The Moral Argument The Moral Argument Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) rejected the arguments of both Aquinas and Anselm, but he believed in God and did not wish to give up the idea of a Supreme Being. In his Critique of Practical Reason, he formulated two arguments that are similar. The first argument concerns the immortality of the soul which cannot be proven at all, but is, for Kant, a necessary idea. The argument is summed as follows: Man lives under a moral law which requires perfection. Since man does not achieve it in this life, immortality is required that the duty of man may be fulfilled in meeting the demands of the moral law.5 Some practical questions may be raised about Kants first argument. First, there is no visible moral law in nature and it may seem arbitrary to speak of one as Kant did. Second, why should man be given time to make up his failure? Without some Christian understanding of life after death, why postulate mans survival at all? Third, why not let the judgement about mans failure stand and simply say that he lost out in the race? Fourth, Kant ruled out forgiveness and grace and places life after death on performance which is contrary to Christian values. The second argument may be summed as follows: Happiness should coincide with the degree of morality. Unfortunately it doesnt, yet man has a duty of pursuing the good. Then Kant said: Now it was our duty to promote the highest good; and it is not merely our privilege but a necessity connected with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good. This presupposition is made only under the condition of the existence of God, and this condition inseparably connects this supposition with duty. Therefore, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.6 One of the objectionable features of Kants argument is that it is a use of God that is certainly contrary to the Biblical model of God. God is useful only for undergirding morality for Kant. Beyond that it is questionable whether God serves any use in Kants view of things. Another example of the moral argument is that of Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) who drew on the idea of a standard of truth in all disciplines. Even though a discipline is floundering around in half-truths, there is an ideal to which it hopes to attain in truth. Rashdall argued that: the Moral Law has a real existence, that there is such a thing as an absolute Morality, that there is something absolutely true or false in ethical judgement, whether we or any number of human beings at any given time actually think so or not. Such a belief is distinctly implied in what we mean by Morality.7 Since a moral ideal cannot exist in material things, or in the mind of any one individual, Rashdall concluded that an Absolute moral idea can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived.8 Consequently, morality leads to the conclusion that God exists. The success of Rashdalls argument does not depend upon whether people follow a moral standard or not. Obviously many do not. The statistical report, based on what people are doing, does not negate the standard of what ought to be. Even in very primitive societies there is yet a basic moral standard. Although a society may think it good to steal, murder, rob, and lie to other groups, it does not permit the same action against members of its own group by members of its own group. There is a limit to relativity. On the other hand, it must not be concluded that a known universal ethical standard would result in everyones living up to it. The phenomenon of sin declares that people do not live according to what they do know. The Argument from Personal Experience This argument proceeds on the fact that men believe in God because they experience him. Some men believe because of intellectual reasons only, but others believe because of personal experience or encounter. Elton Trueblood has written, The fact that a great many people, representing a great many civilizations and a great many centuries, and including large numbers of those generally accounted the best and wisest of mankind, have reported direct religious experiences is one of the most significant facts about our world. 9 Truebloods statement stresses mans involvement in religion of some kind, but for a theist it has problems. There are large numbers of people who worship idols, others who are polytheists, many who are pantheists, and they are all religious. These various expressions of religious commitment indicate a searching for meaning in life and the search for the Creator. In this sense the religious person stresses empirical or pragmatic approaches. Gabriel Marcel wrote that the mystics are perhaps the only thoroughgoing empiricists in the history of philosophy. 10 This implies that the religious person has an interchange with a fact (or better, a person) that is not measured by the five senses. Verification of experience is appealed to in terms of changed lives in the present life and fuller verification after death. This argument is designed to indicate that experience of people leads to the conclusion that God exists. But it is one of the weaker arguments and has some problems with it. It proves more than a theist would like to argue for. How can one distinguish between the religious experience of a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew and Christian? All have religious experience and all should be accorded some truthfulness or validity according to the implications of the argument. The argument can be used to argue that all religions are the same and are of equal value. But it is more probable that all religions are false than that all religions are true. If the argument is to be defended it might be supplemented with a detailed anthropological study as seen in Schmidts High God idea in which the different religions could be traced to a common source of the idea of God. Perhaps then the argument would have some value for the theist. Without some restrictions and further limitations it is not of great value. A. E. Taylor gives a variation on the argument. In music or art there is something objective that brings forth a response. There may be various interpretations of aesthetic experience, but the better interpretations are made by the experts. We are not justified, however, in arguing that there is no beauty in the world because we do not recognize it, nor are we led to reason that every mans experience of beauty is to be trusted. Although all can react to the presence of beauty, the expert is more able to interpret the presence than others. In relating this to God, one might argue that there is something that is calling forth a response in man. In worship one responds to God in religious experience. God is the given or the presence , and men respond according to their sensitivity to him. Because some men do not respond or see him, one is not justified in concluding that God does not exist. Although there are possibilities of aberrations and being led astray, the overwhelming repetition of religious experience throughout the ages lends support to the argument. One objection to the argument of religious experience comes in the matter of the who of the experience. Can one be sure that it is God and not the devil one encounters. The answer seems to be that the moral transformation in the life of the person conforms to the nature of the person encountered. The aspect of a changed life for good could hardly be attributed to the demonic. The usefulness of the religious experience argument involves the possibility of directing others to the same experience. This is no basic problem, for within Christianity, as a single example, directions are given for becoming a Christian; i.e., repent (or turn from sin) and trust (or commit ones life to) God on the basis of his promise in the gospel. In the spirit of P.T. Forsyth, we can say that there is an authority for experience, but not authority in the experience. Forsyth meant that religious experience has its place, in relation to other things, but by itself it does not give authority for any conclusions about the truthfulness of God, gods, or whatever. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) rejected the arguments of both Aquinas and Anselm, but he believed in God and did not wish to give up the idea of a Supreme Being. In his Critique of Practical Reason, he formulated two arguments that are similar. The first argument concerns the immortality of the soul which cannot be proven at all, but is, for Kant, a necessary idea. The argument is summed as follows: Man lives under a moral law which requires perfection. Since man does not achieve it in this life, immortality is required that the duty of man may be fulfilled in meeting the demands of the moral law.5 Some practical questions may be raised about Kants first argument. First, there is no visible moral law in nature and it may seem arbitrary to speak of one as Kant did. Second, why should man be given time to make up his failure? Without some Christian understanding of life after death, why postulate mans survival at all? Third, why not let the judgement about mans failure stand and simply say that he lost out in the race? Fourth, Kant ruled out forgiveness and grace and places life after death on performance which is contrary to Christian values. The second argument may be summed as follows: Happiness should coincide with the degree of morality. Unfortunately it doesnt, yet man has a duty of pursuing the good. Then Kant said: Now it was our duty to promote the highest good; and it is not merely our privilege but a necessity connected with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good. This presupposition is made only under the condition of the existence of God, and this condition inseparably connects this supposition with duty. Therefore, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.6 One of the objectionable features of Kants argument is that it is a use of God that is certainly contrary to the Biblical model of God. God is useful only for undergirding morality for Kant. Beyond that it is questionable whether God serves any use in Kants view of things. Another example of the moral argument is that of Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) who drew on the idea of a standard of truth in all disciplines. Even though a discipline is floundering around in half-truths, there is an ideal to which it hopes to attain in truth. Rashdall argued that: the Moral Law has a real existence, that there is such a thing as an absolute Morality, that there is something absolutely true or false in ethical judgement, whether we or any number of human beings at any given time actually think so or not. Such a belief is distinctly implied in what we mean by Morality.7 Since a moral ideal cannot exist in material things, or in the mind of any one individual, Rashdall concluded that an Absolute moral idea can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived.8 Consequently, morality leads to the conclusion that God exists. The success of Rashdalls argument does not depend upon whether people follow a moral standard or not. Obviously many do not. The statistical report, based on what people are doing, does not negate the standard of what ought to be. Even in very primitive societies there is yet a basic moral standard. Although a society may think it good to steal, murder, rob, and lie to other groups, it does not permit the same action against members of its own group by members of its own group. There is a limit to relativity. On the other hand, it must not be concluded that a known universal ethical standard would result in everyones living up to it. The phenomenon of sin declares that people do not live according to what they do know.
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:32:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015