Christianity, Atheism, and the Is/Ought Problem

1. Christianity, Atheism, and the Is/Ought Problem The Moral Case for Christian Theism

2. The Moral Argument 1. A Moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. 2. There is an objective moral law. 3. Therefore there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.

3. Our Position • There is an objective moral law. • Atheism fails at explaining this moral law. • Christianity succeeds at explaining this moral law. • Christianity has the only logical, reasonable grounds for morality

4. Disclaimer • We are NOT saying that Atheists are immoral. • The point of the Moral Argument is: • All Atheists have a moral code (they cannot avoid it). • The Atheist system fails to provide a basis for a moral code. • By agreeing that morality exists, the Atheist provides the critical premise in The Moral Argument for God.

5. Outline • Atheist Position • Problems with the Atheist position • Atheist Responses • Christian Position

6. Outline • Atheist Position • Problems with the Atheist position • Atheist Responses • Christian Position

7. The Atheist Position • All phenomena can be sufficiently explained with matter, energy, and time. • No explanation requires God or the supernatural. • All attempts to use God as an explanation are insufficient.

8. What Is Naturalism? “Everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included ...” Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, page 596.

9. What is Naturalism? “What it insists on is that the world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human …” The Oxford Guide To Philosophy, p. 640

10. What is Naturalism? “The widespread acceptance of the doctrine now known as the ‘causal closure’ or the ‘causal completeness’ of the physical realm according to which all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

11. What is Naturalism? “… with an intellectual conviction that the material universe exhausts all reality.  The natural world, being all there is …” http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm

12. Popular Atheists Believe? “An atheist in this sense [of philosophical naturalist] is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 14.

13. What Are The Conclusions? • “Everything we are and do is . . . described by physics. We are the evolved products of natural selection, which operates without intention, foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes being included in the physical universe.” • The Center For Naturalism http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

14. What Are The Conclusions? • “From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn.  Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn.” • The Center For Naturalism http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

15. What Are The Conclusions? • “As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system . . . It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behavior.” • http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

16. What Are The Conclusions? • “From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections.” • http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

17. What Are The Conclusions? • “Individuals don’t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn’t have done other than what they did.” • http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

18. What Are The Conclusions? • “Each of us is an unfolding, natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself.” • “Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm

19. What Are The Conclusions? • “The way we develop from newborns into adults is a process of cause and effect, and we can explain our character and motives as results of that process, one that has made our brains the way they are. Similarly, we can understand our feelings and behavior as being fully caused by the brain and body. This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

20. What Are The Conclusions? • “We are fully physical creatures, fully caused to be who we are. We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm

21. What Are The Conclusions? • “We are fully physical creatures, without souls. Since we are fully caused to be who we are and act as we do, we don’t have contra-causal free will.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

22. What Are The Conclusions? • “We don’t have free will, defined as the power to do something without yourself being fully caused to do it. . . Now, many people think they do have this power, but to have it, you’d have to be disconnected from nature in some way, and naturalism says that there is no way in which we are disconnected from nature: we are completely included in the natural world.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

23. What Are The Conclusions? • “This means that everything we are and do is caused, which means we don’t have free will in the sense defined above, what we might call “contra-causal” free will. We aren’t “first causes” and we don’t cause ourselves - nothing in nature does this, so far as we know. We are not "causally privileged" over the rest of nature, that is, we don't get to cause without being fully caused ourselves.” • http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

24. People Who Believe This Include • Daniel Dennet • Richard Dawkins • Sam Harris • William Provine • B. F. Skinner • Richard Double, Edinboro U., “The Non-Reality of Free Will” • Derk Pereboom, Cornell U., “Living Without Free Will” and “Meaning in Life Without Free Will” • and many others

25. Disclaimer • We are NOT saying that Atheists are immoral. • Atheist & Naturalists have a system of morals and ethics. • Sam Harris: “We can find secure foundations for ethics and the rule of law without succumbing to any obvious cognitive illusions.“ • (The End of Faith, p.262-264)

26. Outline • Atheist Position • Problems with the Atheist position • Atheist Responses • Christian Position

28. Title • here

30. Aunt Mathilda's Cake

31. The Fact Is….. • There is no way to get from an naturalistic “is” to a moral “ought” • Morality is in the realm of “ought”

32. The Fact Is…..

33. But we all know there are things in the world that ought not happen.

34. C. S. Lewis: . “Why has the world gone wrong? . . . My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?” Mere Christianity

35. C. S. Lewis: . “A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.”

36. John Lennox: • “This has nothing to do with the fact that physics and chemistry are not yet sufficiently advanced to deal with this question. Even if we allow these sciences another 1,000 years of development it will make no difference, because [these types of questions] demand a totally new and higher level of explanation.” • God’s Undertaker, p.55

37. Outline • Atheist Position • Problems with the Atheist position • Atheist Responses • Christian Position

38. Atheist Explanations for Morals • 1. Social Contract

39. Atheist Explanations for Morals • 1. Social Contract: • Does not explain ought: How would we get the idea that a social contract is needed in the first place? • No Grounds for Saying Other Societies are Wrong • Not Everything We Learn From Society Is Based on Society (Math, Logic) • Morals would only be as good as what society agreed on (could not be improved) • Whatever society decided was right, would be (we all know this is not the case)

40. Atheist Explanations for Morals 1. Social Contract:FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : Morals are survival behaviors learned through natural selection

41. 1st Problem with Herd Instinct

42. 2nd Problem with Herd Instinct

43. Atheist Explanations for Morals 1. Social Contract:FAIL 2. Herd Instinct • Not testable (to prove or falisfy) • The herd would always be right, which we know it’s not • Our instincts would always be right, but they aren’t • Why ought the herd survive? • Still has no answer for ought; all we would have is what the heard is.

44. Atheist Explanations for Morals 1. Social Contract:FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological:

45. Merely Psychological? • Claim: Morals are a merely a psychological trait or learned behavior. • Response: • We cannot get rid of sense of ought, even if we wanted to • Value judgments would be meaningless beyond the self (racism is not just a psychological trait) • Everyone believes moral evil is beyond the self • Does not explain how we get a sense of ought

46. Atheist Explanations for Morals 1. Social Contract:FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework

47. Ethical Framework? Claim: Moral statements are valid if they are made in the context of an ethical framework, or moral system.

48. Ethical Framework? Claim: “Ethical Statements can be made in the context of a moral framework.” Reply: Who made the moral framework? Why ought we follow it?

49. Ethical Framework? • Claim: • “Moral statements can be made in the context of a moral framework.” • Reply: • Assumes the moral framework we’re trying to prove • Not valid to assume it to try to prove it • Still does not explain how we got the sense of ought

50. Atheist Explanations for Morals 1. Social Contract:FAIL 2. Herd Instinct : FAIL 3. Psychological: FAIL 4. Ethical Framework: FAIL 5. Categorical Imperative