How do critics respond to the Moral Argument in apologetics?

The Moral Argument for the existence of God is one of the classical defenses of theistic belief, rooted deeply in the philosophical and theological traditions of Christian thought. This argument posits that moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of a moral lawgiver, God, who transcends human subjectivity and cultural differences. Critics of the Moral Argument, however, offer several counterpoints, questioning both its premises and its logical coherence. Their responses can be broadly categorized into challenges to the objectivity of moral values, the necessity of God for morality, and the implications of moral disagreements.

1. Challenge to the Objectivity of Moral Values

A significant line of critique against the Moral Argument comes from the assertion that moral values are not objective but are instead subjective or relative to cultural, societal, or personal perspectives. This view is often associated with ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism. According to this perspective, what is considered morally right or wrong varies from person to person or culture to culture, and there is no absolute standard of morality that transcends these differences.

Philosophers like J.L. Mackie and Richard Rorty have argued that if moral values are purely subjective, then they cannot be used to prove the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Mackie, in his principle of “error theory,” suggests that all moral statements are false because they all refer to an intrinsic good, which he claims does not exist. Rorty, from a pragmatist standpoint, denies that morality is about discovering objective truths, seeing it instead as a matter of what society lets us get away with saying.

2. Questioning the Necessity of God for Morality

Another critical response to the Moral Argument is that even if objective moral values do exist, it does not necessarily follow that God must be their source. Critics argue that objective moral values could be grounded in something other than a divine being. For instance, some philosophers propose that moral realism can be defended without reference to God, suggesting that moral truths exist independently of human beliefs, potentially as abstract objects like numbers, or as intrinsic features of the world.

Prominent atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen challenges the necessity of God for objective morals, arguing that humans can acknowledge objective moral truths through reason alone, without recourse to divine revelation or command. Nielsen suggests that moral understanding is a part of the human condition, evolved or developed as a necessary aspect of communal life, not something imparted from a divine source.

3. Moral Disagreements and Divine Hiddenness

Critics also point to the widespread disagreement about moral issues across different cultures and even within the same culture as evidence against a universal moral law imparted by a divine lawgiver. They argue that if an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God existed and wanted to impart moral knowledge to humanity, there would be much more agreement about what constitutes right and wrong.

This argument ties into the broader philosophical problem of divine hiddenness. Critics like J.L. Schellenberg argue that if a loving God existed, it is unlikely that He would remain hidden from us, especially in matters of moral importance. The fact that sincere seekers of truth come to radically different moral conclusions suggests, for these critics, either that there is no single true morality to be found or that if there is, God has not made it sufficiently clear.

4. Evolutionary Explanations of Morality

The rise of evolutionary biology has provided critics of the Moral Argument with another tool. Some argue that our moral sentiments can be fully explained by evolutionary processes. They suggest that behaviors coded as "moral" are those that have traditionally enhanced fitness for survival and reproduction. Altruism, for example, while seemingly selfless, can be seen as a strategy for enhancing the survival of one's genes, either directly or indirectly.

Philosopher Michael Ruse argues that morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands, feet, and teeth. According to this view, moral behavior developed because it enhanced the ability of our ancestors to survive and reproduce. Thus, the seeming objectivity of moral truths is illusory; they are contingent adaptations, not insights into an objective moral order.

Reflections on the Critiques

In responding to these critiques, Christian apologetics often emphasizes the limitations of human understanding and the depth of the mystery of God's ways. While acknowledging the force of some criticisms, they might argue that the existence of widespread moral agreement on issues like murder and theft suggests some common, transcendent guide to human moral intuitions. Moreover, they might contend that the inability of evolutionary biology to account fully for self-sacrificial acts, which confer no reproductive benefit, points toward a higher moral law that transcends mere survival.

In summary, critics of the Moral Argument raise significant and thought-provoking challenges, questioning the objectivity of moral values, the necessity of a divine source for morality, the implications of moral disagreements, and the sufficiency of evolutionary explanations. Each of these criticisms invites deeper reflection on the nature of morality, the capabilities of human reason, and the role of the divine in the moral order. While not conclusive in disproving the Moral Argument, these critiques certainly enrich the conversation and underscore the complexity of the issues involved.