Christian philosopher William Lane Craig maintains that atheists very often accept both premises of the following argument (while rejecting its conclusion, of course):
1. If there is no God, objective moral principles do not exist
2. But objective moral principles do exist
3. Therefore, there is a God
In particular, he accuses Richard Dawkins of doing this. But of course accepting the premises of this argument while denying its conclusion would be illogical, since the argument is formally valid. According to Craig, then, it seems Dawkins and these other atheists really are – as the “good book” says – fools.
But is there any reason to believe Craig's claim?
As evidence that Dawkins endorses the first premise of the argument, Craig quotes a well-known passage from River Out of Eden. “The universe that we observe,” Dawkins tells us, “has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” However, what Dawkins is obviously pointing out here is that the amoral nature of reality is evidence of its lack of purpose or design, and hence of its lack of a creator. If there were a God who supposedly cares about sentient beings, one would not expect a universe of “blind physical forces” where “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” (as he states in the passage leading up to the above quote). And that's not the same as claiming that there are no objective moral principles that apply to human society.
But even if Dawkins did accept the first premise, Craig would have to show that he accepts the second one as well. And that's where his case is especially weak, for his evidence here is simply that Dawkins makes moral judgements. That is, Dawkins says that some things are right and others wrong, and that, according to Craig, shows that he believes in objective moral principles. What's more, this is all the evidence Craig presents with respect to other atheists who supposedly make the same mistake.
But expressing a moral viewpoint isn't the same thing as claiming that morality is objective, and Craig should know that. He acknowledges that there are moral relativists, who maintain that morality is relative to culture. And yet a relativist can certainly claim that something is right or wrong, even if his claim must be made from a particular cultural point of view. Similarly, subjectivists – those who say that morality is ultimately based on subjective preferences or desires – can, and do, express their own moral preferences.
Craig therefore has failed to show that Dawkins or any other atheist accepts the two premises of the moral argument.
(For a complete refutation of Craig's argument, see chapter 5 of my book, The Truth about God.)
1. If there is no God, objective moral principles do not exist
2. But objective moral principles do exist
3. Therefore, there is a God
In particular, he accuses Richard Dawkins of doing this. But of course accepting the premises of this argument while denying its conclusion would be illogical, since the argument is formally valid. According to Craig, then, it seems Dawkins and these other atheists really are – as the “good book” says – fools.
But is there any reason to believe Craig's claim?
As evidence that Dawkins endorses the first premise of the argument, Craig quotes a well-known passage from River Out of Eden. “The universe that we observe,” Dawkins tells us, “has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” However, what Dawkins is obviously pointing out here is that the amoral nature of reality is evidence of its lack of purpose or design, and hence of its lack of a creator. If there were a God who supposedly cares about sentient beings, one would not expect a universe of “blind physical forces” where “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” (as he states in the passage leading up to the above quote). And that's not the same as claiming that there are no objective moral principles that apply to human society.
But even if Dawkins did accept the first premise, Craig would have to show that he accepts the second one as well. And that's where his case is especially weak, for his evidence here is simply that Dawkins makes moral judgements. That is, Dawkins says that some things are right and others wrong, and that, according to Craig, shows that he believes in objective moral principles. What's more, this is all the evidence Craig presents with respect to other atheists who supposedly make the same mistake.
But expressing a moral viewpoint isn't the same thing as claiming that morality is objective, and Craig should know that. He acknowledges that there are moral relativists, who maintain that morality is relative to culture. And yet a relativist can certainly claim that something is right or wrong, even if his claim must be made from a particular cultural point of view. Similarly, subjectivists – those who say that morality is ultimately based on subjective preferences or desires – can, and do, express their own moral preferences.
Craig therefore has failed to show that Dawkins or any other atheist accepts the two premises of the moral argument.
(For a complete refutation of Craig's argument, see chapter 5 of my book, The Truth about God.)
RSS Feed