There are many arguments that attempt to prove the existence of God. Among the most popular are the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. A lesser known argument is the moral argument for God, which I find to be more interesting, although still ultimately unconvincing. I myself am a Christian, but it’s futile to attempt to logically prove a God who doesn’t seem concerned with proving Himself. Revelation is a uniquely different approach to truth from logic, but today we’ll focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the moral argument for God.
The Moral Argument for God broken down
Most philosophical arguments, especially of a metaphysical nature, are built deductively. Two self-evident, or a priori, truths are placed beside each other, and when combined, result in a unique conclusion that follows from the premises. Here is the moral argument in its most simple state, developed by Peter Byrne:
Premise 1: A human experience of morality is observed.
Premise 2: God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Most all humans have a strong sense of right and wrong. And by right and wrong people are not simply stating preferences. They truly believe that universal laws rule over human activity and give bounds for proper human actions.
It is difficult to build universal ethical laws outside of a theistic position. In my opinion, it is rationally impossible. I have heard people argue that objective moral facts could exist outside of theism, but the only place where these would exist would be in the metaphysical. To me this is equivalent to stating that there is a God. I see no difference.
If humans are right about the reality of moral truths, then the argument is strong. But there are plenty of ways in which humans are often limited in their understanding, and it appears to me to be possible that humans have simply invented ethical facts. Nihilism is a legitimate escape from this argument, but it is also the only legitimate escape outside of acceptance of a theistic perspective.
Strengths of the Moral Argument
The strongest point of the argument is placing the burden of proof on the atheist. The theist has a strong reason for the existence of metaphysical truths (i.e. God himself). But if the atheist or agnostic believes that there are moral truths (i.e. murder or rape are universally wrong), then they must offer a convincing argument for the existence of these truths outside of theism.
The moral argument for God is always weakened when it’s used as a logical proof of the existence of God. If it is rather used to begin the discussion about the ontology of ethical facts, then it can be a successful starting point. Though it is possible that ethical truths do not exist, nearly every human being operates as though they do. This is contradictory for those who would suggest that they don’t exist and is a helpful place to begin the conversation about the nature of God.
Weaknesses of the Moral Argument
All arguments for the existence of God ultimately break down when they attempt to be irrefutable. There is a simple escape to the moral argument in Nihilism. If someone negates the reality of moral laws, they are still standing on empirically solid ground. We don’t impose moral rules on the animal kingdom, so why do we impose them on humans?
Conclusion
If humans are simply evolved animals, all of our best instincts were simply developed to perpetuate our species. This isn’t an impossibility, although I tend to lean in the direction that these greater instincts are imbued in us by the Divine. Often, the only tenable solutions are at the edges of the conversation. For agnostics to claim knowledge of ethical truths and yet not offer convincing arguments for an epistemology that allows for that knowledge, they leave themselves in a difficult rational position.
The theist and the atheist have strong positions as long as they remain consistent, and this is certainly one of the more difficult tasks for the thinking person. If you’re thinking through the existence of God, I’d love to talk more about what you think. I’m certain I won’t be able to logically prove that He exists, but I would enjoy thinking through your questions. Another problem with the arguments for God is that they simplify human experience by limiting the intellectual discussion. People gravitate or move away from theistic positions for wider reasons than the 5 major arguments for God. The conversation needs a little more breathing room, in my opinion.