The new question over at Reasonable Faith:
"Dear Dr. Craig, there have been a lot questions recently asked
about grounding the existence of morality in God, and I have one as
well. The Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne rejects the Moral
Argument for God because, he thinks, moral truths are necessarily true,
and so the existence of God cannot have an effect on their truth."
He then goes on to explain succinctly Swinburne's argument then asks Craig how he would respond to the argument. Read Craig's response here. Swinburne, a Christian, argues that moral truths are necessarily true and so God isn't needed for moral truths. This is odd to me. I am to think that moral truths are necessarily true without having their root in a personal being who exists necessarily?
Does it make sense that objective moral values just exist?
Let's go ahead and cede to that for the moment. Okay. Objective moral
values just exist. What does that mean for me as an individual? I'm an
advanced primate. I'm experiencing the world around me. Do I encounter
patience? Do I encounter justice? What tool do I use to mine for these
values? Do I sense an oughtness or shouldness to follow these values if I
do encounter them? I don't think so. On naturalism, if objective moral
values exist it would be non-natural, that is abstract, and I have no
reason to believe that we could know of them or should know them, i.e.
that we would have an oughtness to know them as we do today. On
naturalism I find it hard to believe that these unexplainable objective
moral values existed unchanging during the whole process of evolution,
not dependent on anything for their survival and somehow man became
aware of these moral values and found out what they are? If naturalistic
evolution is true and objective moral values do indeed "just exist" I
find it very hard to believe that man would evolve in that perfect way
as to be able to know what those moral values are. Given that scenario,
it's as if the moral realm "knew" that just such a man was coming. It's
as if man was rigged to know the moral realm, care about it, and follow
its values; like there was a design or something. Strange. Of course, a
non-natural moral realm cannot be personal because it's impersonal. In
order for man to know about such abstract objects, it would have be
personal. The theist is in a fine position to say that if God exists,
then as a personal being He could choose to let man know of His
existence by divine revelation (written word) and/or by letting his existence be known
via reason (nature). God is
personal therefore knowable, whereas non-natural moral values/a moral
realm is impersonal therefore unknowable.
Read Craig's response here.
Read my post "Do Objective Moral Values Just Exist?"