Critiquing: Does This Prove We Can’t Ground Objective Morality in God?

January 25, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Morality Foundation — Misunderstanding Objections — Defining Genocide — Slavery Context — God’s Judgment

---

Introduction

The content discusses a challenge to grounding objective morality in God, questioning whether actions like genocide, slavery, and torture can be deemed morally good if God engaged in or allowed them. The host, Greg Koukl, responds to this challenge, defending the grounding of morality in God’s nature and addressing specific accusations. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the content, identify logical inconsistencies, and highlight unsubstantiated and dubious claims.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Equivocation of Moral Standards
   The content frequently equivocates between subjective and objective moral standards. Koukl asserts, “If there is no God, there is no foundation for morality, and therefore genocide, torture, and slavery are not immoral, and they’re not moral.” This statement conflates subjective and objective morality without addressing the underlying issue: whether objective moral standards can exist independently of God.
2. Selective Application of Moral Authority
   Koukl argues, “The appropriate person for transcendent moral obligations is a transcendent person,” implying that God’s actions are inherently moral by virtue of his authority. However, this selective application of moral authority does not address whether the specific actions (genocide, slavery, and torture) can be justified objectively, even if commanded by God. The inconsistency lies in assuming that authority alone justifies actions without evaluating the actions’ moral content.
3. Mischaracterization of Terms
   The content mischaracterizes terms like torture, genocide, and slavery. Koukl states, “No, God is not going to torture them in hell forever. He is going to judge them forever.” This distinction between judgment and torture is not clearly defined, leading to a potential misrepresentation of the term torture as used in the original challenge.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Grounding Morality in God’s Nature
   The claim that morality is grounded in God’s nature is asserted without substantial evidence. Koukl states, “If morality is not grounded in God’s nature, then there is no morality.” This claim presupposes the existence of God and the necessity of his nature for morality, without providing empirical evidence or logical argumentation to support this foundational assertion.
2. Moral Justification of Genocide
   Koukl attempts to justify genocide by distinguishing between just and unjust reasons for mass killings: “Genocide is killing a bunch of people for the wrong reason… [The Allies] were justified in killing the Germans.” This argument fails to address whether the distinction between just and unjust reasons for genocide is universally applicable or merely a rationalization of certain actions.
3. Translation Issues in Slavery
   The content claims that the translation of Hebrew words like ‘Abed’ to ‘slave’ rather than ‘servant’ has led to misconceptions: “Prior to the King James version… [Abed] is almost never translated as slave.” This assertion does not substantiate the broader context and historical practices of slavery in ancient times, nor does it address the moral implications of any form of servitude.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias
   The content displays confirmation bias by selectively interpreting historical and religious texts to support the pre-existing belief that God’s actions are morally justified. For example, Koukl’s interpretation of genocide and slavery within a religious context favors a justification that aligns with his belief in God’s inherent goodness.
2. Moral Licensing
   Koukl’s defense of morally questionable actions (e.g., genocide and slavery) as justified by God’s authority suggests moral licensing, where perceived moral authority is used to justify actions that would otherwise be deemed immoral. This bias undermines the objective evaluation of the actions in question.

Substantiating Claims

Obligation to Substantiate All Claims

The content makes several claims that are both unsubstantiated and dubious. For instance, the assertion that “God’s moral nature is the foundation of all morality” requires empirical evidence or a logical argument to substantiate it. Similarly, the claim that genocide and slavery can be morally justified under specific divine commands necessitates rigorous evidence and ethical reasoning.

Potential Methods to Test Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate the alleged promises of God, one could employ the following methods:

1. Historical AnalysisAssess historical accounts and archaeological evidence to verify the fulfillment of specific promises attributed to divine intervention. This method helps in establishing a factual basis for evaluating divine promises.
2. Comparative Religious StudyCompare the moral frameworks and outcomes of different religious traditions to determine if the promises and moral standards attributed to God are unique or universally applicable across various belief systems.
3. Philosophical InquiryUtilize philosophical reasoning to analyze the coherence and consistency of moral claims grounded in divine authority. This involves critically examining the logical structure of arguments for and against divine moral grounding.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Degree of Belief to Degree of Evidence

A critical aspect of evaluating moral claims is mapping the degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. The content asserts strong beliefs about God’s moral authority without providing proportional evidence. For instance, the claim that objective morality cannot exist without God is presented as an absolute, yet the evidence supporting this claim is largely based on theological assertions rather than empirical data or logical deduction.

Conclusion

In summary, the content displays several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. It fails to provide sufficient evidence for grounding morality in God’s nature and selectively applies moral authority to justify actions like genocide and slavery. To engage in a more robust critique, it is essential to demand empirical evidence, employ rigorous ethical reasoning, and map one’s degree of belief to the available evidence. This critique aims to foster a deeper understanding of the logical coherence and moral implications of the arguments presented.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.