Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

Objective Moral Values, Can They Exist Without God?

William Lane Craig, theist and philosopher, debated Antony Flew, atheist and
philosopher on February 18, 1998. They debated the question, Does God Exist? The topic I
am going to cover in this paper is: can we have objective moral values, moral obligations, and
moral accountability if God doesnt exist? I will review Craigs stand on the subject and then
Flews response. The latter part of the paper will reflect my views on this subject.
William Lane Craig believes that if God doesnt exist, then objective moral values do not
exist. Craig believes that people may be able to lead moral lives but without God there are no
objective moral values; much less any moral obligations or accountability. He proceeds to say
that without God there is nothing special about humans. He says we are nothing more than
any of the other animals on this planet in this vast universe. In the absence of God and these
objective moral values, he says that there would be nothing imposing on our conscience. He
says there would be no right and wrong; there would be nothing that would hold rape, murder,
child abuse, or anything like it as a wrong act. With all this being said, he says that objective
moral values do exist. He uses the examples of rape, murder, and child abuse as examples to
say these are not just socially unacceptable behaviors; they are moral abominations. He uses
this point to say that since objective moral values do exist, therefore, God does exist.
Antony Flew debates the question of morality and God with the following question,
whether conduct is right because the gods command it or whether the gods command it
because its right. He says that if you accept the first idea that you are making it where the
Gods arbitrarily define what is wrong and right. If you accept the second idea you are saying

Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

that right and wrong are independent of Gods will. Flew gives a rebuttal to Craigs statement
about humans being just animals without the existence of God. He says that we are not just
mere animals, we may be part of the animal kingdom but we have special characteristics that
set us apart. He also believes that in the terms of morality that there is not subjectivism or
relativism of the idea that there is no right or wrong in the absence of a God. He believes that
morality does exist in the absence of a God and that people can make moral decisions. Flew
says, it is not a presupposition of morality that there must be a God to endorse and to
enforce moral claims with supernatural authority and supernatural sanctions. If this is correct
then the desire to provide the necessary presuppositions of morality is no more a good reason
for trying to persuade yourself that some theistic system is true than it can be evidence that it
actually is in fact true.
I am now going to argue my point of view on this subject. I am going to argue against
William Lane Craig and his view that there can be no objective moral values in the absence of
God. I completely disagree with his point of view. I believe that as humans we can have these
objective moral values, moral obligations, and moral accountability. I believe this can all
happen in the absence of a God. My first argument is against Craigs idea that humans may be
able to have moral values but no objective moral values. Craigs assertion that without God
there is no objectivity is clearly an absurd statement. By definition, objective means to not be
influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; also independent of individual
thought. When Craig says that objective moral values do not exist in the absence of God is
making them subjective; subjective to the existence of God and the beliefs of that God. A truly
objective moral value will prevail in the absence of any God. Craig makes the statement that in
2

Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

the absence of God that humans will have a herd mentality and morality will become a social
convention to advance the survival of the group. This is another absurd statement by him.
Humans have the power to reason and calculate thoughts. Humans are of a natural higher
order than other animals on this planet. This higher reasoning ability gives rise to the ability to
have moral values, to be able to discern what is objective and subjective, and to have moral
obligations. With obligations comes moral accountability. I will use murder as an extreme
example. Murder is an objective moral value that is morally wrong. It is objective because it is
universally held that it is wrong. For the person that commits murder, they may know it is
wrong to kill, but they still commit the act. Because we as humans know that killing another
human is objectively morally wrong, we must hold the murderer accountable because he didnt
meet his moral obligations. All of this happens in the absence of a God because he didnt stop
the act of murdering someone and therefore as humans we must hold the person accountable.
Craig also believes that without a God there is no eternal significance of our selfsacrificing gestures and the making of moral choices that may run against our own self-interest.
He says that Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God's justice will be
balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance.
I believe that to be totally false. I believe that some people want and measure their life by
what will be left behind in the name of material things. That is their eternal significance. I think
eternal significance is what is held in your heart on the day you die. It is the measure of all the
things you did without any relation to the people that judge you. All this can and does happen
in the absence of a God. As far as moral choices that run against our own self-interest, I believe
that we all make moral choices that in some way satisfy a need in our self-interest. It may be
3

Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

small like holding the door open for someone, helping an elderly person across the street or to
the doctor, or as big as giving millions of dollars to famine relief. No one can place a measure
on you of what your eternal significance will be but yourself. And the realization here is that
none of this requires a God to tell you that you will or will not have eternal significance by your
choices and whether or not you met his subjective goal for you. Eternal significance therefore
does not require a God to decide how much self-sacrificing is enough.
Craig asserts that without God we lack any moral obligations to do anything and this
leads to no moral accountability. He says that without God there is no right or wrong. Once
again Craig decides that we must have God to have these objective moral values. This is also
false. By making right and wrong dependent on God he is making them subjective to Gods
definitions of what is right and wrong. Objective moral obligations to do something that is right
over something that is wrong are ones that are independent of any Gods interpretation. I
believe that without God, one can and do have moral obligations. Moral obligations can come
in many forms. The most obvious are the ones of not committing murder, rape, child abuse,
etc. Others are being honest, caring, and respectful. As humans we are of this higher evolved
species on this planet and with rational and objective thinking we can have moral obligations as
a society and then hold each other accountable for those moral actions that may be wrong
without the presence of God.
Craig provides us with a very grim outlook of his point of view without a God in
existence. He tells us that we will have lives that are that of any other animal on earth and that
we will not be able to distinguish right from wrong because a God didnt tell us what was right

Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

or wrong. I completely disagree with him that life would be devoid of objective moral values,
obligations, and accountability. Humans are very adaptive and have an innate sense of self and
therefore have the ability to determine what is right and wrong. We have morals and morals
that are objective over many religions, not just his God. Because we have this ability and are a
higher evolved animal we have moral values, obligations, and accountability. Through much of
his debate he tries to tell us how life would be without God, but never how it would be with
God. He uses his platform to utilize all the negative aspects of Gods absence to say he has
proven that God does exist. I am going to end with saying that once again he is wrong. Nothing
he has said gives me any reason to believe that a God does exist. I live my life without any God
being present. I do not deny that there may be a higher power somewhere in the universe, but
there is not a direct relation to me on a day to day basis. I am an objectively morally person
with obligations to my fellow human and the world, and I feel that I am held accountable
through my own self-evaluation and by my fellow human.

Hunter Somerville

Philosophy

Spring 2010

Hunter Somerville
PHIL 110

1 Flew, Antony God: A Critical Enquiry (Open Court Pub. Co. 1984)
2 Craig, William L., The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html Accessed April 27, 2009.