A Plausible Argument for God? | Rebecca Newberger Goldstein | Big Think

A Plausible Argument for God?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The philosopher explains the “moral argument” for the existence of God and why it still holds some appeal for contemporary philosophers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein:

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is a novelist and philosopher. Her novels include "The Mind-Body Problem," "The Late-Summer Passion of a Woman of Mind," "Properties of Light: A Novel of Love, Betrayal, and Quantum Physics," and her latest, "36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction" (Pantheon Books).

In 1996 Goldstein became a MacArthur Fellow. In 2005 she was elected to The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2006 she received a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Radcliffe Fellowship. In 2008, she was designated a Humanist Laureate by the International Academy of Humanism, and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Emerson College, where she gave the commencement address.

Goldstein has taught at Barnard College, in the Columbia MFA writing program, and in the department of philosophy at Rutgers; has been a visiting scholar at Brandeis University; and has taught for five years as a Visiting Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 2006-2007 she was a Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, and a Guggenheim Fellow. Currently she is a Research Associate in the Department of Psychology, Harvard University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

Question: What is an argument for God’s existence that still carries weight in modern philosophy?

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: Yes. I think actually one of the still most alive arguments is what I call in the appendix the moral argument, the belief that morality needs God’s will to ground it. Moral truths are somewhat mysterious. You know I keep talking about you know the pushback from the world as empirical evidence, but moral truths are… seem to be of a different nature from that, so that it’s not… it’s not when one’s saying look, slavery is wrong. We’re not saying we’ve decided that slavery is wrong or that, you know, that in my particular society we’ve outlawed slavery or we’re taking even a strong, you know, genocide is wrong. I think all of us believe this very strongly. I think everybody I’m talking to at least on Big Think believes this very, very strongly. How do we justify this belief? If you can do… Philosophers love thought experiments. You know if in fact, you know, Adolf Hitler had triumphed and had gone forth with his plan of exterminating all the undesirables. You know finished with the Jews and the Gypsies and the gays and gone onto the slogs and you know he had a whole agenda, a whole plan of who was going to be wiped out. Let’s say it had taken place and our world was that way. It was a world in which one believed this was a very good thing that all these undesirables had been wiped out, yet one could say that would be an immoral world. That is a moral monstrosity to consider. So these… There is something a little mysterious about these statements. They don’t seem to have an empirical grounding. They seem to be super empirical, transcendent and well if they’re transcendent don’t they need a transcendent force, a transcendent will that **** them? And so that I think has you know a certain cogency to it, the mysteriousness of moral truth, if you believe in them. You could say okay, they don’t really exist. I mean it really is a matter or sociology and psychology, but if you really do believe no, even had Hitler triumphed it is still true that genocide is wrong and that that would be a morally heinous world where does that come from? How do I know this if not because it comes from God? So I hope that I’ve now put even strong atheist into a state of, oh well, yes, tell us please, how do we get out of this, and you know, I do analyze that argument in the appendix. Do you want it quickly, yes?

I mean there are two parts to it, really. One is, and this is to me an extremely strong argument. There is one part is to say religion doesn’t help at all. There is a mystery here, but theology, theism, religion doesn’t answer it at all.

[yinYangMountain]

Here are, in my opinion, a few of the philosophical questions needing to be explored:

1. How can we even begin to use a grounding argument for a yet to be defined god-type? (Ref. The B-Theory vs. the A-Theory of Time and a god’s perspective)

2. What factors contributed to this god-types existence and the circumstances it finds itself in and, thus, influences its perspective? (Ref. Euthyphro)

3. Why, at the highest and widest level of reality, is it this god-type as opposed to another? And if it’s a matter of arbitrary happenstance, and thus random existence a god finds itself in, how can this be an argument for grounding?

4. We’ve arrived at the highest and widest level of reality and it’s seen that gods and goddesses do not, and cannot, exist. What explains our philosophical error with regards to connecting the concept of gods and goddesses with morality? (Ref. Pre-mortem Thinking)

[michaelgammon]

Isn't this a case of coming to terms with the absurd and choosing the moral path, even though moral values are relative? “I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

[earendilthebright]

Big Think, this is the most ridiculous video you have ever posted. Pseudo arguments that are completely subjective and circular crap.

[toshinquetzalcoatl]

Just because people have different moral codes does not entail objective morality is untrue.

[sunsetpalms]

I just wish people would stop killing each other over which god is real.

[-ThatMichaelGuy]

You're begging the question without any foundation for objective morality to be true.

[AtheisticAdvocate]

to be evil = to cause harm, to be moral = to not be evil. Why is it evil to cause harm? evil is the arbitrary word we describe that which harms. There is a cost benefit analysis. Does it do more good than harm to do something. Objective can mean without prejudice or emotion. In this sense, there is no objective morality, that is incoherent. Otherwise there is an authority, ex: Leader of people set rules. Those would be objective standards, but only to that group. God(s) are superfluous.

[christophe_barge]

Right from wrong doesn't require a supernatural being, thank Godzilla.

[Dan]

LMFAO over her doubt about peoples opinion on genocide, shes probably right to doubt

[AttRandyReynolds]

There are three forces at work within mankind. One is the innate desire to have our species survive. Another is that we are a social species, meaning we feel a need for tribes, communities, etc. And the third force at work is the fear of the unknown. Put those three dynamism together and you have the creation of a God that solves the mystery of death and directs entire cultures to do what best helps the species survive. Unfortunately most of these man-made gods insist on loyalty from everyone, including those who follow a different god, or see no good evidence for any god. And most of the gods deny what modern cultures now see as human rights.

[davidgalloway]

But the bible approves of both slavery and genocide. So how is God moral?

[jjt]

Moral principles are regulative ideas, moral dispositions of a well intended person who balances his/her believes with our best understanding of reality and with what other equally balanced persons believe is the right thing to do. A moral person tries to act in a cogent way towards himself and towards others with that end in mind, always mindful of the effect that his actions can cause to others. The object of his/her moral principles is a class of actions destined to promote the best outcome with the best intentions towards all. When we believe that Slavery is wrong what we are doing is asserting that according to our best understanding of reality, and the best understanding of a how a well balanced person should act towards others, to enslave them is wrong.

[e-t-y]

Genocide is wrong because it is anti-life and anti human rights, and you don't need god for that. Slavery is wrong because it is anti-life and anti human rights, and you don't need god for that conclusion. These are her two primary examples where she ends up needing god to determine right and wrong. What is it about moral truths that make them true, she asks. What is good for life and wellbeing of sentient beings.

[embracingwhatis]

If it was an objective truth that slavery is wrong, how come the slave owners didnt know about it? And if objective moral truths exist, why would we need a god to tell us about it?

[threeninetwentyseven]

The "God is redundant" idea is not the only other option (though it has merit). There are at least two other ideas where a so-called objective morality and God can coexist. One idea is that God is backing objective morality In this world. Another related idea is that God is teaching objective morality using consequences in this world. (I agree the term "objective morality" is subjective to some degree. However, I think we can be somewhat objective when we say that all life experience should optimally be equal.)

[tinebp]

morality is an evolving concept that originated from our altruistic instinct for group survival. What we consider to be immoral today keeps changing the more the quality of our life improves. Human sacrifices, slavery, cannibalism were accepted by many societies in the past but are considered immoral today.

[-ThatMichaelGuy]

@Mathematicallinsight "Actually, this is not true. Just because people do not know what an objective standard is that does not mean one does not exist. One cannot jump to the conclusion that moral disagreement proves, as a matter of principle, that no objective morality exists."

-.- morality is just a concept, you missed that part eh? All evidence suggests morality originates from the minds of people.There can be objective moral standards within groups, but it is subjective even to that group.

[MrRasulAllah]

Apart form moral philosophy let's get back to metaphysics. How can spirit, mind spring from the absolute non being ? that's totally irrational as the being is it cant' appear. Consciousness can spring out of unconsciousness. So remain theism and pantheism. if pantheism is true how the absolute ONE, the uncomposed unity could be identical to this changing world ? Theism is the only rational answer

[jjt]

As Rebecca said, the problem with the argument that moral principles depend from God or any other Higher Power, is that God is going along with the ride, because if moral principles are good, they should be good in themselves or they are not good at all.

[frankfeldman]

really now. genocide is all over the old testament, and guess what, lady-GOD APPROVES!