The Argument from Morality

[bcbwilla]

Hey all! I'm doing a paper for a philosophy of religion class on the Argument From Morality, and I just wanted to see what different people thought about it. The argument generally goes like this:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.
2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.
3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives (from Wikipedia)

So I'm really just wondering:

(1)Do you accept this argument? Why?

(2) Do you use the existence of morality to strengthen your belief in God?

(3)If so, how? If not, why not?

Thank you very much. All and any responses are appreciated.

 

[elfy2go]

No, I do not accept this argument. The main problem is that the answer of God is never actually explanatory. Referencing God doesn't explain why these "objective morality" exists or why we should follow them, it simply asserts it through brute force. Let us suppose that God does exist and he comes down and tells us to follow certain rules; even if this were the case we are no closer to an explanation of why we should follow moral rules. By answering "God" you might as well give the bull-headed reply "because."

Don't believe in objective morality...I think morality comes from language and contract theory (rough and dirty explanation).