Wyrdsmyth

The debate referred to can be viewed here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-nielsen0.html. You may want to read it before reading my post.

I. Objective Moral Standards

In his debate with Kai Nielsen, William James Craig brought up some issues about moral relativism. Dr. Craig was trying to show that the coherentism of atheists like Dr. Nielsen inevitably leads to moral relativism. It seems like Craig was saying although the moral system of an atheist may be coherent (i.e. internally consistent and making perfect sense within its own framework), it still has nothing outside of it to justify it. To most theistic apologists, this is a very important point, which they take great pains to emphasize. It is, as they seem to see it, one of the great flaws of the “atheistic worldview.” They assert if reality is as atheists say it is (i.e., if there is no god), then there can be no objective basis for morality, no outside benchmark against which we may measure our behavior. Therefore, they will conclude things like there really is no objective way to judge between the behavior of the genocidal Nazis and democratic Americans.

Let’s use an easy analogy. Two children are arguing as to how long a broken tree branch is. One of them says it is over three feet long, while the other says it is under three feet long. To settle the issue, the children go into their father’s garage and get a yardstick. In this way, they have a method independent of either of their opinions by which they can settle their argument. Now, they can merely hold up the tree branch and see whether it is longer or shorter than the yardstick. Opinion has nothing to do with it, and the matter can be settled by the application of an objective standard.

In this analogy, and the yardstick represents the objective moral standard. It is something that is recognized by both boys as a legitimate and definitive way to settle their dispute. They both know that there is a “truth of the matter” about the length of the branch which can be settled objectively and impartially.

When we are uncertain as to whether our conduct is moral or not, we need only to examine the Holy Bible to see what we ought to do.

But there are problems already. What if the holy scriptures say contradictory things in them, or are ambiguous about many things? Should we take an eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Is the correct punishment for an unmarried girl who has sex to stone her to death, or not? Is it acceptable to have slaves? Is it morally correct to slaughter an entire country of men for something their ancestors did, and force their virgin daughters to marry their conquerors? Should we be harsh, or forgiving?
How can something be an objective standard if it is not even internally consistent? In some parts, the Bible preaches forgiveness and compassion, and in other places harsh punishment and vengeful retribution. Craig asserts that the coherentism of atheistic worldviews collapse under their own weight, because they have nothing to hold them up. But at least, he concedes, that they are indeed coherent in the first place! The Bible I do not find to be coherent at all.

Although apologists like William Lane Craig passionately argue that we must have a God in order to account for an objective moral standard, and – not only that, but that God must be the Christian God of the Bible, they seem to have very little to say about the actual stories of the Bible, or the “morality” that is espoused within it. This usually doesn’t make it into the fine-sounding, philosophical debates. Somehow, I doubt that William Lane Craig would agree that stoning a girl to death, because she had sex outside of marriage is an appropriate punishment. Yet, it is in the Bible. I also doubt William Lane Craig would agree that slaughtering an entire nation for something their ancestors did, and giving the young girls to the conquerors as spoils of war is moral behavior. Yet that is in the Bible, also. Many prominent people in the Bible had slaves as well, and nowhere in the holy book do we hear so much as a peep out of God, that slavery might be an immoral institution. Yet, I suspect that William Lane Craig, like me and many other people, agrees that slavery is immoral.

The question I now have to ask, is: If William Lane Craig does not get his “objective moral standard” from the Bible, and if he indeed DISAGREES with some of the morality of the Bible, WHERE does his morality come from?

My answer to this question, which I think is rather obvious, is that William Lane Craig gets his morality from his parents, the people he interacts with the most, and his culture at large – just like me. In fact, I would assert that I – an atheist – and William Lane Craig – a Christian – share a much more similar morality with each other than either of us shares with the ancient Hebrew tribes of the Near East who wrote the Bible. I think we have a moral system which is might be called “modern Western values” which is an outgrowth of our own social history.

I assert that William Lane Craig and other modern Christians are much more loyal to these “Western values” than the morality outlined in the Bible. There are some values outlined in the Bible that we agree with – but not all. We pick and choose. We agree with “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” since those are pretty much universal. And like the ancient Hebrews, we realize that even these two commandments can be bent a little bit, such as in times of war. Our military intelligence sometimes has to steal information, and our soldiers sometimes have to kill. So, even for the most basic and universal moral codes, we do not consider them absolutes. Some people must do these very things, in the service of our country, and we do not condemn them for these things, in fact, we praise them. There is morality outlined by Jesus that not all of us agree with. He says, “When struck, turn the other cheek, so your enemy may strike that one.” But not all of us agree with Jesus. Many modern Christians are not the pacifists that Jesus told them to be – they believe in self-defense, and retaliation against aggression. And I agree with these modern Christians – yet disagree with Jesus. I don’t think we should seek out fights, but I do think that if you are physically attacked, you should not feel morally obligated to just stand there waiting for another blow. Jesus was wrong. And, although many modern Christians might feel uncomfortable with me pointing this out, I think there are many who agree with me on this. Pacifism is not always the rational response. Fighting back or fleeing both make much more sense.

One of the fallacies I think we all often make with morality is to assume that the standard we use is the objective one, and the standards other people appeal to must somehow be wrong, false or flawed. This does not just apply to theists, who typically think other theists are worshippers of false gods while their god must be the real one. It also applies to philosophers, who typically think that their own moral axioms or moral foundations must be the “real truth,” while those systems built by other moralists must somehow be essentially flawed. So, we all “buy in” to our own systems. We Americans and western Europeans “buy in” to our own ethical and political values that stress labor laws, civil rights, free speech, religious freedom, etc. To most of us, these values are right just because they are – i.e., they are self-evident, or they were obviously given to us by a Creator (God).

But God didn’t give us the freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson amended the Constitution, and wrote the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). God didn’t give us the freedom of religion, the right to assembly peacefully, to bear arms, or the right to “take the Fifth” and not incriminate ourselves in a court of law. Politicians and political philosophers gave us those rights. Also, God didn’t invent child labor laws or workers’ compensation, or the Geneva war crimes. The list goes on and on. There are so many modern ideas that we have about morality, politics and ethics that we think are “self-evident” or “obviously right,” but they are not self-evident to all the other people of the world throughout history, or even today.

When discussing morality, and “right and wrong” we need to take our blinders off, and see that what we think is right and wrong today, in the U.S.A., has not always been universally seen as right and wrong by everybody, in every culture, throughout history – even by our own countrymen of the past. In the early history of our country, many did not see slavery as immoral. Beating one’s wife was not illegal, and was one’s own business (or even perogative). Forcing one’s children to work long hours was not illegal, either. These things only became wrong as society changed, and people discussed them and argued over them.

II. Is rape wrong on Andromeda?

In the same debate, Craig brings up an essay entitled "Is Rape Wrong on Andromeda?" written by Michael Ruse. Ruse asks whether or not rape would be wrong for an intelligent race on some other planet. And he says, "Not necessarily!" He writes, "We cannot automatically assume that extraterrestrials would think rape immoral." I was glad that Craig brought up Ruse’s “rape on Andromeda” analogy, because I love science fiction. However, I think when Craig and Nielsen discussed this analogy, it only muddled the debate. They already had full plates, without the addition of extraterrestrials from the Andromeda Galaxy lusting after human girls. But let us look at some of their exchanges and comments, anyway.

Craig writes:

How should these extraterrestrials (who consider rape to be moral) behave toward us? Suppose they are sufficiently similar to mammals to be able to copulate with human females; and suppose they came to earth and began to rape throughout the earth. If we protested, "But we humans don’t think that that’s right!" They would reply, "Your morality is an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just as are your other adaptations. It has no existence beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory." In fact, suppose these creatures were as superior to us as we are to cattle and horses and they decided to farm the earth to use us for food or laboring animals. What could you say to possibly show them that what they are doing is morally wrong? They have their own coherent system of morality. Why should they adopt the human point of view? On the atheistic view, I can’t think of any reason why human beings should be regarded as the source of all objective moral value.

These are some very interesting points, and somewhat surprising that they are brought up by a theologian rather than a science fiction writer. What would a race of space-faring extraterrestrials who are more intelligent and more powerful than we are imply about the existence of such things as “objective moral standards” and “God”? First of all, to theists, it would display that we humans are not necessarily the “greatest” of God’s creations. What if these extraterrestrials used us the way we use animals, indeed? This analogy may be more apt than Craig ever considered, because humans have raped animals – it has actually happened! Do humans care about the protestations of sheep, cows or pigs (or whatever other animals have been raped)? Do they have any “rights” from our point of view? Since they are powerless to do anything against us, it seems they only have the “rights” we confer upon them.

So it would seem with the extraterrestrials raping earth women. Our protestations may sound no more different to them than the squealings of a pig sound to us (“You shouldn’t DO that!” repeated over and over). And what of the theists, who wave Bibles and crosses while they protest? Why should that have any affect on the aliens? If the aliens don’t believe in the gods of earth, then why should they care about the moral systems of theists ANY MORE OR LESS than the moral systems of atheists?
Just as our morality applies to us (and not to lesser beings, like animals), so the alien morality may only extend to their own species (and not lesser beings, like humans and other animals). Or, there may be different rules for them and us, just as we consider there to be different standards for us and animals.

Notice Craig’s question: “How should these extraterrestrials behave toward us?” Notice the word ‘should’ and the implication that there may be one correct answer that we can easily determine. But, there may not be. The answer might be relativistic. From our point of view – the humanocentric view – the extraterrestrials should behave towards us the way we want them too, obviously. In other words, we think they ought to respect our morality and our individual rights, treat us with courtesy, not rape our women, and so on. But from their point of view – the alien-centric view – it is their morality that is seen as the objective standard, and ours that is just seen as the behavioral codes of primitive creatures. They may regard our morality the way we look at the interactions between wolves or pigs – more complicated than the interactions between mice and insects, but still below ours in complexity and importance and value.

Amazingly, this seems to be the very point that eludes Dr. Craig, yet to me is the point that is most obviously and overwhelmingly highlighted by this analogy. A lot of Christian theology hinges upon the premise that we are the greatest creatures God has created, we were made in his image, and we are special, important, and have a value above all the other things of creation, including the animals. If a space-faring, extraterrestrial race that was more intelligent and more powerful than us showed up, it would shatter that fundamental premise.
There would be nothing we could do or say that would make any earth-based system of morality binding on the aliens. Pointing out that our morality is an objective standard derived from a deity would probably only be met with laughs (or their alien equivalent). Or, worse, the aliens may call all earth-religions heresies, and say the only true religion is their own.

But like I said, the introduction of all of these issues only muddies the waters of the initial debate between Dr. Craig and Dr. Nielsen. They did not have the time or the space to discuss even some of the elementary points I brought up, above. Craig seems to think that the theist moralist would have a better chance than an atheist moralist in persuading the aliens not to rape our women and farm the earth for food, since at least the theist could assert his morality is not just something evolved by the species homo sapiens, but comes from a supernatural being that many homo sapiens believe in and worship. Why he thinks this would have the edge in convincing drooling aliens, I really can’t say. In such a situation, it seems, our only recourse would be in trying to reason with them. But judging from the suppositions we are working with, it doesn’t seem that either a moral philosophy that is atheistic or theistic would necessarily have much clout with them. But our best hope, perhaps, would NOT be to try to convert them to a certain terrestrial religion, but first to get them to see us as fellow sentient beings, who by that virtue, deserve to be treated accordingly, not from appeal to some god which may or may not exist.

A similar case might be brought up about the Spanish conquistadors who conquered the more primitive natives of America and the Caribbean. Did the natives have their best chances in trying to convert the more superior Spanish to any of their own indigenous religions, or to try to appeal to the morality the Spanish already had? In the hypothetical case of the extraterrestrials, it seems to me the best appeal would have would be to try to learn of the morality of the extraterrestrials, and try to find a common ground to argue from. After all, we would be dealing from the position of the inferiors, the powerless, the oppressed. No other recourse would rationally be possible.

The idea that there indeed might be such extraterrestrials is a frightening possibility, usually dealt with by science fiction writers, and often shunned by theologians. So, I both admire and am perplexed by William James Craig bringing this hypothetical situation up. I wonder if he thinks the best tactic with such aliens would be to try to convince them that there are objective moral standards, that we know of and can instruct them on. But I don’t see why they wouldn’t be dismissive and contemptuous of any morality or religion we might try to press upon them, just as the Spanish were towards the 'superstitions' of the native Americans.

Ruse’s extraterrestrials may simply have a fundamentally different view of females in general. They may not regard females as the equals of males, or deserving of the same rights. They may even think their own morality is derived from an objective standard, which they justify with their own philosophical or religious views. If the latter – if they have their own religion that they think is the one true faith, they would almost certainly regard our religions as a superstitious jokes or heresies that need to be stamped out.

Perhaps Dr. Craig thinks that if the aliens were told about God, Christianity and Jesus they would “see the light” and convert, or at least recognize that we humans have the objective moral standard which is binding, not only on humans, but the aliens, too. Or, perhaps he thinks that if God has manifested to us on earth, then so too he must have manifested to the aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy. But this seems as naïve to me, as for native Americans to have assumed that their gods were also known to the Spanish, and since they worshipped them, then people everywhere must know of them, and have the same morality they do, and recognize their standards as the objective, true ones.

[To be continued...]

CX

What I find curious is the apparent underlying assumption that because we do not like the logical consequences of there being no objective moral standard there must therefore be such a standard when A)It is evident from history and cross-cultural anthropology that there is no such standard B)It generally amounts to little more than emotional intimidation or ad hominem (i.e. either you will be horrified by the examples given such that on an emotional basis you must conclude an objective standard exists or you will acknowledge that you are an inhuman monster who thinks its perfectly okay to torture children and kick puppies you nasty nasty atheist). Honestly I fail to see how this amounts to an argument at all. Then you throw in the leap to god as the moral standard and it becomes even more incoherent.

beastmaster

Strong post Wyrdsmyth. Atheists need to give theists more grief for not offering any sort of coherent objective morality.

Minor quibble I can't let pass:

A popular misconception, but untrue. As Cecil Adams has written, "Wife beating has never been legal in the U.S.."

Baloo

Wow, great post Wyrdsmyth - thoroughly enjoyed it!

rainbow walking

Excellent post Wyrd. One thing that stands out in this is the eventual consideration that in all competing moral structures "might makes right" and the theist is no better at it when positing a soveriegn god establishing an objective morality based on his implied omnipotence. In the case of those aliens I don't think reason would work. Eventually we'd have to resist their "might makes right" rationalization for treating us as lesser beings.

luvluv

Was this the debate that was the basis for the book Does God Exist?

If so, what do you folks think of Nielson's notion that God is incoherent?

Wyrdsmyth

Thanks for pointing that out.

I don't know. And I'd like to keep this thread on the topic of this particular debate, if you don't mind.

mattdamore

luv luv,

No, that's the book which traces the debate between J.P. Moreland and Nielson. I don't think that that particular debate (between Craig and Nielson) was ever put into literature.