Why I Reject the Idea That Moral Truths Are Just Mental Constructs
Greg talks to callers about whether all values and duties are inherently subjective, whether Paul is making the same point in Ephesians 2:7 and Romans 9:23, biblical justification for Christian Zionism, and how God can be good if he doesn’t save everyone he created.
0:00 Introduction
4:38 How would you respond to the claim that values and duties are inherently subjective since concepts exist only in minds?
16:26 Is Paul making the same point in Ephesians 2:7 and Romans 9:23?
22:53 What is the biblical justification for Christian Zionism?
48:00 How can I make a compelling case for the character of God in answer to the question of why he doesn’t save everyone he’s created even though he’s capable of doing so?
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #BibleQuestions
––––– MENTIONED ON THE SHOW –––––
November’s Solid Ground: https://www.str.org/w/rapid-fire-part-2
Conversations with an Atheist: https://store.str.org/purchase/conversations-with-an-atheist
The Bible: Fast Forward – DVD: https://store.str.org/purchase/the-bible-fast-forward-dvd
The Bible: Fast Forward – Digital download: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bibleff/
The Bible: Fast Forward – Audio: https://store.str.org/purchase/the-bible-fast-forward-piecing-together-the-biblical-puzzle-mp3-download
––––– CALL IN TO THE SHOW –––––
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
––––– SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION –––––
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
––––– FIND MORE FREE TRAINING –––––
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
––––– CONNECT –––––
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
source
If moral facts are made true by God's stances then you've got a form of moral antirealism, regardless of whether it is a form of relativism or not. It's not clear whether Greg's description of the relation between God and morality does or doesn't fit an antirealist description. Either way, I don't accept the claim that it's obvious that there are objective moral truths. It's not obvious to me and I don't think it's obvious to most other people, either. I understand that a lot of people assume this to be the case but claims about how most people think are empirical questions and there just isn't a lot of evidence most people are moral realists.
Thinking about the framing here and biblical authors' as-held beliefs…Your argument presupposes a modern analytic distinction between mental concepts and objective properties. The biblical authors did not reason in those categories. Moral order was understood as a lived, relational reality embedded in practices and histories, not as a property awaiting metaphysical grounding. Why should their moral claims be forced into a framework they did not share?
6:57: I would have asked that person is it subjectively moral or subjectively correct to accept this idea OR is this objectively moral/objectively correct for this idea to be accepted?
Here's why we should reject that idea:
Because, based on the current depravity of humanity WITH a moral compass, if morality was just a mental construct, which lends to the idea and notion that it is and was a result of evolution (which is, in and of itself a crock of nonsense), this would mean that earlier, un-evolved humans (especially the very earliest) would have HAD TO BE completely devoid of morality and, therefore UTTERLY depraved and should have, for this reason, killed off any other human and once that job was complete, turned their depravity on themselves and thus, effectively ending the humanity, forever….
Now, of course the atheist response would almost always start off OR include the UNORIGINAL and CANNED "well, what COULD HAVE HAPPENED IS…" But that is UNACCEPTABLE…
WHY?
Because WE KNOW that when your start a thought with "… what COULD HAVE happened…" you can "…weave any fanciful story you choose…"
No country has the RIGHT to exist