“We don’t get our morality from the Bible.” A reply.


This argument seems to misunderstand what Christian philosophers refer to as the moral argument. The argument from objective morality is presented as follows:

  • If God does not exist then objective morality doesn’t exist.
  • But objective morality does exist.
  • Therefore, God exists.

But see what is not present in the syllogism. Nowhere does it argue that the Bible is the source of our morality, rather it is God. In this way the Christian will show that humans do not get morality from the Bible but instead from God.

6 responses to ““We don’t get our morality from the Bible.” A reply.

  1. The syllogism has other problems going for it.

    Namely, it fails to define what it means by ‘objective morality’, and it fails to demonstrate that it actually exists.

    • Objective morality means beyond human opinion. For example, if Hitler had won WW2 and everyone eventually came to believe that it was OK to exterminate Jews, then would it have been OK? Of course not. Therefore the statement, “It’s always wrong to exterminate Jews” is beyond human opinion, and therefore objective moral values exist. Does that help to clear things up?

      • “then would it have been OK? Of course not.”

        OK to whom?

        Obviously the Jews would object…so it wouldn’t be ‘OK’ to anyone.

        Based on ethics and morality I understand that it’s wrong to kill. Nothing ‘objective’ about it…it’s situational. To know that you simply have to look at the difference between killing someone in cold blood, by accident, or in self defense. The action, killing, is identical. The situation differs, which is where morality comes into play. And shows us that it isn’t really objective based on your definition, or absolute.

        Also, you have to demonstrate that there is something ‘beyond human’ before you get to claim it has an opinion.

      • Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word everyone. I should have said the majority, for of course the Jews would object. But even if they did, it doesn’t make killing them objectively wrong, (beyond human opinion), it just means they don’t like it.
        If killing Jews just because they’re Jews is not objectively wrong, and therefore beyond human opinion, then it is under human opinion, and subject to change based on who is in power. And if the MAJORITY of the world is Nazi and decides they must be destroyed for the good of the race, then why do we recoil and say, “No way, that’s wrong no matter how many people say it’s right.”
        It is because there is a moral law that exists that says it’s wrong to treat people in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated.
        And that isn’t subject to a vote.

      • Question: Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill in cold blood (I.e. murder)? Then by your own admission, at least one objective moral value exists: Thou shalt not murder. How about torturing babies for fun? Rape? Racism? Slavery?
        If any action is really wrong, all the time, everywhere, then that is an objective moral value. If no objective moral values exist, then sometimes the above actions are sometimes justified. Do you believe that?

        • Mark, surely you are familiar with the atrocities in OT. And yet you claim the bible (as the word of God) should dictate how we behave morally?

          Does slaughtering animals as scapegoats for our sins make us righteous? Does a human sacrifice make us righteous? Of course not. If God wants to forgive us he can simply do so.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s