God is the Best Explanation for Morality

Now on to his responses. First, however, a word about how I will respond. Unlike CA, who responded to my argument with a line-by-line analysis (Known as "fisking"), I will respond under several general points for the sake of order and clarity. I would also invite my opponent to do the same -- line-by-line refutations usually miss the big picture and can become rather hard to follow. Attacks on Premise 1 CA challenges the first premise by arguing that it is a "non-sequitur. " He charges that objective morality does not imply that God exists. However, he neglects to respond to the defense of the first premise that I provided in the opening argument. Let me now reproduce it: If there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder. " These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. Until CA responds to the aforementioned argument, P1 is certainly not a non-sequitur. Now, to be fair, he does engage the previous paragraph, but his responses are rather inadequate. He argues, for instance, that the notion that commands must originate from a commander (mind) is ad hoc. Yet he fails to elaborate why it is so. Surely it isn't ad hoc to presume that moral commands originate from a moral commander? Apart from mere assertion, CA never states why it is ad hoc. He also argues that I operate under the assumption that objective moral facts do exist. Yes, I do, but what exactly is problematic with that, given that I provided arguments for that assumption? Nothing fallacious is present here. At one point, CA also sets up and attacks a strawman of my argument. He writes, "You operate under the assumption that if there is objective morality, God is the only explanation. " That is not true at all. The proposition that I am arguing for is that God is the best explanation of morality. Such a thesis does not exclude the fact that there may be other competing explanations. My responses to relativism even presupposes as such. He thus attacks a blatant strawman. Finally, he argues that the supreme intelligence posited need not be God. On the contrary, it does, for we are talking about the ground of morality. Unless it is rooted in a supreme being, it cannot be binding for everyone. Attacks on Premise 2 CA argues that "You said that "By "objective," I refer to the state of being true regardless of human opinion. ", yet your first support for premise 2 is based on human opinion. " This is not true at all. My first argument for P2 used a type of inductive argument known as an argument to best explanation. That is, I appealed to P2 as the best explanation of what we tend to experience in the world. If competing theories such as relativism lead us to conclusions that are counterintuitive, then why not just reject relativism? Now of course, morality could still be relative, but the point of this type of argument is to establish the burden of proof. Additionally, we also have to contrast the subjectivity of human experience with its correspondence to reality. Parts of our experience may be subjective, but this does not preclude the fact that our experience is for the most part an accurate indicator of how reality actually is. Suppose I see a tree. What reason do I have for thinking that the tree is actually in front of me? My experience of course. Even though my experience may have subjective elements, my experience is a good indicator of how reality actually is. The same way with moral experience. Simply because our moral experience may have subjective elements to it does not mean that it is not an accurate guide to how reality actually is. Otherwise, we'd have to throw out our knowledge of science and history along with moral knowledge. CA responds to (2) and (3) by arguing, "This isn't an argument for objective morality, this just possibly shows that moral judgments [and progress] are based on the assumption that there is an objective morality. " This completely misses the point of the argument. Yes, it does assume that moral judgements are based on the assumption that there is objective morality, but the point to be drawn from that is since there are meaningful moral judgements (Ie: Slavery is wrong), that it must imply that objective morality exists. Challenges to the Human Dignity and Equality ArgumentCA provided no objection to this argument. A Word on "Best Explanation"The proposition being debated over is "God is the Best Explanation for Morality. " In order to show that this is likely false, CA must show that it is not the best explanation by means of advancing a superior moral theory. Other than a slight mention of humanism, he has not done so. Recall that the criteria for the best explanation are:1. Explanatory power2. Plausibility3. Less ad hocness4. Accord with already accepted beliefs5. Comparative superiority. In order to provide a theory superior to theistic morality, CA must advance a moral theory that satisfies all five criteria. Yet, as I have shown, naturalistic explanations of morality all pail in comparision to the explanatory power offered by theism. Theism has more explanatory power in that affirms that our moral beliefs correspond to reality, thus making it more plausible. Accordingly it is less ad hoc because it does not have to deny that these experiences correspond to reality, making it more in accord with already accepted beliefs. This, in turn, gives it comparative superiority to all other competing theories.