Without God, Moral Terms Are Meaningless

In the New York Times blog, Opinionator, Joel Marks explains how he came to his decision to "[exclude] all moral concepts and language from [his] thinking, feeling and actions."

I found myself in the thick of meta-ethics, which looks at the nature of morality, including whether there even is such a thing as right and wrong. I myself had ignored the latter issue for most of my career, since, if there was one thing I knew in this entire universe, it was that some things are morally wrong. It is wrong to toss male chicks, alive and conscious, into a meat grinder, as happens in the egg industry. It is wrong to scorn homosexuals and deny them civil rights. It is wrong to massacre people in death camps. All of these things have met with general approval in one society or another. And yet I knew in my soul, with all of my conviction, with a passion, that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. I knew this with more certainty than I knew that the earth is round.

But suddenly I knew it no more. I was not merely skeptical or agnostic about it; I had come to believe, and do still, that these things are not wrong. But neither are they right; nor are they permissible. The entire set of moral attributions is out the window. Think of this analogy: A tribe of people lives on an isolated island. They have no formal governmental institutions of any kind. In particular they have no legislature. Therefore in that society it would make no sense to say that someone had done something “illegal.” But neither would anything be “legal.” The entire set of legal categories would be inapplicable. In just this way I now view moral categories [emphasis mine].

Marks gets it. If there's no good God we're accountable to, morality is a fiction and the terms "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. Instead, there exists only the way we feel about things. His view is that since we act out of our desires, his method of persuasion will be to try to stir up people's desires in the direction he prefers (though he recognizes it's only a matter of preference):

I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. I am simply no longer in the business of trying to derive an ought from an is. I must accept that other people sometimes have opposed preferences, even when we are agreed on all the relevant facts and are reasoning correctly….

I am no longer giving premises in moral arguments…. I am not attempting to justify anything; I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices.

Comments

[Drew]

"I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices."

But why is being "informed" or "reflective" important?

[Trent]

Because you would not want to help a starving child unless you knew the full personal history and it gave you a new perspective on your own life, I guess.

And looking back through history,how does not having a legislature mean no formal government. Is he saying that societies with no legistatures had no laws?

[SteveK]

His view is that since we act out of our desires, his method of persuasion will be to try to stir up people's desires in the direction he prefers

The problem with desirism is it lacks an external object of desire. There literally is nothing desirable/preferable about anything.

He may love/desire/prefer something - his children, for example or perhaps his favorite foods - but there is nothing loveable/desirable/preferable about them. It's ALL in his mind.

This is anti-realism, folks.

[WisdomLover]

So is Marks saying we ought to throw out moral terminology?

BTW-His later nod to Hume about the inability of deriving an "ought" from an "is" is funny. Hume's 'self-evident' insight about the supposed is-ought gap is in fact provably contradictory. That is to say, the following set of propositions imply a contradiction:

1. There are two kinds of claims: factual claims and moral claims...No claim of the one kind is also a claim of the other kind.
2. The conjunction of any two factual claims is also a factual claim.
3. The conjunction of any two moral claims is also a moral claim.
4. The denial of any factual claim is also a factual claim
5. The denial of any moral claim is also a moral claim
6. It is not possible to validly derive a moral claim from only factual claims.

[kpolo]

Quick quip (as noted by WisdomLover):
Mark says he "ought" 'not to count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument' from the "is" of his discussion.

More importantly, though, this is a great witness to the Truth of Christianity. For the apostle Paul wrote exactly this 2000 years ago:

About the morality that Mark readily agrees with:
Rom 2:14-15 (ESV): For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

and his prediction that those who reject God will ultimately be given to their own foolishness:

Rom 1:21-23 (ESV):
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Why do I call Mark a fool? Cause I sincerely wonder if someone were to want to kill him, he would not cite a hundred-and-one moral reasons why the person shouldn't go through with the act?

[Damian]

I other words he is saying nothing. I'm curious why he felt the need to write the article as is seemed as though an attempt at moral reasoning was being made.

[KWM]

Easy, Damian. To persuade people that he is right. And you can be too. : )

[KWM]

I wonder if Marks would like laws in place to prevent live chickens from being tossed into a meat grinder? Would he want such laws even if the people tossing them and eating them had no problem with it? I guess then it becomes an issue of forcing your “personal preferences” on others, which then gets to the root of whether forcing your “personal preferences” on someone shouldn’t be “personally preferred”.

[Damian]

I wonder why this would only apply to morality and not to all thinking? Why is morality somwehow singled out as problematic and not all thinking? If there is no Logos there is no Logic, there is no real meaning to anything or I should say no grounding to anything. We are nothing but molecules in motion and this is not only true of moral principles but of principles themselves.This mans "reasoning" in daily matters business etc is no better than his "reasoning" in moral matters. Fascinating. How do our thoughts (moral or otherwise) transcend the mindless motion of our molecules? A rather sticky wicket I would say.

[Francis J. Beckwith]

"I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. I am simply no longer in the business of trying to derive an ought from an is."

So, based on this reasoning--these "facts," so to speak--the author says he ought not to try to derive an ought from an is. But if that is the case, he has derived an "ought" from an "is." And thus, his view stands refuted by itself. On the other hand, if it is not the case, then he has not shown that he cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." And thus, we have no reason to accept his prescription. In either case, the prospects of his moral project are not good.

[SteveK]

A rather sticky wicket I would say.

This is where anti-realism leads you. First you ignore the cues that reality is imposing on your mind, and before you know it you find yourself facing bigger, more devastating problems.

[RonH]

The real reason we have the traits that lead us to talk about right, wrong, etc. is that we are social.

Imagine a city of psychopaths. Impossible.

With or without cosmic enforcement, no cooperative social unit of any size is possible - from state down to friendship - without the things we call morality.

RonH

[Francis J. Beckwith]

RonH:

My belief that it is wrong to torture children for fun is not a "trait." It is a belief.

To say that the reason why we have moral beliefs is that without them we would cease to be begs the question. After all, perhaps we are social because we have moral beliefs. That is, our desires for companionship, love, play, communication and so forth are intrinsic goods that by their nature require others in community. The only reason to believe that morality is the answer to chaos is modernist prejudice foisted on us by Hobbes and Locke. But I see no reason to accept their social contract fairy tales.

[Christopher Riggs]

Why, then, is he "trying to motivate informed and reflective choices?" Ought one do this? Why not force people to believe as he does through force? Ought one not do that? If there is no right or wrong then who cares what he does? Why does he struggle so with how to proceed? How can his own heart and mind struggle when they are their own moral compass? With what is his heart and mind deliberating with if there's no standard beyond them?

Why can't he see that his own question of how to proceed is a moral question that wouldn't even be a question if his own heart and mind were the standard. He's wrestling with the transcendent all while denying that it exists.

[LHRM]

RonH I would agree with the description of ALL views as Fairy Tales, including the Atheists views [ultimately], except that the Atheist forgets something even if he concedes that:

Don't forget the all emcompassing reach of the atheist's hard determinism, and what that means for the very words he is typing, or reading, right now, this very minute.

Only Slaves to blind, indifferent reverberations of photons being acted upon by a collection of blind, indifferent forces exist; there is no Agency, or Choices-Made, or Ought, or individual Thought, or collective thought, or social thought.

We have never made a single choice our your entire life.

No one has. Ever. Not once.

Don't forget the [All Encompassing] reach of what is at the Bedrock-Bottom of your [the atheist's] reality.

Words have meanings. Car does not mean Mailbox. When we say "moral" we mean "moral" (Ought weighing in onto Man despite his whim) and not "amoral" (slaves/ blind/indifferent/ ultimately).

Hard Determinism is the ultimate/final end of all roads which the non-theist travels, and therein is the great equalizer between Love/Beautiful and Rape/Ugly.

What I mean is we can EITHER be honest about Blind/Indifferent and the Atheist can bow out of any "moral" discussion, for only the Amoral exists (ultimatley/finally), OR we can temporalliy suspend reality and pretend that "Well for now 'ought' is how I feel but ultimately it will all pitter out into the blind and indifferent, but let's temporalliy suspend reality for now and pretend something other than the ultimately-amoral and indifferent exists..." and thus continue this discussion in the context of a suspended atheism outside of its bedrock of the finally/ultimately blind and indifferent.

..... One or the other can happen in these conversations with Non-Theists but it is impossible to do both at the same time....at least if we are to be honest.....

If we want, we can temporalliy suspend reality: Enter the land of Fairy Tale.

[LHRM]

Typo/sorry:

"We have never made a single choice our your entire life. No one has. Ever. Not once."

Should read: "We have never made a single choice in our/your entire life....." Etc....

[RonH]

Francis, LHRM,

I agree it's a belief - not a trait.
And it is belief subsidiary to your belief in moral realism.
Moral realism is one explanation for our moral sentiments.

Evolution is another.

I think evolution is closer to the truth.

My mother used to say things like...

How would you feel?

...with plenty of the intended effect.

A mother can succeed with this language with or without the truth of moral realism.
She knows the child's answer and how reflection on it will change him.

And, mothers can also use the language of moral realism whether it is true or not.

Same for 'sunrise' and 'sunset' - true or not.

Same for 'free will'.

In fact, I'm sure mothers will use all this language for some time to come.

That doesn't make any of it true.

RonH

[LHRM]

I think that is honest; what I was referring to was the "dis" honest atheist who holds to "it matters" on any question of behavior / treatment of one another at all etc. It may matter in a purely I-Feel way, which ends in Might Makes Right (I-Focused) which is the Inverse of Love (Other-Focused) etc.

But the Atheist who engages in moral discussions, yet continues to hold to "reality is ultimately amoral" continues to entertain me, or confuse me.......it seems so pointless for one [the atheist] to care about / talk about a [his] Moral Fairy Tale in his Amoral universe.

[SteveK]

RonH,

I think evolution is closer to the truth.

If you gave this more thought, you wouldn't conclude this. Evolution is a process, and a process doesn't create meaning in the thing it actualizes.

By analogy, the process of making a book doesn't actualize the story in the book. The story was created before the process began. The process actualized it of course.

So evolution can't create the meaning behind the moral terms that are actualized when we speak them.

[SteveK]

Oops..

"doesn't *create* the story in the book"

[RonH]

SteveK,

I said evolution explains our moral sentiments.

I mean: We came to have moral sentiments via the process of evolution.

I didn't say evolution 'created meaning'.

RonH

[RonH]

I didn't say anything about 'actualizing' anything either.

[SteveK]

RonH,

I said evolution explains our moral sentiments

And I said it can't. At least no more than a book-making factory explains the sentiments expressed in a book. The book doesn't explain it either because the explanation preceeds both.

[KWM]

RonH,

When, during the evolutionary continuum, did killing innocents become immoral?

Do you believe there are any human acts that aren't immoral now, but upon further evolution, will be so in the future?

[LHRM]

Steve I think you are referring to actual Ought, while Ron is referring (honestly) to indifferent and aimless reverberations of oughtless photons being blindly acted upon by various forces which are also blind & indifferent. I mean he is refering to a large collection of them which flicker pointlessly in his psychic phosphoresence. Whatever that flare momentarily bubbles up as a "feeling" of perhaps having to vomit, or rape, or eat is what he means as evolution's product. I think in that sense he is correct.... although he actually thinks that he is actually thinking.... which of course he is not.... because blind particles, no matter how many of them we put together, simply do not think. Neurons are no different than a cloud in the sky and its collection of particles.... there appears to be the movement that is purposeful.... but of course it is only a collection of forces, blind forces, acting aimlessly.

[Ryan K.]

The incredible part is that even though the author has disavowed morality, he still has the urge to get other to conform to certain behaviors.

It is this urge that fascinates me. Even though he realizes it is all preference, he still wants his preference to be reality. If he was really consistent he would realize that his preferences should never be campaigned upon. Just like I don't have an urge to advocate or "inform" others that brownies are better than other desserts. I realize its simply my preference. And no amount of informing others should logically lead to them changing theirs.

[RonH]

As an apologetic, the OP may be of practical use.

As an argument, the OP is just plain fallacious.

Admit it.

RonH

[LHRM]

RonH I think you forget that your feelings and choices and thinking, and even your reading of these words are not conscious events; they are as the hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky.

It appears as if it is reaching, opening, and closing its fingers, but of course there is no such Intent, Thought, Will, and especially no Choice in that large collection of reverberating particles up in that cloud. Extrapolate that out a few degrees and you have you reading these words or typing their response. Hard Determinism. Do not forget the ALL-ENCOMPASING reach of what Pure Naturalism [Non-Theism] makes of all your own arguements whatsover.

You seem to be forgetting the blind, indifferent, will-less, choice-less, conscious-less, intent-less, amoral bedrock underlying the hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky.

[SteveK]

RonH,
The argument has nothing to do with an appeal to desireable or undesireable consequences. The argument appeals to our rational senses. In other words, you don't have to be a believer to conclude that the is-ought fallacy is indeed a fallacy.

[SteveK]

Marks says: I am simply no longer in the business of trying to derive an ought from an is.

You see, RonH, Marks understands the logic. There's no appeal to consequences.

Admit it. Admit that the only way to get an ought, is if you start with one. The blog post is accurate as far as that goes.

[JustChatting]

Mr. Marks says that “I will be moved by my head and my heart. Morality has nothing to do with it.” He also tells us that his outlook is a “practical” one. Lets grant both. But sneaking in the back door is still the notion that Mr. Marks has a head and a heart that basically gets it “right”… he still follows basic (and what some might otherwise call moral) precepts. But there are predatory people in the world whose minds and hearts are different. They are selfish and self-aggrandizing… they look to get ahead by any means… their fulfillment is the only thing that matters to them. The vast majority of these people are not dictators and tyrants. They are in our cities and sometimes our neighbors next door. Some are people who live a life of criminality and inflict pain on others while taking joy in it… They are moved by their head and heart too… The head says “its not my fault! Its the fault of (the victim, parents, society, poor upbringing…) and the heart says “I can do what I want and take what I want! Who are you to stop me!” Who indeed. Mr. Marks may have the luxury of living in an environment where his ideas are not potentially fatal… many others live in an environment where sometimes morality and law enforcement are all that keep them going from day to day. Ask any Somalian if they enjoy living in a system that for all practical purposes reflects what Mr. Marks appears to be proposing. Its easy to argue for an amoral, practical outlook when your sitting on the safe side of the fence.

[RonH]

SteveK,

Read the headline.

It's a familiar appeal to consequences.

Apologist William Lane Craig goes on and on and on about it.

Rewrite the headline...

Without God Moral Terms Lose Their Christian Meaning.

... and the is/ought issue goes away (with the reality of oughts).

What kind of meaning remains for 'morality'?

How about: "Taking others into account"?

RonH

[RonH]

This apologetic has always reminded me of the dictator who uses human shields.

It is the defense of a bad idea by attempting to hide it behind a good one.

RonH

[LHRM]

RonH I think your "Taking others into account"?" is a good notion, but it totally ignored JustChatting's point.

Which is Might Makes Right etc....which is fine, but it simply leaves no Ought to weigh in on Loving-Others. If Love is the Ultimate Ethic, the atheist cannot make the case. His ultimately Blind, Indifferent, and Conscious-less Bedrock cannot support such an incredible Weight finally/ultimately.

"I-Feel" is where it ends, and cannot weigh in on others to oblige, for it is not an Objective Ought exterior to this Man, this City, this Nation, this Earth, this Solar System, this Galaxy.

Love is not Good b/c God "enforces it". It is simply Good. To exit the Good by choice is the means of God's "enforcement" wherein He simply allows Real Selves to Exit the I-You of Love, to Exit by choice the Community of the Singualr-We that is Love's movement among and between Real Selves. When such a Self chooses It-Self forever over [Other] it therein by default simply Exits Love and lands inside of the Alone of the Pure-Self within that fierce imprisonment of the Isolated-I. This "Pure I" or "Self and not Other" is the only Reality left for any Real Self who by choice severs itself from Other.

And such is Love. And, if this Final-Reality called Love is Ultimate Reality, then indeed Love is the Final Good, the Ultimate Ethic, in a Real, Concrete, Actual, Literal Bedrock.

But the Atheist's roads all end in what will be finally and ultimately blind, indifferent, conscious-less, will-less, choice-less, and amoral.

"You" and "Love" are nothing more than a more dense, more rapid-fire reverberating form of that conscious-less, intent-less, blind, indifferent, amoral hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky.

Reality, inside of Atheism, can rise no higher than that cloud.

[RonH]

JustChatting,

LHRM says I ignore your point.

Then, I think he characterizes your point. But I'm not sure because I can't decode what comes after his Which is Might....

Anyway, like the OP, your comment is argumentum ad consequentiam.

RonH

[SteveK]

RonH,

It's a familiar appeal to consequences

I don't see it that way at all. Here's the blog headline with my comments in the parentheses. In my view it's a logical argument put into common language. Nothing consequentialist about it.

Without God (the necessary ought), Moral Terms (terms that follow from the existence of the first ought) Are Meaningless (because you can't get an ought without first starting with one)

[SteveK]

RonH,
You keep asserting that this post amounts to an emotional appeal. Where does it do that? Spell it out for us.

[LHRM]

RonH,

How about this: "Love is the ultimate ethic" is not a case the atheist can make, unless he limits his case with this, "well, at least it is for me...."

You are side-stepping the all encompasing reach of atheism's hard determinism by making any moral statement whatsoever.

Collections of blind, oughtless quanta do not love, or know, or see. They don't do ANYthing except reverberate down the path of least resistance between the myriad blind/indifferent forces acting upon them.....and putting more of them together inside a skull do not change that blind, intent-less behavior. The Neuron is no different than that choice-less, ought-less hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky.

[LHRM]

RonH,

I may have been mistaken. I took you to mean that caring for others etc (let's call it love) was a statement you were making about a Universal/Final Ethic which stands on its own as an Objective Good outside of this man, this city, this nation, this earth, this galaxy, etc...

I think you may very well have been simply stating your own notion of what we ought to do is...which of course is "this is the best ethic, at least for me..." etc.

Which is reasonable, and, ends with you facing another Self who, with more Might, violates no moral law intrinsic to "the universe" by taking from you your own Law and dispensing with it etc.... but then I know you know all about Might Makes Right and those sorts of discussions...and about Final/Ultimate Ethics inside a blind and indifferent reality....

Caring for others is "the same" in both source and destiny and nature and content as "rape", which is only another way of saying Might Makes Right, and is based in pure biophysics etc....and it is fine for us to say that is enough, but, when we then (I think you are) posit that such a thing is more than your own internal notions of things, I think we then move away from logic....

[RonH]

SteveK,

Spell out the emotions? The conclusions not wanted? OK.

People don't like the idea that as the OP puts it, "morality is a fiction and the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningless".

People don't want to think morality is, as the OP puts it, "only a matter of preference".

WLC has about a million such unwanted consequences and argues from them though, distancing himself from the material, he calls the thing an apologetic and not a 'whole' one, "but rather an introduction to positive argumentation" - whatever that means.

In Craig's piece, there are many repetitions of the unwanted consequence in our headline, "Moral Terms Are Meaningless" along with many unwanted consequences related to value and purpose (both with Christian meanings).

Why did I need to spell this out to you? If you have ears you should have heard already.

Your version headline is WAY too open about the Christian assumptions to be an effective apologetic - unless it is meant to convince yourself.

The problem with what Marks says is: moral language is here to stay. His project is the equivalent of saying he will get up tomorrow to witness the phenomenon the sun becoming visible at his particular location due to the rotation of the earth on its axis.

RonH

[Daron]

RonH,
SteveK has ears and he hears. You have to lay out your case so that we can demonstrate its errors.
You've rolled in "wants" but it is not about wants. Nor is it about consequences. The headline, as does the argument, states a conclusion; if there is no God then there is no objective morality.
This is not evidence of God because, gee, we just wouldn't like it because there would then be no objective morality. This is evidence of God because we happen to believe that there are objective moral oughts.
Those who do not believe this, or claim not to, or construct arguments to avoid the objectivity of moral oughts, will not find this a very compelling argument. Those who think that it actually is good that we, for instance, protect future generations from global warming, protect the woman's right to choose, tolerate alternative lifestyles, etc. might think twice about dismissing the truth of moral duties and oughts, however.

[Daron]

BTW, RonH,
I hope you read that existential case Craig discusses in your link, but it has little to nothing to do with the question of whether or not morality exists without a transcendent God.

Now I must apologize ahead of time that I will be spending the weekend at a church conference/camp and will be unable to follow up with you for a few days.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

[SteveK]

RonH,

People don't like the idea that as the OP puts it, "morality is a fiction and the terms 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningless".

Yes, some people don't, but that's THEIR appeal to emotions, not the author of the STR article. Marks may be appealing to emotions, but you said the STR article made an argument that appealed to emotions. Were is it, RonH?

People don't want to think morality is, as the OP puts it, "only a matter of preference".

Again with these other "people", RonH. You are putting words of emotion in the Amy's mouth where none exists.

It's time you stopped asserting things that have been shown to be false.

[RonH]

SteveK,

It is Amy/Craig who is appealing to the emotions of the 'some people' you refer too.

Examples of how Craig puts it...

...if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished and all the sacrifices of good men go unrewarded. But who can live with such a view?

...and...

It serves to lay out in a dramatic way the alternatives facing the unbeliever in order to create a felt need in him.

(My italics)

RonH

[RonH]

SteveK,

Craig explains who is appealing to whose emotions via undesirable consequences: He is... Amy is.

Here's another

[This approach] simply explores the disastrous consequences for human existence, society, and culture if Christianity should be false.

(again my italics)

You want to know who the I refer to "people" are. They are the reader or hearer of the material; Craig calls them unbelievers.

Frequently, I suspect, the writer/user of the material is one of the "people" convincing him/herself: autoapologetics.

Daron,

Which? Satre? Kierkegaard? Camus?

RonH

[LoveHimselfRescuedMe]

RonH,

I think they do on some level appeal to emotion, but then Man is part Soul/Emotion and so that is also a "real element" in how you and I "see".

But it is you who refuse to enter biophysics and logic at all:

An appeal to pure biophysics and logic, with Zero appeal to emotion, is the hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky.

It is you who is ignoring logic and science here.

You cannot take the Neuron and psychic phosphoresence any higher than that cloud in the sky. Compressing many more quanta into a skull does not "magically suspend reality" and create in those processes Intention, Will, Ought, or even Choice. The [NEURON] is no different than that [HAND] up in the sky.

Look at the hand of Jesus up in that cloud in the sky and you will see "you" and "love" and "rape" and "Jesus" all summed up nicely in the honest atheist's description of what Ultimate Reality is.

Ultimate Reality is the Blind, the Indifferent. Not Love.

If Ultimate Reality is Love-Himself, then the Blind, the Indifferent fall out of sight all together and "ought love" has [Meaning-Finally] or [Meaning-Ultimately].

Biophysics affords no Sight, no Intent, no Will, no Choice, and only a complex rush of falling-dominoes. The [HAND] of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky has no Intent, no Will, no Choice, no Love, and no Agency. We error when we think its fingers open/close by choice, by intent, by will, and we error when we think that it waves at us, or prefers one but not another, for there is no such "thought" in that cloud, only the blowing winds and aimless forces all colliding and reverberating down a cascading stream of blind and indifferent dominoes.

This is a discussion of pure biophysics and logic, and some plaine/simple physics, and not of emotion, and, if THAT is the sort of discussion you want, then there it is.

[SteveK]

RonH,
You said this:

As an argument, the OP is just plain fallacious.

This is what I am arguing against. It's obviously false, yet you keep asserting it is true. Stop. It. Now.

Why are you even bringing up Craig when both your statement here and my argument against it have nothing to do with Craig? Try paying attention, please.

The title of this blog post stands as a valid argument written in plain English: If a necessary 'ought' doesn't exist, moral terms are meaningless.

[RonH]

SteveK,

If I look from another angle I have to admit that what you say:

If a necessary 'ought' doesn't exist, moral terms are meaningless.

is true.

However, from that angle I have to assume (your definition of) Christian morality IS morality. That is, I have to assume the conclusion. But that would be circular.

To fix the problem try

Without God, Moral Terms Have No God-based Meanings

This properly leaves open other possibilities.

I bring in Craig because, in his bloviated way, Craig says the same thing as the OP.

And I bring Craig up because Craig admits - almost in so many words - that the whole thing is an appeal to consequences, as I've shown.

RonH

[LHRM]

RonH,

I think the OP is saying that very thing...etc... that meanings beyond the Man's own inner biochemistry do not exist without an Ought that exists outside of the Man's own biochemistry.

That's the obvious.

Might Makes Right..... the Right is inside the Man's DNA and etc....

There ARE other defintions of Moral, but an Intrinsic Ought outside of the Man is what does not exist without God.

"Love is what we should do" must be truncated with, "Well, at least in my opinion".

Hefner and Hitler, the Phallus and the Fist, will disagree. And win.

But, if you think this is true (other definitions exist) then you are forgetting that you are not thinking, nor speaking, nor even choosing to read this, nor reading it, for you forget the Conscious-less, Will-less, Intent-Less, Ought-less [HAND] of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky, which is the very same Sum-Total as your [NEURONS], and hence [YOU].

You are forgetting both Biophysics and Determinism, both of which are a Ceiling you cannot transcend.

You have never "spoken" nor "chosen" nor "known" nor "acted" at all. Nothing in the entire existence of the universe as ever "seen" or "loved" or "chosen". For such do not fit into a bedrock of cascading dominoes and reverberating photons.

The Hand of Jesus up in the cloud in the sky. That is your ceiling, as it were.

[SteveK]

RonH,
Glad you finally admit that you were wrong about the OP appealing to emotions. On to your next claim.

However, from that angle I have to assume (your definition of) Christian morality IS morality. That is, I have to assume the conclusion. But that would be circular.

Oh, please. The necessary ought has nothing to do with Christianity specifically. It could lead you there, or it could lead you elsewhere - but you need good reasons wherever you go. I'll get to that in a moment. Christianity HAS those good reasons, BTW.

First, it's a logical reality. Next, the existence of the ought is also an experiential reality.

When looking for a way to explain that experiential reality, where can we go to find one that fits the logical requirement for a necessary ought? Let's take a look.

Materialism? No.
Atheism? No.
Deism? Maybe.
Theism? Maybe.
Christianity? Yes.

Looking at morality only, the atheist has no good reason for ending up with Atheism. None. That's why most abandon morality in favor of preferences, as Marks has done.

But note that this is done at the expense of their own experiences. Marks realizes this. They choose a worldview belief that goes counter to their experiences. Is that rational? Nope.