1. Mr. Koukl’s claim of “rigorous analysis” is on the right track, but falls far short because he uses religion as the foundation for his claim against relativsim rather than the shared biology/evolution of humans.
    He makes his biggest mistake right at about 53:25 by stating that “..the best explanation for the existance of moral rules that we’re all aware of in some measure…is that they didn’t happen by chance…someone is behind the moral rules”.
    Koukl does not offer facts to support this “someone”. The “rules” (morality) are principles which are chance-derivable. Not only is morality chance-derived, but it is has been necessary for humanity’s survival. Past evidence (facts) confirm that moral principles benefit the greater good.
    As I have argued before, morality (The Golden Rule) is an evolutionary strategy which can be understood and argued for independent of religion. You, I, any human can independently discover the principle of the Golden Rule through a fact-based scientific process with no need for “someone..behind the moral rule”.
    This should be a calming thought. For if all the ‘written words of God(s)’ were to be lost for just one or two generations, we would have to re-invent a faith-based morality. But a scientific-based morality can be re-discovered and re-confirmed by future generations by simple scientific observation.
    Arguments for morality based on faith fall short for those that have no faith. Think about it…the precursor to faith-based morality is that one must first accept a faith. A natural question would then follow…which one of the hundreds of faiths available should one accept? And what if the moral ‘absolutes’ of two (or more) faiths contradict? Which one is right? Why even ask the question which one is right?…Two contradicting absolutes is a problem in-and-of-itself. Contracdicting absolutes require that at least one ‘absolute’ is wrong, if not both.
    Lucky (as in the chance inherent in evolution) for us, science points the way to fact-based morality.
    For those that don’t accept the methodolgy (The Scientific Method) for analyzing facts, well, there’s no ‘salvation’ for them.

  2. Why should I accept your version of morality as binding on my future behavior? You offer nothing but a human convention, something akin to our society’s decision to drive on the right side of the road instead of on the left. In your world there’s no transcendent reason for me to be unselfish or considerate or peaceful or honest. I’d be silly not to take advantage of everyone else’s “moral” behavior.

Comments are closed.