Apologetics 315 posted a list of five objections to the moral argument from philosopher Paul Rezkalla.
Here are the 5 points:
- “But I’m a moral person and I don’t believe in God. Are you saying that atheists can’t be moral?”
- “But what if you needed to lie in order to save someone’s life? It seems that morality is not absolute as you say it is.”
- ‘Where’s your evidence for objective morality? I won’t believe in anything unless I have evidence for it.’
- ‘If morality is objective, then why do some cultures practice female genital mutilation, cannibalism, infanticide, and other atrocities which we, in the West, deem unacceptable?’
- ‘But God carried out many atrocities in the Old Testament. He ordered the genocide of the Canaanites.’
That last one seems to be popular, so let’s double-check the details:
For starters, this isn’t really an objection to the moral argument. It does not attack either premise of the argument. It is irrelevant, but let’s entertain this objection for a second. By making a judgement on God’s actions and deeming them immoral, the objector is appealing to a standard of morality that holds true outside of him/herself and transcends barriers of culture, context, time period, and social norms. By doing this, he/she affirms the existence of objective morality! But if the skeptic wants to affirm objective morality after throwing God out the window, then there needs to be an alternate explanation for its basis. If not God, then what is it? The burden is now on the skeptic to provide a naturalistic explanation for the objective moral framework.
If you have heard any of these objections before when discussing the moral argument, click through and take a look.