faster than Saturn’s. If atheism is true, nothing is really wrong in an objective sense because there is no objective “law above the law of humans” and all things about humanity are completely determined by mindless forces external to humanity. We would be nothing more than “dust in the wind” (which happens to be one of the greatest songs of all time)! This song makes it clear that if atheism is true, “all we do . . . crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see . . . dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind.” Just as it is impossible for "blowing dust" to choose otherwise, with determinism in mind, it is absurd to claim that we ought to do the impossible. No one is obligated to do the impossible. However, if the mindless, non-rational, and non-moral antecedent laws and events of nature determine all things about humanity, then talk of objective obligation is both meaningless and ridiculous. But the converse is also true. It follows that if Hitler was really wrong – in an objective sense – and did, in fact, violate the objective “law above the law” (as expressed at the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis by Chief Justice Jackson) – then God exists. Consider a deductive syllogism: The Nuremberg Argument 1- If the Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg, then God exists.2- The Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg.3- Therefore, God exists.Proper convictions are based upon truth. If Chief Justice Jackson’s case – which was sufficient to convict the Nazis – was based upon false premises, then the Nazis were improperly convicted. However, anyone who rejects premise (2) is probably not fit to live with other human beings. It seems obviously true.” To reject it is to side with the Nazis. Indeed, one is not irrational for affirming this premise. Thus, if both premises are true, then it is rational to affirm the conclusion and affirm the existence of God. Do you disagree? If so, then you are tacitly affirming that the Nazis were improperly and wronglyconvicted at Nuremberg. That’s a heavy burden to bear. That’s an extremely expensive price tag. Are you willing to pay it? Make no mistake, the atheist who claims that humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose, and that there is no “LAW above the law” in which humanity ought to correspond (and can correspond) – finds himself paying that expensive price and siding with the Nazis! Here’s the deal: If racism is really wrong (as opposed to mere personal opinion), and humans have the power to not be racist, then God exists. If kidnapping, rape, and murder are all objectively wrong – no matter what anyone subjectively thinks to the contrary – and humans possess the power to refrain from kidnapping, raping, or murdering other humans, then God exists. It seems intuitive that Nazism, communism, racism, kidnapping, rape, and murder are really wrong in an objective sense and that humanity has the power and ability to refrain from this objective evil. Therefore, God exists. These are the key ingredients of this new and improved moral argument – humanity must be created on purpose and for a specific purpose (we cannot be mere accidents of nature) and, moreover, to make sense of moral duties or objective obligations, humanity must possess libertarian freedom. With that said, if atheistic naturalism is true, it’s hard to make sense of – and to make room for – libertarian freedom. This is the case because everything about humanity would seem to be caused and determined by the laws and past events of nature (all non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff). There’s no room for humans to freely think or freely do anything if something else determines everything about you. On top of that, the thoughts that pass through our minds – and the manner in which humanity experiences sensations of reasoning – would all be determined by the laws and past events of nature, which are not rational or moral kinds of things. Let me say it again: the laws and past events of nature are all non-rational, non-moral, and mindless kinds of things. Why trust your thoughts and beliefs about morality (or any other metaphysical matter) if they are completely determined and necessitated by mindless and untrustworthy antecedent conditions? If one is not rationally responsible, then one is not morally responsible. If you’ve got no control over any of your thoughts, then you have no control over your body movements. Free-thinking (in a libertarian sense) doesn’t make sense on atheistic naturalism. However, it makes perfect sense on Christianity. In fact, we should expect to have libertarian freedom regarding moral issues if biblical Christianity is true. Consider 1 Corinthians 10:13 . . . 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. The context has everything to do with the definition of libertarian freedom. Since God commands us to “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), consider the following:

1. If Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose among a range of options each compatible with their regenerated nature at a given moment, then Christians possess libertarian freedom.

2. At the moment of temptation, Christians possess the opportunity to exercise an ability to choose between giving into temptation or taking the way of escape God promises to provide.

3. Therefore, Christians possess libertarian freedom.

This is one reason why I named my organization “Free-Thinking Ministries.”

An Eternal “Or Else!”

Now, there’s one more thing we must discuss: If atheism is true (and human persons are not immaterial and eternal souls), then all humans ultimately share the same fate no matter how one behaves. If this is the case, why should it matter if one chooses to live like Mother Theresa or Hitler — like Ghandi or Ted Bundy? If atheism is true, each one of those individuals is equal in the sense that none of them are experiencing any punishment or benefit for choosing to approximate to any supposed moral brute facts or abstract objects in the absence of God. In fact, it could be argued that Hitler and Bundy experienced more physical pleasures during their lives than Mother Theresa or Ghandi. If all people always share the same ultimate fate, then why should anyone care how they live on earth? Why should Hitler and Bundy not “go for the gusto”? Indeed, if atheism is true, why does it matter that Christians argue that atheism is false? It makes no difference in the end? However, if Christianity is true, then everything changes. Jesus offered a big “or else” to humanity! If one does not wish to “resemble the Trinity” as Dr. Adam Lloyd Johnson has described in his book,

Divine Love Theory

; if one does not wish to live according to the Law of Christ (which is the law above the law) and God’s purpose for humanity — to always love all people — then, they are free to spend eternity apart from God’s loving plan. They are free to do things their own way for eternity and not love others or experience love in return. Jesus referred to this love-free state of affairs as hell. If Wielenberg’s view were true — even if it could account for abstract objective moral values — why should anyone care? So what if some things are objectively wrong to do according to abstract objects? We are all just going to die anyway. And who cares about legacy either? Eventually the entire universe is going to suffer a cosmic heat death (there will be no heat, no light, and no life anywhere in the entire universe) and ultimately “no one will remember your name” or any of the so-called moral actions you performed. In the end, this atheistic attempt to account for objective morality is fairly useless. After all, what good is a moral theory if it (i) cannot account for objective moral purpose, (ii) does not provide an ability to attain a specific moral standard, or (iii) provides no reason for a person to act morally?  It’s an utterly bankrupt account of morality. With all of the above data in mind, consider the Ultimate Moral Argument. The Ultimate Moral Argument (UMA)1- If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.2- If humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature, then there is (i) no objective purpose to human existence, (ii) humans have no control over their behavior, and (iii) there are no ultimate consequences for human behavior.3- If there is (i) no objective purpose to human existence, (ii) humans have no control over their behavior, and (iii) there are no ultimate consequences for human behavior, then objective moral obligations are illusory.4- Objective moral obligations are not illusory. (Chief Justice Jackson was right; there is a Law above the law in which Hitler and the Nazis were supposed to adhere and had the power to adhere, but they failed.) 5- Therefore, there is (i) an objective purpose to human life, (ii) humans have control over their behavior, and (iii) there are ultimate consequences for human behavior.6- Therefore, humanity is not an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.7- Therefore, God exists.

This new, improved, and updated deductive moral argument really seems to tighten down the screws and highlights what's really necessary for a robust account of morality. Be that as it may, although I subjectively prefer deductive formulations regarding objective morality, an abductive (best explanation) approach might be beneficial for others. Indeed, after reviewing the UMA, Dr. David Baggett, who, in my opinion, is the world's leading expert in all things related to moral arguments, responded to me with the following words (used by permission):

"I think this is all essentially right. My only reservation is its deductive formulation... not that I don't think it's necessarily problematic for being such. I just happen to think that less-than-deductive formuations tend to better encapsulate how we as human beings tend to think about complicated matters like this and tend better to foster dialogue with those with whom we disagree. I've grown increasingly disenchanted through the years with tight discursive analyses. Again, though, this might just be a personal preference and a function of various experiences of mine through the years that have shaped me in particular ways. Keep up the good work; you're putting your finger on several key issues here!"

With Baggett's words of wisdom in mind, it might be good to keep both a strong deductive moral argument and a softer and more gentle abductive argument in your back pocket. Depending upon the situation and your interlocutor, you have options at your disposal. Choose wisely.

Conclusion

It seems to me that objective moral obligations are more intuitive than the existence of the physical universe. After all, I can conceive of possible worlds in which the physical universe is an illusion – one that’s like The Matrix – but even if I were in a Matrix, it would still be objectively wrong to side with the Nazis. With that said, it seems to me that if objective morality exists – which is intuitively obvious – then minimally, two key ingredients must obtain:

• Humanity has to have been created on purpose and for a specific purpose.

• Humanity must possess the libertarian freedom (the power) to choose to correspond to said objective purpose – or not.
  

And on top of that, for a moral theory to be as full and robust as possible, it seems that a third ingredient is essential:

• Humans will either be punished or rewarded for the manner in which they choose to live. 

None of these key ingredients (purpose, power, and punishment) make sense on atheism, but they fit perfectly with Christian theism. After all, what good is a moral theory if there’s (i) no target you are really supposed to hit, (ii) you are not in control of what you hit, and (iii) there’s no reward or consequences for what you hit? To refer to such a lack-luster moral theory as “robust” is ridiculous. One might counter, “My reward is knowing that my life (which is determined by mindless, non-rational, and non-moral stuff) lined up with a certain set of abstract objects.” Well, that’s great, but as Han Solo said,

“What good’s a reward if ya ain’t around to use it?”

If Christian theism is true, however, then there is (i) an objective target we are really supposed to hit – that we were created to hit (Jesus taught that the objective purpose of human life was all about love and taught us how to love), (ii) we possess the libertarian freedom — the power — to hit the bull’s eye of that target, iff we are careful and choose to learn from our mistakes, and (iii) there is an eternal reward for those who choose to hit the target of love and “resemble the Trinity” and there’s eternal consequences (punishment) for those who choose not to “resemble the Trinity” (again, for more about resembling the Trinity, check out Adam Johnson’s book, Divine Love Theory, I can’t recommend it enough). Bottom line: atheists cannot offer a robust moral theory that accounts for these three essential ingredients, but Christians can. Thus, it’s wise to realize that God exists – He loves you – and created you on purpose and for the specific purpose of love, you have the power to love God and all humans (or not), and you will be rewarded into the eternal future if you choose to correspond to objective reality and the objective purpose of your existence. However, if you freely choose to reject the love of God and all others . . . well, you’re free to do eternity

your own way

. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton

One More Moral Argument:

The Declaration of Independence Argument 1- If God does not exist, then the Declaration of Independence is false and humans do not possess objective and unalienable rights which ought not be violated by anyone (including governments). 2- The Declaration of Independence is true and humans do possess objective and unalienable rights which ought not be violated by anyone (including governments). 3- Therefore, God exists. (To see why Atheism is un-American, click here.)