Christian Apologists such as William Lane Craig are widely respected for championing a perspective in which it is said that morality is objective and must therefore stem from an ultimate lawgiver. The anchor for such morality is the God of Theism, or more specifically the Christian conception of God. YouTube is replete with Christian channels that provide snippets from his many debates throughout the years, many of which feature Craig’s seemingly uncanny ability to catch the Atheist off guard and send them off with the tail of an inferior moral relativism hanging between their legs.
If there is no objective standard for morality then it is no more right or wrong to rape a little child as it is to feed and provide safe housing for the poor. It is said, “there is no differentiation on the Atheist’s view!” Excuse me? I have a few contentions with this argument, one such contention is this: Well, it all depends upon what you want to truly establish as knowledge within this world, Dr. Craig? You can offer this kind of scenario in which all of humanity must bow to a singular God that acts as an anchor from which morality is derived, however, if we lack the basic facts to establish the validity of Theism in the present then you are by default offering an abstract philosophy about morality and not something that can be applied by necessity. In other words, this argument may very well not be an accurate representation of the kind of knowledge that can be gained in the present, or even ever! I call this a top-down argument with a blindspot built right into it.
Now, for many it seems perfectly fine to not have all of the relevant data but does this reflect a deep concern to represent reality honestly and accurately? Does this reflect a deep concern to level out the playing field and not employ bias in regards to which set of divine claims one takes on faith and nothing else? It would be better for one to first focus on filling the knowledge gap that presently exists between faith and knowledge than to simply jump the gun and provide a well thought out framework from the top-down.
Serious minded scientists and historians build their framework for knowledge from the ground-up. This is the best presently existing endeavor that strives to remain neutral based upon what can actually be known and confirmed within the world. Bravo to Dr. Craig on his creativity, but not in regards to accurately reflecting the present knowledge crisis that exists! That is the informational bridge that is desperately needed, at least in regards to Theism, in order to establish a solid case.
Are we more concerned about the actual data and facts? In the case of having insufficient knowledge as to the plausibility of a God are we willing and open to suspend such a judgment? Suspending judgment about a matter is very humble, careful, and brutally honest! It is a reflection of objectivity that is in direct correlation to the present set of conditions we find ourselves in. The alternative I must say is a blind shot into the dark! A leap into abstract thinking that ignores our own human limits. The potential for error in the case of a knowledge gap is quite high. It is demonstrated over and over when simply assuming what is not yet known within the world. I rest my case in that regard. People can make their own decision on these matters.
Another such contention that I have is that if one does claim a Theistic God as an anchor for their morality then the question naturally unfolds, “From where does God derive his own morality?” It seems that there are two options in this case: Morality either transcends the majesty of God and exists separately from His own knowledge, or morality defaults to being an arbitrary set of desires. In other words, God must either be accountable to some unknown standard outside of himself, or the standard defaults to an arbitrary set of desires. A set of desires that would appear to have no true compass or restraint. Humans simply must trust that this being exemplifies goodness in its purest form. Perhaps an equal concern for moral relativism can be made both ways! Now that we’ve leveled the playing field so to speak, where should we go from here? Thank you for your time friends.