There’s No Reason to Doubt What EVERYONE Can See

3 Comments

1. Greg repeatedly suggests that most people "see" that there are objective moral truths, but no arguments or evidence are given to support this claim. Whether most people think about morality in a particular way, or can "see" that things are objectively wrong, is an empirical claim about human psychology. At present, there is no body of robust cross-cultural psychological research showing that most people think this way. More generally, there's no good evidence most people are moral realists/objectivists, or think, speak, or act in ways that imply that they are. As such, I do not think he provided a strong argument for moral realism in his response to the first person's question.

   Log in to Reply

2. 1-I'd like the argument from objective moral values to work, but I'm still skeptical. Maybe my skepticism is at the epistemological level: that is different cultures have different moral values (see Edgerton's "Sick Societies" for a discussion). But even today we see it. "Islamists' think its morally right to slaughter Jews, and to kill disbelievers', that it is right to be deceptive in pursuit of a higher cause. 40 million Americans thought that torturing babies for fun was the best thing to do (abortion, obviously). These people generally hold that it was in no way wrong to subvert a 'woman's right over her body'.

   My approach to a materialist or naturalist is that there are the objectivity of value in itself. axiology, rather than meta-ethics. I admit that the atheist of whatever stripe has values, but I want to know how a concatenation of cells, of 'dirt' as I put it bluntly, can entertain any values per se, rather than mere proximate convenience.

   3-I feel the pain of the caller on this one. My denomination similarly rejects outside voices, not on theological grounds, but because of a superiority complex. (IMO).

   What the caller can do, I think you touched on, is offer to run, say, a monthly discussion group for apologetics: share readings, encourage various books, even read anti-Christian literature to critique it . Then the group, up and running, with some credibility in the congregation, could offer to run classes, or give contributions to the Sunday gathering. In fact, anyone could do this in any congregation.

   One of the benefits of a discussion group is that everyone could contribute, and learn far more effectively than a one-way address (think 'sermon'). In discussion people trial and test ideas, get practice in framing their views and defending them to others. All this is essential in practical apologetic discussions with outsiders.

   Log in to Reply

3. Thank you for answering my question and offering your insight Greg. Look forward to attending the Reality conference in Spring 2026!
   -Vince

   Log in to Reply