Is There a Conflict Between Morality Being Objective and Changing Over Time?

In December of 2019, Dr. Craig was a featured keynote at the EPS Apologetics Conference hosted at Maranatha Chapel in San Diego, California. Following his talk entitled "3 Reasons God Exists," Dr. Craig answers a question about how to refute claims that morality cannot be objective and develop over time.

For the entirety of the discussion and Q&A time watch here:

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[nabelisrael]

I really praised GOD for you Dr. Craig. I am reading your books. You are a great blessing to me. I am an Evangelist, and I am into Campus Ministries.

[unicabris]

Coming from a fourteen-year old I must say, the negativity oozing from this thread is nothing short of repulsing, so...THANK YOU DR.CRAIG!!!!

[heartfeltteaching]

The way I've thought of it is that although objectively binding moral duties are variable, objective moral values are immutable. The values of compassion, justice, and fidelity can be applied or expressed in different ways at different times in different places. Even exceptions to the duties and imperatives derivative of those values tend to involve merely a 'shift' of emphasis of values, not their total negation. So taking human life is typically evil because, in addition to contravening compassion, it violates justice or giving to someone what is due to them. But sacrificing one's life to save another's or killing a person in self-defence are not evil. Yet even in the case of these exceptions, the value of compassion is still being expressed and justice is not being violated. Exceptions don't have to invalidate the rules. It could also be that there is more than one valid objectively binding duty or action in response to a particular moral dilemma provided that all answers remain consistent with moral values. I agree with Craig that if there are even just a few actions that are objectively good or evil, then that objectivity requires ontological grounding. He's also right that the greatest possible being, supremely perfect, is the soundest ontological grounding.

I should add that it's important to approach a big question like 'are morals objective and, if so, what makes them so?' with humility. The answer to that question isn't obvious, and demands a great deal of thought.

[HEADin-the-CLOUDS]

Perfect dignity and perfect unconditional love. This is the nature of God and, it's the perfect, objective, gold standard of all morality. That standard will never change.

[MLeoM]

Many people have so weird view of morality. I have learned and understood the same way how WLC explains.

[stephenmerritt]

I think one must start at the beginning and the very basis of of biblical principle.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Love you neighbour as yourself. This is the basis and inclusion of the objective moral law and is forever unchanging.

[opeyemiade]

This question was asked just because of me! But is there any conflict between changing objective morality and the nature of God being unchanging?

[alexmala]

I like Dr Craig a lot and it is rare that I disagree with what he says. However, this is one of those times. He makes a statement that there is a huge gray area where we are not sure what our moral duties are. The Bible makes it clear what our moral duties are for every situation we may encounter in this life. If we find ourselves in a 'gray' area it means that either we don't know God's word sufficiently well to discern in that situation or that we don't like our duty in that situation but we don't want to admit it and we try to lie to ourselves that it is not clear what our duty is. The Bible makes it clear that as far as moral duties are concerned, there is only right and wrong for every situation. There is no middle way, there is no gray area.

[daveyalbert]

Warning: "Dr. Craig is brilliant!" is the only important comment. TURN AROUND NOW- YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED🛢⚠️☢

[jacoblee]

YES, of course there is a conflict but its only on people who believe in god!

[godonlyone]

Morality is objective.

Without God, there could be no objective morality.

Therefore, God exists in reality.

[ruperthutton]

I have always respected Craig and his arguments, but recently his boyish ‘ad hominen’ attacks on his atheist opponents (who have by general consensus blasted Craig and his existence arguments, none of which lack a fatal flaw, out of the water) have exposed not only the shocking voids and incoherencies of his arguments, but also his puerile eagerness to make it seem like he has in fact come out on top.

[mr.e]

Morality is objective and cannot be changed.
However, we can condition into children a false morality. But as they go through life, the reality of the world will expose real morality from the fake.

[wackzingo]

I'm dumb. I have no idea what he just said.

[ruperthutton]

Your answer, like many others of yours, represents a flawed understanding of the question asked. If moral values have changed since God initially + allegedly expressed them through scripture and his nature, then why have they changed so much? The examples of this are numerous. Is God subtly adapting these values as time goes on? No! The explanation is, like nearly always, surely a natural one - the law, human nature and our interrelations between our fellow humans have changed, not God’s desires!

[godonlyone]

God never ordered people to "kill everybody:"

God's actual order is "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

[TheMirabillis]

The question could be stated:-- Why is an action objectively good and right at one point in human history but at another point in human history the same action is objectively bad and wrong ?

Craig never actually dealt with the question. Instead he went on to talk about how to apprehend and know objective morality ( which deals with moral epistemology ).

Lying is bad and wrong because lying does not express the perfect moral nature of God. Thus, Jesus would never lie. If as a Christian, you would say that at certain times that it is objectively good and right to lie so as to save life, then your act of lying is not an expression of the perfect moral nature of God.

Thus, there is a conflict between " objective morality " and the perfect moral nature of God. God’s perfect moral nature is absolute. Objective morality is relative.

[michaelanderson]

Keeping slaves is perfectly fine according to this god. It was then and therefore is now since god does not change its mind.

[thBrilliantFool]

I wonder what Dr. Craig means when he says he "prefers the word objective to absolute"

[theoskeptomai]

Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.