At the request of an acquaintance on another site, I’ve just finished reading this article, and I must admit that it’s one of the better attempts to justify morality on naturalism. However, he has a couple of holes in his argument that I’d like to address briefly. This post will assume some prior knowledge that many who interact with me on CrossExamined.org will have. To the rest of you, I apologize!
Thibodeau’s article can be found here.
Please remember that Thibodeau is a trained philosopher. I don’t even play one on TV. I’m just a simple guy with a slightly-above-average intelligence (so I’m told) that is trying to reason through this stuff. Yet, it seems to me that good philosophy should have great explanatory power and correspond to what we perceive reality to be. I don’t see this in his article.
First of all, is this claim:
4. Killing babies is horrendous.
5. Even if God does not exist, killing babies is horrendous.
6. So, even if God does not exist, objective moral values do exist.
This, to my mind, is so compelling as to be decisive. I do not see what the existence of God adds to the universe such that, if he did not exist, the killing of an innocent child would not be horrendous.
I’m very glad he finds killing babies to be horrendous. (I wonder if he approves of abortion…) However, he makes this statement simply as an assertion without any evidence to say why it is horrendous. Continue reading