Mary Jo’s latest article just published over at SOLAS. Here’s a preview:
In thinking back to when I was not a Christian, I often felt a sense of indignation when people would cheat on their exams or when some jerk would bully a kid in my class. Watching the news at night, I’d respond with disgust when a criminal would rob a person or threaten that person’s life, especially when the victim wasn’t able to defend themselves, such as an elderly lady. I would think: That just isn’t right. People shouldn’t do those kinds of things. Conversely, I’d affix a value judgement of goodness to a situation when someone returned a wallet full of money to its owner or when people gave time to work at a homeless shelter. Yet, from where did I derive this sense of right and wrong? Was it just because of my culture and upbringing that I felt these things shouldn’t be so? Would I have different views if I were raised somewhere else or were these kinds of things always right and wrong?
During my search for answers to these questions, I encountered an argument called the Moral Argument for God’s existence. There are three basic ideas in the argument:
Idea #1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Idea #2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Idea #3: Therefore, God exists.
The terms
Objective: independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.
Subjective: dependent upon people’s opinions, feelings, and personal preferences.
The opposite of objective is subjective.