Answering J. Warner Wallace on objective moral values

Some modern Christian apologists are really pushing this bullshit idea that you can prove God's existence by showing that some morals are objective, thus transcendent, and therefore, only a life-form higher than human life can properly account for the existence of such morals.  Some such apologists would be Frank Turek, Matthew Flannagan and Paul Copan.

And it seems that J. Warner Wallace has decided to cast his lot into this viper pit of word-games.  

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: “There are no objective moral truths”

Quick Shot: “There are no objective moral truths”

 Posted: 22 Jul 2019 01:20 AM PDT 

 Response #1:
“It sounds like you’re saying that there are no objective truths about morality, is that correct?

Yes.  Morals are nothing but opinions that we get from either genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning, or both.  Furthermore, when you appeal to what most people believe about baby torture, you are violating the dictionary definition of "objective".

If so, how can that claim about morality be true?

Because the claim "there are no objective morals" is a factual statement, not a moral statement, therefore, the statement is not self-defeating.

If there are no objective truths about morality, then your claim about morality cannot be objectively true either.

I didn't say there were no objective truths.  I said there were no objective MORAL truths. Saying "there are no objective moral truths" is not self-contradictory, as the statement is not itself a moral truth.  There's no "should" about it.

Do you see the problem?

No, what I see is that you have confused an assertion of fact with an assertion of morals.  "There are no moral absolutes" doesn't say "there are no absolutes". 

Even you would have to admit that there is at least one objective truth about morality: that there are no objective truths about morality!

But that objective truth is not itself a moral, therefore, the statement is not self-defeating.  It is a statement of fact, and doesn't include a "should" component, therefore, the statement itself not a moral and thus cannot be self-defeating.

But if there are no objective truths about morality, your claim (that there are no objective morals truths) can’t be objectively true either.

Once again, the statement "there are no objective moral truths" is not itself a moral, it is rather a claim of fact.

This kind of claim is clearly self-refuting. The challenge isn’t whether objective, moral truths exist, the challenge is simply identifying them and explaining where they come from.

Good luck trying to do that.

From where do objective moral truths come?”

Fallacy of loaded question, there are no objective moral truths, and this factual claim is not itself a moral claim so it isn't self refuting.

Response #2:
“Let me give you an example of an objective moral truth that is not based on personal opinion or cultural consensus: ‘It’s never OK to torture babies for the fun of it.’

That is the fallacy of argument by assertion, you simply toss it out there as if there's no question that everybody would agree with it, and that those who disagree with it therefore do not have any significance.  Sorry, that's not objective, that's rather "picking and choosing".  You need to demonstrate why torturing babies is absolutely immoral, and you aren't going to do that by appeal to what most people believe about it.

As rational human beings, we recognize this simple truth.

Then as rational human beings, we recognize that your god is a sadistic lunatic, for torturing a baby for 7 days before finally killing it, which must have been solely for fun since God explicitly admitted beforehand that the sin in question had been "put away" and that David thus escaped the death penalty it deserved:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. A (2 Sam. 12:11-18 NAU)

Notice, God intended for the baby to die, but prolonged that baby's suffering with some type of grievous illness that tortured the baby for 7 days.

You will trifle that God didn't torture that baby for the "fun" of it, but according to Deuteronomy 28:63, God will take just as much "delight" to inflict similar sufferings on disobedient people and their children as he takes in inflicting prosperity and people who obey. See the parental cannibalism God threatens to cause in 28:53 ff

If a person (or even an entire group of persons) claimed it was acceptable to torture babies for fun, I bet you would reject their claim and do everything you could to make sure they didn’t engage in that behavior. Why?

Because of my genetics and environmental conditioning.

Because you innately recognize that this claim is not a matter of personal opinion or cultural consensus.

But the basis for the innate recognition is genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning.   If I had been raised in a criminal household or similar situation, my morals could have been corrupted enough to cause me to find fun in torturing babies after I become an adult.  Now what are you gonna do, say it is impossible to corrupt a child's morals?

You know that it’s objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.

Ah, you are preaching to the choir, not making an argument that refutes moral skepticism. Thanks for the clarification.  When you get in the mood to actually refute a moral skeptic, instead of just saying whatever needs to be said to make your followers feel better about their pre-chosen religion, let me know.

If you didn’t know that, we would question your sanity.

But your questioning the sanity of those who torture babies for fun, doesn't mean baby-torture is objectively immoral. 

The proper way to show a moral to be "objectively" true is to remember that the dictionary defines "objective" as

not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings;

 See here.

...then proceeding to show any moral to be objective without referring to anybody's personal beliefs or feelings.

You obviously fail that test immediately, because you immediately tried to premise the objectivity of the immorality of baby-torture on the fact that most people have personal beliefs or feelings that such act is horrifically unfair. 

Can you see how claims like this have to be objectively true?”

No, I can see that you prefer clever word games above arguments that are more plainly based on dictionary definitions of the key terms.

You know that it’s objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.

Then you are trying to draw the "objectivity" of the immorality out of my personal beliefs or feelings, thus violating the above-cited dictionary definition of "objective".  Thus you fail in this argument to show that baby-torture is "objectively" immoral.  Yes, I personally feel that baby torture for fun is immoral. But if you define "objective" according to the dictionary, you aren't allowed to use my personal feelings as a basis for declaring baby torture objectively wrong.  Most people think such act is wrong, but "most people" refers to most peoples' "personal feelings", again, forbidden by the dictionary definition of "objective".

Response #3:
“Some people have a hard time acknowledging the existence of objective moral truths because they seem difficult to identify. Is it wrong to lie? Maybe, but what if you are lying to avoid hurting someone’s feelings?

What if the Christian woman lies about the gun in her pocket to ward off a potential rapist?

Is it wrong to steal?

Depends on the morals of the person you ask.

Probably, but what if you’re stealing an activation code from a terrorist who wants to use it to detonate a bomb? How can any act be objectively moral (or immoral) if it can be justified in certain circumstances? Yes, it’s possible to rationalize certain acts, but to find the objective truth at the core of any action, simply add the expression, ‘for the fun of it.’

No, because the only way you can show that baby torture "for the fun of it" is immoral is by doing what you've already done...appealing to somebody else's personal feelings about the subject, thus violating the dictionary definition of "objective".

Is it ever okay to lie for the fun of it? To steal for the fun of it? The addition of these five words (‘for the fun of it’) expose the moral absolutes.

No, see above.  When you appeal to another's personal feelings about the matter, you are no longer demonstrating "objectivity".

It’s never morally acceptable to lie or steal for the fun of it.

Except when you are doing comedy to entertain others by saying things they know are not true or to get them to agree with you to a falsehood so the punch line is funny, whether in the context of professional stand-up comedy, or reading silly stories to a young child a bed-time. Once we find an exception to your proposed moral, it's no longer absolute...unless of course you wedge yourself down even further into the toilet of fundamentalism and insist that professional stand-up comedy and reading silly stories to young children at bedtime constitute sin?  Sure, you'd then escape this criticism, but you can also look forward to most of your Christian customer base thinking you went off the deep end.  They aren't going to stop watching Amy Schumer, nor are they going to stop reading nursery rhymes to their small children merely because J. Warner Wallace came up with a clever word-game.

These are objective, moral absolutes that apply to us regardless of our culture, location on the globe, or place in history. Can you see how these moral truths transcend our personal or cultural opinions?”

No.  If you are talking to a person who likes to torture babies for fun, your arguments fall completely apart, as you have nothing whatsoever to show such act to be objectively immoral, except the majority viewpoint of humanity.  But since majority views can be false, you aren't demonstrating the objectivity of the wrongness of baby torture by merely noting that "most people" despise it.

FAIL.