Theistic philosopher William Cage debated atheistic philosopher Peter Millican on the theme, Does God Exist? The debate was an enlightening and interesting one as it covered a wide range of topics each aimed at justifying their premise. The friendly nature of the debate was worth appreciating as no participant attacked the other. About that, one of the topics that were discussed with reference to God’s existence is the issue on moral argument. As a result, the discussion would concentrate on the aspect since it provides a thought provoking stance. The argument tries to justify God’s existence based on his inherent nature that provides a guideline and framework for the universe to follow. We would examine each of the participant and their viewpoint relating to the reality of the issue. The argument will be against Craig’s viewpoint as he fails to substantiate God’s existence using the dimension since there are contradictions from both the bible and nature regarding his hypothesis.
With reference to the moral argument, Craig sums up his reason into three aspects. They are if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, the other is objective moral values and duties do exist, and God truly is present. Craig tackles the popular euthyphro dilemma that some philosophers regard as weak and unconvincing since it was rendered irrelevant by Plato but the debate still progresses. Craig states that the euthyphro dilemma is valid because there is a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. That is to mean that our moral responsibilities are determined by the guidelines of a just and loving God. Besides that, the moral values are dependent on God because his traits define what is appropriate. Thus, the morally good or bad is reflective of his nature while right or wrong replicates his will.
God is naturally good and would not instruct on anything immoral. An example is how one person was told to help the poor while another was to chop off a child’s arm. The illustration provides an opportunity to determine god’s nature. Another source of validation is the bible. Nonetheless, the source disapproves Craig’s premise since God is reported to have ordered mass killings examples evident in the books of Leviticus 10:1-3 and Deuteronomy 13:5 (Copan and Matt). Craig casually states that God is good without any solid proof despite there being evidence both in nature and the bible where god appears not to be always moral and in some instances commands people to engage in immoral acts. Despite morality being relative, it is not a call to do as we please. We are responsible for our actions and there are structures that have been put in place to guide us through the morally relative universe.
What is evident is that even religious morality is relative and varies across different faiths. As a result, God must exist in order to prove that there is evil in the world. For us to make a distinction between good and evil, God’s presence needs to be present. Even when there is a debate against God’s existence by pointing bad deeds in the world, they need to assume objective moral values and a God that justifies them.
In an objection to Craig’s argument, Millican notes that majority of philosophers are moral realists while a minority are theists. It means that there must be some way one can use to justify morality on atheism (Le Poidevin). Atheists can express their opinions that human regards as having intrinsic moral value. Millican grants that if atheistic can perceive moral values then why is it necessary to include God in such a justification? Atheists express their opinion that humans are unique and that our rational aspect makes us special. Besides that, they can express their opinion that it is fundamental to care about similar species. Proponents of the arguments do not consider theistic viewpoints as proofs since they are mandated to provide valid facts that no one could deny. With a view on that, such a standard of achievement is considerably high which leads to a retaliation by supporters of theistic stances. They review philosophical arguments and their inability to achieve the set standard.
An argument on God’s existence is valid as it provides evidence for the hypothesis that increases the probability or plausibility of the claim despite not having adequate facts for proof. Promoters of the ideology who take on such a viewpoint argue that the belief creates a cumulative case for theism. They also hold the moral argument that there is need for additional line of reasoning such as the fine-tuning claim of the physical universe or that from religious perspective. With reference to that, the presumption of atheism has been challenged in a number of ways (Le Poidevin). The first one is based on the claim that reasonable belief in God does not have to be based on propositional evidence. The other perspective is questioning the implicit assumption made that belief in God is epistemologically more dangerous than unbelief. Theists believe that every entity in the world is in existence due to God. On the other hand, atheists deny the ground and believe that every object in the world has a character of existing on their own.
With reference to Craig’s thesis, there are numerous inconsistencies challenging his argument and its validity. One is the many atrocities that took place in the Old Testament as ordered by God (Copan and Matt). The viewpoint does not serve as an objection to the moral judgment but an evaluation on its applicability. By declaring God’s action and considering them immoral, the opposer holds to a standard of morality that is true outside of himself and cuts across barriers of culture, social norms and context. The situation affirms the existence of objective morality after eliminating God from the context. There is also the morality issue on some cultural aspects that are deemed unacceptable in the West such as cannibalism. The initial response is that even though not all cultures share similar moral facts, all embrace fundamental moral traits. An example is how there are cultures that permit the killing of elderly people believing that there is afterlife while others advocate for their care. The other response is that there are cultures that practice morally offensive activities. The existence of multiple moral codes does not reverse the reality of moral objectivity. Millican never undermined Craig’s argument on the topic but presented an alternative angle of atheist and how they are able to have moral values, which received a response. Based on that, Millican’s objection was not persuasive. Additionally, Craig’s claims were shallow with reference to the topic thus disapproving his viewpoint.
In conclusion, it appears there is no version of moral argument that substantiates God’s existence. Each version contains varying premises that are rejected by critical thinkers. Both philosophers did a commendable job in justifying their positions. However, there seemed to lack sufficient information from both parties on the topic as the scope of discussion was limited.
Works Cited
Copan, Paul, and Matt Flannagan. Did God really command genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God. Baker Books, 2014.
Le Poidevin, Robin. Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. Routledge, 2003.
