Q&A: Objections to the Proof from Morality
Objections to the Proof from Morality
Question
Several comments regarding the proof from morality as you present it.
A. The proof is seemingly completely subjective; it does not reflect the real God in any way. Is there anything preventing us from assuming that we are all living in a complete illusion and that there is in fact no value at all to moral obligation?
B. Suppose the atheist just judges and criticizes anti-moral thingsso what does he actually care? The fact that his judgment is meaningless is itself also a meaningless fact. From his perspective, he can judge and criticize for his own enjoyment, because enjoyment is the only essence in his life. In another formulation: the atheist can refrain from abandoning the “moral pathos,” as you defined it, and at the same time deny God’s existence. He sees that the world functions better (in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the world’s population) when there is moral criticism, so why should he abandon something that only does good?
C. You argued that one should not direct criticism toward a psychopath, since his brain was formed differently and from his perspective it is moral to kill. And I think the truth is that no one actually criticizes such a person. People understand that his brain was formed differently and will simply put him in a mental institution or in prison because it is inconvenient for human beings to live with him (this may be an unjust act, but justice also does not really exist for the atheist). Moral criticism would be directed דווקא toward someone who for the most part does conduct himself according to the basic norms that help us function as a normal societysomeone who himself criticizes anti-moral things. If that person understands the social convention and is himself part of it, why shouldn’t I criticize him when he violates what he himself believes in and uses to rebuke others?
Answer
All of these are not comments on the proof as I present it. Because when I presented it, I addressed all these claims.
If you do not morally criticize anyone and just do things arbitrarily, then the proof is not addressed to you. That is the whole essence of a “theological” (or “revealing”) argument.
Discussion on Answer
The point that bothered me about the proof from morality became sharper for me (I preferred not to open just another thread for no reason..)
Why, in your opinion, should a normative person adopt the view that morality has real validity, rather than adopt the opposite viewthat there is no God and no morality, or that even if there is a God, morality is the result of a social illusion that we developed?
I assume that this is your view, because presumably it is also your own outlook, and without it you would not move on to the stage of religious commitment. And I ask: why do you, as Michi Abraham, see fit to assume that most people’s intuition is correct? After all, one can give other very good explanations for why we all see morality as a supreme value (a social need, for example; after all, in Islam murder is totally fine, which could show that all that drives us is social norms)
There is no question here of why. If a person ascribes validity to morality, then there is God. Now he has to decide whether yes or no. My moral intuition tells me yes. That’s all. You can always attack with skeptical claims, and I see no need to answer such questions.
This isn’t the first time you’ve answered in this style, and I really want to understand what stands behind itI can’t grasp it. And this is the most rational skepticism in the world. How is it different from any doubt that you present? Where did the most basic critical sense disappear to? And if my intuition tells me that there is a tooth fairy walking among us, shouldn’t I question that too? Are there no logical tools for checking whether this intuition has a rational basis or not? If so, then why get to trilogies and long notebooks at allmy intuition says there is a God, and that’s it. Let the skeptic enjoy himself. Why use this approach only regarding morality, after such a long and exhausting road in cracking religious faith?
I will answer for the last time. About anything, you can ask: who told you that what you think is correct? Even if I answer you, you can continue and ask about what I answered. So what answer are you expecting? There is no answer besides “just because.” That’s it. I’m done.
I’m not challenging “why do you think that?” Rather, I want to hear a sensible logical argument that justifies our intuition. For example, regarding God’s existence, you explain very nicely that according to our observation every created thing has a creator, etc. Once there is a logical argument for both sides, I assume one of them is correct. But here there is no argument or explanation that assumes the validity of morality beyond intuition.
There are those who will continue to be moral out of skepticism. Because the concern that there may be an objectively binding moral system is greater than the concern that I am “just criticizing for nothing.” So one can live peacefully with the proof and at the same time continue with exactly the same belief and way of life.
In any case, your proof convinced me more to abandon morality than about God’s existence… It’s a bit strange to me to base a proof on human intuition, which not infrequently is mistaken and misleading.