Recent Updates

03.05.08: ”The Moral Argument” has been updated.

30.04.08: ”Is God just a Psychological Crutch” has been updated.

29.04.08: “Did the universe create itself?” has been updated.

28.04.08: ”Did the universe come from nothing?” has been updated.

What’s Next?

Right now I’m revising the texts here on the blog and writing on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I hope it will be posted within a couple of weeks. Most likely some small texts will appear in the meantime. Let’s see. 

Did the universe create itself?

Did the universe create itself?

Quite a few atheists put forward the claim that the universe could have created itself and therefore doesn’t need a God as an explanation for its existence. However, a closer look this claim reveals that it’s self-contradictory. For a thing to create itself it had to exist before it existed. In other words it had to both exist and not exist at the same time. But this violates one of the fundamental principles of logic, namely the law of non-contradiction which states, in the words of Aristotle, that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time“. In other words, a thing can’t both have the property A and the property not-A in the same context. My bike, for example, can’t both have the property of being “black” and the property of being “not black” in the same context. Similarly a universe can’t both exist and not exist in the same context. We thus have to reject the idea of a self-creating universe. 

Did the universe come from nothing?

Did the universe come from nothing?

Some atheists claim that the universe came from nothing. But this seems to be self-contradictory. “Nothing” can’t have any properties. So if something came from “nothing” then it seems obvious that “nothing” at least must have had the property that something could come from it. And then it’s not “nothing” at all.

The atheist might say that: “Well, I don’t mean that the universe “comes from nothing” in that sense. What I mean is simply that first there was nothing and then all of a sudden the universe just manifested totally uncaused!” But consider that if it’s true that nothing (no thing) existed before the universe came uncaused into being then not even the potentiality required to make it possible for a universe–or anything else for that matter–to come into being existed. It seems to require a tremendous amount of faith to believe that something can come from a situation in which the potentiality necessary for anything to come into being doesn’t even exist. Like the Christian theologian and philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig states this is actually worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat at least we have both the magician and the hat. But here we have absolutely nothing and then all of sudden a universe just bursting into being totally uncaused.   

In addition, the claim that something can come uncaused into being has never been affirmed by our experience. If things could just come uncaused into being then there’s no explanation as to why we don’t observe all kind of things just bursting uncaused into being all over the place? When you are visiting your friends are you afraid that back in your living room an elephant has bursted uncaused into being from nothing and is now trampling around destroying your home? Of course you’re not! Because you know that things don’t burst uncaused into being. Our experience constantly affirms that when things come into being there’s a reason, a cause, for it. To believe the opposite is blind faith in an idea which is self-contradictory, unsupported and contradicted by our experience. So the unavoidable conclusion is “ex nihilo, nihil fit”. From nothing, nothing comes. 

Atheists are envious theives

Atheists are envious theives

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

Krishna is the owner of everything

Because Krishna (the sanskrit word for God) is an ulimited being, then it follows that everything that exist is a part of Him, everything is created from His energies. In other words – Krishna is the owner of everything. In the Vedic scripture Srimad Bhagavatam it is said that the Lord is the owner of everything that exist (dravya-mayam) and that he’s the owner of the entire universe (akhila-adhyaksa). In Bhagavad-gita Krishna Himself is declaring:

aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate

“I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” [Bg. 10.8]

In the Vedic scripture Sri Ishopanishad it is also confirmed that the Lord is the owner of everything:

ishavasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatyam jagat
tena tyaktena bhunjitha ma grdhah kasya svid dhanam

“Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.”

Srila Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna Movement (ISKCON), writes in his purport to this verse:

“This Isopanisad is part of the Yajur Veda, and consequently it contains information concerning the proprietorship of all things existing within the universe. The Lord’s proprietorship over everything within the universe is confirmed in the Seventh Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita (7.4-5), where para and apara prakrti are discussed. The elements of nature-earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and ego-all belong to the Lord’s inferior, material energy (apara prakrti), whereas the living being, the organic energy, is His superior energy (para prakrti). Both of these prakrtis, or energies, are emanations from the Lord, and ultimately He is the controller of everything that exists. There is nothing in the universe that does not belong to either the para or the apara prakrti; therefore everything is the property of the Supreme Being.”

“One should therefore be intelligent enough to know that except for the Lord no one is a proprietor of anything. One should accept only those things that are set aside by the Lord as his quota. (…) Such is the arrangement of the Lord. Thus we should be satisfied with those things He has kindly set aside for us, and we should always consider to whom those things we possess actually belong.”

Theists are servants of God

Theists who knows that Krishna’s existence is a fact recognizes Krishna’s ownership of everything, and therefore they never take anything from Krishna without first making sure that He’s giving them his permission. And they use these things in a way that pleases Krishna. When a person knows that everything emanates from Krishna, and that Krishna owns everything, then it becomes natural to serve Him. I this regard Krishna Himself declares:

iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah

“The wise who know this [I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me] perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.” [bg 10.8]

Atheists are envious theives

Theists recognizes Krishna’s supreme ownership of everthing that exist, and they try to serve Him in a loving, reciprocal relationship. Atheists, on the contrary, are envious (abhyasuyakah) of Krishna’s might and ownership. Consequently they deny His existence. Therefore they take Krishna property with the aim of using it for their own selfish interests. To take things from others without asking their persmission and without good reasons is called theft. Atheist are therefore choosing to be theives by denying Krishna, and they become criminals by becoming disobedient to His laws. Therefore Krishna explains about atheists in the Bhagavad-gita:

pravrttim ca nivrittim ca
jana na vidur asurah

“Those who are demoniac [atheists] do not know what is proper behavior and what is improper behavior.”

The punishment for this selfish, unloving behavior is hard. Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita:

an aham dvisatah kruran
samsaresu naradhaman
ksipamy ajasram asubhan
asurisv eva yonisu

“Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, are cast by Me into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.”

Srila Prabhupada explains:

“The demoniac person may not agree to accept the supremacy of the Lord, and it is a fact that he may act according to his own whims, but his next birth will depend upon the decision of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not on himself (…) As for the demoniac, it is clearly said here that they are perpetually put into the wombs of demons, and thus they continue to be envious, the lowest of mankind. Such demoniac species of life are held to be always full of lust, always violent and hateful and always unclean. They are just like so many beasts in a jungle.”

The only way to be saved for the atheists is therefore to give up their foolish opposition against Krishna and surrender unto Him. Only by accepting that He’s the owner of everything, and only by using everything in a way that pleases Krishna, is it possible to to become free from the punishment awaiting a theif.

Sri Ishopanishad explains about such a surrendered attitude:

kurvann eveha karmani jijivishec chatam samah
evam tvayi nanyatheto ’sti na karma lipyate nare

“One may aspire to live for hundreds of years if he continuously goes on working in that way, for that sort of work will not bind him to the law of karma. There is no alternative to this way for man.”

Is God Just a Psychological Crutch?

Is God Just a Psychological Crutch?        

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

Atheists commonly argue against the existence of God by claiming that theists just believe in God for psychological reasons. For example, Sigmund Freud, founder of the psychoanalytical school of psychiatry, claimed that religious belief is an “obsessional neurosis”, that God is nothing more than a psychological crutch, an illusion, a form of wishful thinking caused by human weakness. Freud claimed to be able to trace back the illusory concept of God to an often subconscious, childish desire to be protected. In this scenario God is simply a substitute for the perfect father that the weak religious person never really had. In addition, the religious person also uses God as a crutch by referring to Him as the explanation for things otherwise inexplicable. Or God is used as a crutch when the religious person can’t deal with life’s tough realities. God listens to prayers and removes bad conscience when the religious person has commited something that he imagines to be sinful. According to many critics of religion it is only mature and rational human beings, that have risen higher on the evolutionary ladder who is above the fantasmagoria of religion. According to them we need to guide the psychological energy that’s directed towards the illusory God and heaven back to the real, material world.

The Psychogenetic Fallacy

The Genetic Fallacy is committed when it is claimed that the origin of a specific proposition has an inherent bearing on it’s truthvalue. And when the origin is said to be of a psychological nature the fallacy is called the psychogenetic fallacy. This atheistic argument commits this fallacy since it claims that the proposition “God exist” is false due to it origin in the psychological needs of theists. There’s clearly no warrant for such a conclusion, since it’s possible that God exist and that theists at the same time have psychological needs for Him. And just because theists have psychological needs for God it doesn’t follow that psychological needs are the one and only reason they believe in Him. They will offer additional reasons. But even if, for the sake of argument, psychological needs were the only reason for believing in God it still would not disprove the existence of God. Just like our psychological needs for loving relationships with other people does not disprove the existence of these other people our psychological needs for God doesn’t disprove the existence of God.

Is Atheism a Psychological Crutch?    

Further, the atheistic argument is like a double-edged sword, because if a proposition can be declared false if it’s believed in due to psychological reason then theists might as well argue that atheism is associated with the presence of psychological needs in those who can’t bear the thought that God exist. Let us examine some of the psychological mechanisms that can cause atheists to try to psychologically repress the idea of God:

Everything is Permitted

If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted. There’s no absolute moral standard against which we can measure our acts. Morality is created on the basis of the individual’s likings. The atheist can justify all kinds of abominable actions with claims such as: ”Somebody may think my actions are morally wrong, but that’s just their subjective opinion. I’m can do whatever I like!” In this way atheism gives people the possibility to ignore the dictates of conscience and live a life of full self indulgence. So atheism could be considered a psychological invention aimed at eliminating all moral obligations. God becomes a threat to the atheists’ egocentrism and consequently they wish to deny His existence. 

Removal of guilt

If everything is permitted then there’s no reason to feel guilty when thinking, feeling or doing something which we normally would consider immoral. Again the atheist can claim that “you might think I should feel guilty about this, but that just your subjective opinion. There’s no need to feel guilty about anything.” The idea that one day we have to settle our ethical account with an all-knowing, all-mighty God can no doubt be such an intense psychological stress factor for the atheist that he preferes to try to psychologically repress the idea of the existence of God.

Hankering After Power and Control

If naturalism is true and God therefore doesn’t exist then the universe simply functions according the laws of nature. Consequently there’s nothing which, at least in principle, can’t be subjected to human control. It’s only a matter of us gaining the necessary knowledge, then we can manipulate it and use for our own selfish gratification. It could definitely be tempting to dream of such a materialistic universe where everything that exists in principle, either now or in the future, can or will be under human control. This idea of gaining power and control over the world could easily be another motive for atheism.

Aversion Towards Authorities

If the human being is simply a combination of chemicals then no human can be said to be more of an authority than anyone else. Everyone is on an equal level. In an atheistic worldview the atheist can therefore easily tell himself that no one is better than him or is in a position to tell him what is good for him, and how he should do, think and behave. The existence of God naturally becomes a big threat to anyone who suffers from aversion towards authority and such a person might very well do everything within his power to fabricate a worldview that eliminates Gods existence.

To sum up atheism paves the way for a worldview that allows the atheists to conclude the following:

- Nothing is really morally good or bad, so in principle I can whatever I feel like when I feel like it and where I feel like it and to whom I feel like and no one has the right to stop me or punish me for my behavior. 

- Since nothing is morally good or bad there’s no reason why I should feel guilty about anything I think, feel or do. 

- There exists nothing that, at least in principle, can’t be subjected to my control or to the control of those I favor.

- No one is in a position to be my authority, no one can claim to be better than me, in a higher or more important position than me, and thus no one has any right to instruct or order me to do anything or to stop me from doing anything. 

In this way the atheist creates a universe in which he becomes his own god. This is obviously a very tempting fantasy. But if the above psychological reasons for being an atheist are true, then it’s quite easy to see how deep-rooted psychological and emotional problems atheists have.

The Need for God – a Proof for God’s existence?

Critics of religion have no methods to show that God can be reduced to a psychological phenomenon and that this phenomenon is brought about by human weakness. That assertion is nothing but an unsubstantiated speculation. It’s based on dato which might as well point in the direction of the existence of God. If we study the human species there’s no doubt that it as a whole is endowed with a strong urge towards the divine and why not interpret that to mean that therefore the divine probably exist? When we observe the human need for water then it would be ridiculous to argue that we imagine the existence of water because we are thirsty. It would also be ridiculous to argue that we imagine the existence of food because we’re hungry, or that we imagine the existence of our family and friends because we feel a need for social relations. That would be really poor explanations. Our physiological and social cravings coexist with an awareness that there exist real things in the real world that can satisfy these needs. If we feel a need for God why not see this as an indication that there exist a real thing in the real world, God, that we can find? At least it should be seen as a possibility worthy of serious investigation.

The Scientific Perspective: Are Religious People Really Weak?

Sigmund Freud’s so called scientific studies have long been outdated. Recent social-scientific studies shows that religious people are more psychologically strong than non-religious people. One such study concludes: “There is increasing research evidence that religious involvement is associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with better physical health, better mental health and longer survival.” [1] In his book “Is Religion Dangerous?” Keith Ward mentions a number of scientific studies about the relationship between religion and happiness, mental illness and altruism. These studies shows that religious people are neither weak-minded nor mentally ill. On the contrary, religious people are usually more psychologically strong than non-religious people and they also tend to be happier, healthier, to live longer and to be more altruistic. They tend to be less likely to suffer from hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency. Young religious people tend to lower levels of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal delinquency and attempted suicide. So there’s no scientific basis to support the atheistic claim that people are religious because the are weak or that religion makes them weak. [2] 

Notes:

[1] Religion, psychology and health, Peltzer, Karl; Koenig, Harold G., Journal of Psychology in Africa, Volume 15, Number 1, January 2005 , pp. 53-64(12) [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nisc/jpa/2005/00000015/00000001/art00007]

[2] “Is Religion Dangerous” by Keith Ward, Lion, 2006, Chapter 9.   

When the good becomes the enemy of the best!

When the good becomes the enemy of the best!

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

I have been asked to share some of the realizations I’m having while doing my Nectar of Instruction and Sri Isopanisad marathon (I have a goal of reading/listening to each of them 100 times. It’s mostly listening). 

Prabhupada is our savior and that everything we need, and even more, is in his books. Prabhupada’s books are our primary source of information and inspiration. They should be! 

But sometimes we get carried away and start to read all kinds of other devotional books by this devotee or that devotee or this swami or that swami. These books are usually very good and there’s no harm in reading them so long as–and this is very important–it’s not at the expense of reading Prabhupada’s books. 

Recently I read the following by a Christian philosopher and theologian:

“Having acquired a clear grasp of your priorities, it’s very important to cultivate the personal character trait of single-mindedness. By that I mean the ability to discern the difference between the good and the best and not to let the good become the enemy of the best. There are so many distractions in life, and many of them are genuinely good things. But if our desire is be as productive as we can, then we must learn to shun the good for the sake of the goal on which we’re focused.” [Dr. William Lane Craig]

So even though all these other devotional books are very good, they are not the best. Prabhupada’s books are the best, and we should be very careful of not letting what is good become the enemy of what is best. In other words, we should not read other devotional books at the expense of reading Prabhupada’s books. 

We have a problem if we loose contact with Prabhupada because we read other devotional things. So please, please please stay in close contact with Prabhupada by reading, listening and studying his books at least one hour everyday and please pray that a fallen devotee like me will also be able to continue this vow. 

And now stop reading this text and get back to Prabhupada’s books!!!

Your aspiring servant,

Ajita Krishna Dasa

Theistic Argument from Absolute Values

Like The Moral Argument this is also an axiological argument since axio literally means “value”.

Theistic Argument from Absolute Values

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

1. If God does not exist, absolute values do not exist
2. Absolute values do exist
3. Therefore God exist

Before defending the first premise of my argument I would like to mention that this is an argument and not a proof. It’s not an absolute proof. For 99% of all the propositions we accept as true we don’t have 100% proof. Science, for example, never talk about proofs but about justifying. The scientific method relies on induction which per definition can’t give us certain knowledge. To demand an absolute proof for God would be inconsistent since we mostly accept things as true even though we haven’t seen absolute proofs for them. So I’m not giving a 100% proof for the existence of God, but I’m showing that the premises in my argument are far better than their negations, and that it’s conclusion therefore also is far better than it’s negation. I will go so far as to say that if after reading this argument one does not accept the existence of God one is unintelligent. 

Defense of premise one:

1. If God does not exist, absolute values do not exist.

According to our experience values are always produced by a mind. We don’t see values flying around in the air or lying on the streets. Whenever we see values they are produced by a mind. Therefore, based on an inductive argument rooted on our experience with values as always being produced by a mind, we have to conclude that if absolute values exist they are also produced by a mind. That’s where the evidence points. But fallible and limited human minds can’t establish absolute values. Absolute values are values that are objective and true even if some or all people disagree with them, don’t know about their existence or can act contrary to them. For a value to be absolute it also has to be true in all possible worlds. If there were other worlds the value of human life would also be a value in them in order to be an absolute value. It should be obvious that a fallible and limited human mind can’t establish such absolute values. Just like human minds, for example, can’t establish mathematical truths, but only discover them. We can’t even change the laws of nature. Even if we for the sake of argument accepted that they could it would lead to contradictions. Human A could make it an absolute truth that human life is absolutely valuable while person B could make it an absolute truth that the absence of human life is absolutely valuable. This would make human life both absolutely valuable or not absolutely valuable at the same time which is a contradiction. But what could establish absolute values? The best answer seems to be that such values requires an absolute mind with absolute power so that no other person or entity can change or overrule the created values). Such an absolute mind with absolute power must be labeled God. 

First objection to premise one

Atheist: “well if value A is true for a person, and is caused by gene A, and everyone has gene A, then everyone has value A. by definition value A is true to everyone and by your definition it is a absolute value. If it is true that a square has four sides, and all squares have the same properties as that square, then it is absolutely true to say that all squares have four sides.”

AKD: “What does it mean that value A is “true for a person”? And what you have to prove is that value A is in fact true, and it doesn’t become true even if a certain kind of gene make all people think value A is true. And if it isn’t true, it isn’t an absolute value.”

Atheist: “By Value a being true i mean that that person feels that value and knows it. Now by logic, if that person’s value is true for them, and it is caused by Gene A, and everyone has gene A, That value is universal and it is true. Because for something to be true it has to be universal.”

AKD: “You fail to argue how it can become “true”. It’s also not universal since it’s not eternally existing, it’s contingent on the existence of humans and their specific gene and it’s not existing in all possible worlds. So basically you have no argument here.” 

Atheist: “If its universal for every single human alive, and was ever alive how is it not true? so by your logic are you saying unthinking bacteria or even viruses have these values? What is your definition of being true?”

AKD: “Like I’ve said a couple of times now: Just because all humans have a gene that makes them feel that something has value it doesn’t follow that it’s true that it has value. If all humans had a gene that make them feel the Earth was flat that wouldn’t make the Earth flat. Our feelings are not the standard against which reality is measured. My definition of being true is that proposition A is true if it coincides with the reality. The proposition “the Earth is not flat” is true if, and only if, the Earth is actually not flat. In the same way the proposition “life has value” is true if, and only if, life actually has value. A gene might make me feel life has value, but it doesn’t follow from that that life actually has value. Therefore your gene idea brings you nowhere.” 

Atheist: “a gene might tell you a life has value. ok. now if a person has that gene that tells them life is valuable, and every other person that has ever lived has had that same gene, even in a recessive form( where they don’t feel that value or they don’t know it) It means that human life is valuable to every single person that has every lived or will ever live. It means it is true”

AKD: “I’ve already refuted that claim. Just because a gene makes you feel and think that A has value it doesn’t follow that A actually has value. You’re committing a form of the naturalistic fallacy because you infer a value from what “is”. This is the last time I’ll respond to this sort of fallacious argumentation.”

Second objection to premise one

Atheist: “It isn’t IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to accept absolute values.”

AKD: “But they can’t explain where they come from. And since theism offers a very plausible explanation for them it follows that atheists prefer to reject them – otherwise they’ll cling to the worst explanation (no explanation at all). When you have explanation A for which there’s evidence and explanation B for which there’s no evidence, then it’s irrational to choose explanation B.”

Defense of my second premise

2. Absolute values exist

To say that all values are relative is to say that they are all, objectively speaking, equal. It is to say that it’s an objective truth that no value judgement is better or worse than any other value judgement, and therefore also to say that it’s false to say that some value judgements are better or worse than others. But as soon as the relativist claims that all values are relative then he chooses to put more value in articulating that claim than not to articulate it, or to articulate something else. But this doesn’t make sense, because according to his own position the claim “values are relative” has no more value than it’s negation or some other claim. In other words, we can’t deny the existence of absolute values, and thereby argue in favor of value relativism, without at the same time denying the logical outcome of value relativism, which is that all values have the same value. So it’s a self-contradiction to deny the existence of absolute values, and so we have to reject value relativism and accept value absolutism, because the latter doesn’t make us contradict ourselves.

First objection to premise two

Atheist: “absolute values do not exist. A thief stealing to survive doenst think its wrong. A rich man thinks its wrong just becuase he doens’t want someone stealing his property. Murder in self defense is not wrong, yet the ;aw sates that one can’t kill. Thats just because they don’t wont that happeneing to them. It has nothing to do with absolute morals. its actually very egotistical preservation. So by your argument god does not exist”

AKD: “You’ve just commited a fallacy called “inflation of conflict”. You can’t conclude that no absolute values exist because some people disagree about what’s valuable or what is morally correct. Even if some values are relative and subjective it surely doesn’t prove that there’s no absolute and objective values. In fact, most people and societies agree very much about what is valuable–courage, honor, respect for authority, the value of life, truthfulness, seeking knowledge etc. They might sometimes disagree on how to practice or live these values, but they more often than not agree they are values. So your refutation fails and my argument stands.”

Conclusion

Since my argument is logically valid and since I’ve argued successfully in favor of both it’s premises then the conclusion of the argument has to be accepted. Thus theism is shown to be more rational than atheism.

The Moral Argument (Axiological Argument)

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God (Axiological Argument)

- Authored by Ajita Krishna Dasa

An interesting and persuasive argument for the existence of God is The Moral Argument (also called The Axiological Argument. Axio means “value”). The argument can be presented as follows.

1. If God does not exist, absolute moral values do not exist.

2. Absolute moral values do exist.


3. Therefore God exist.

Defending premise one

Absolute moral values are values that exist objectively and are true for all human beings even if only some or none of us agrees to them, knows about their existence and even if it’s possible for us to act contrary to them. Some people that Gods existence is not necessary condition for the existence of absolute moral values. They will hold that absolute moral values can exist independently of any personal being. It’s true that this is a logical possibility, but it runs contrary to our experience which constantly affirms that all moral values are contingent upon personal beings. Based on this experience we have the following inductive argument:

1. All observed values are contingent upon personal beings.

2. A is a value.

3. Therefore A is contingent upon a personal being. 

Moving on from here, it’s obvious that fallible and limited human minds can’t establish absolute moral values. Since moral values are always contingent upon personal beings it seems likely that absolute values, if they exist, must be made by an absolute personal being with absolute power so that no other person can change or overrule this personal beings established moral values. If someone could they would not be absolute. Most atheists agree with this premise and therefore they have to reject the second premise in order to avoid the conclusion.

Defending premise two

Either absolute moral values exist or they do not exist. If they exist then moral absolutism is true and if they don’t then moral relativism is true. So either moral absolutism is true or moral relativism is true. They can not both be true. So if it’s possible to show that moral relativism is not true or unacceptable then we are left with moral absolutism. This is what I will do here. My argument will looks like this:

1. Either moral absolutism is true or moral relativism is true.

2. Moral relativism is not true.

3. Therefore moral absolutism is true. 

Now, I will present four points–which might overlap each other–as to why it doesn’t make sense to accept moral relativism. And since moral absolutism is the only alternative to moral relativism it has to be accepted instead.

1. If moral relativism is true then it’s true that all actions are morally equal. So to be a moral relativist while, at the same time, hold a certain normative moral position (like, for example, claiming it’s morally unacceptable to be a moral absolutist) is first of all self-contradictory, because if all actions are equal then it can’t be better or worse to be a moral relativist than a moral absolutist.

2. But the fact is that no one is really able to live as if all actions are really morally equal. No one can stop making moral judgments and this, as shown above, only makes sense if absolute moral values exist. This means that it’s impossible to live as a consistent moral relativist.

3. All moral relativists hold moral positions and that makes them contradict reality as reality would look like if moral relativism were correct. The moral relativists moral philosophy will dictate “you ought to do A” and “you ought to refrain from doing B” while the objective reality would be that “there’s nothing you ought to do”. So if moral relativism is true and we want to live a philosophically consistent life we have to hold no normative moral position at all.

4. To really try to live according to moral relativism (to live as if every action is equal to every other action) will make us morally crippled monsters. At least in the eyes of the average person. We will, for example, not try to further or praise good deeds and stop or condemn bad deeds.

To make the case for moral absolutism even stronger I will present a 5th point which provides positive evidence for the existence of absolute moral values.

5. No one is born thinking that all moral actions are equal. We all have a moral intuition which tells us that something is really right and something is really wrong. We might ask ourselves if we have any reason to doubt this moral intuition? The Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig answers this question in the following way:

“…could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.” [...] “The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior–they are moral abominations.” [...] “By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.” [1]  

Because we all, at least deep within ourselves, know that something is really right and that something is really wrong then very few moral relativists are really moral relativists if they are pressed with questions like “do you really think it’s true that pedophilia is not morally wrong?” or “do you really think it’s true that it’s not wrong to torture babies for fun?” To press them with questions like this will force them to choose between accepting an absolute and objective morality or be an irrational, morally crippled monster. No matter what they choose we, obviously, have won the debate. 

Conclusion

The above points makes it clear that the prize one has to pay for adopting moral relativism is very high. One can only cling to moral relativism if one is willing to 1) think inconsistently 2) live inconsistently 3) contradict reality and 4) be a morally crippled monster. None of the above problems follows necessarily from moral absolutism, and since moral absolutism is the only possible alternative to moral relativism, we have to accept moral absolutism. And since God is the only reasonable foundation for absolute moral values we also have to accept the existence of God.

Notes:

[1] “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality” by Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html)