Objective morality

The evolutionist and agnostic Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."

The Christian apologist William Lane Craig declared:

“

...to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say that it was evil, even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody thought the Holocaust was good.”

”

On the other hand, the evolutionist and agnostic Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."

Larry Taunton, the interviewer wrote, regarding Dawkins' Hitler comment:

“

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point. Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest. “Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?” But Dawkins would have none of it. Christianity, in his view, had contributed nothing worthwhile to Western civilization, morally or otherwise. Moral advances—and, curiously, he did consider them advances—were matters for further scientific inquiry.

”

See also: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler

Dawkins is a vocal opponent of Islam. Despite his opposition to religion/Christianity, Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".

According to Apologetics.net:

“

Let's start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception. An object independent of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. Applied to moral values; if they are objective, then they are discovered, not invented. Contrast this with subjective moral values which change from person to person, culture to culture, etc. If morality is objective, it is reasonable to ask: What is the mind-independent basis for objective morality and is this basis sufficiently binding? In other words, it is not enough to show some external ground for morality and then subjectively link that grounding with obligation. Obligation to a particular ethical system must transcend personal preference and also have some significant grounding in the object of perception. On Christianity moral values have their objective and universal basis in the immutable nature of God. He neither arbitrarily created the moral law, nor is there an external moral domain in which God is subject. Moral values are, because of who God is.

”

Objective morality and the existence of God

Christian apologists commonly argue that objective morality exists and that objective morality is dependent on the existence of God.

For more information, please examine the articles below:

• The moral argument for God by William Lane Craig
• Why is it necessary to appeal to God for objective morals? by Matt Slick at CARM
• Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality? by Terry Lewis
• Ultimate Questions: Can Objective Morality Exist Without God?
• What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?
• The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

See also

• Moral relativism
• Moral decline
• Good and evil
• Problem of evil
• Theodicy
• Postmodernism
• Nihilism