1) If God does not exist the objective moral values do not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore, God exists
What a skeptic hears is:
1) If you don't believe in God you cannot be good
2) You do no believe in God
3) Therefore, you can't be good
Now when stated like this hopefully we can all see the two arguments are not saying the same thing. As a Chrisitan Apologist I AM NOT saying an atheist cannot be good, but I AM saying they cannot justify why something is good. I love using this argument because everybody understands that there are some things out there which are absolutely right and wrong.....well at least I thought. It seems as if our world is moving into a new state of depravity. The atheist poster-child, Richard Dawkins, has taken his "genius" to a whole new level in an interview with Time magazine. Evidently he confesses to being molested at a boarding school as a child. But in describing the incident he referred to it as "mild pedophila". He went on to argue, incredibly, that He cannot outright condemn such an act. What is his reasoning?!?! He contends that "you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standars of ours." WOW!!! This is evolutional morality at its finest.
I have some questions for Mr. Dawkins. First, who is to say that society's morals are better today than they were at the time of your "mild pedophilia" incident? Why is it that we try to justify morality by the calendar? That is, do societies always evolve? If so, then could someone who lived in Nazi Germany say that their morality of exterminating the Jews was a better morality than the 1800's German society? Secondly, by what standard do you condemn anything? For anyone who knows Dawkins they realize he is very strongly opposed to Christianity, to the point that he wants to see it eradicated. Yet how can he believe Christanity to be morally repulsive? Sure America may be going away from God but what about socieites that are moving towards the Christian God? Are they evolving or devolving? If evolving then you cannot argue that Christianity is wrong. If devolving then your whole idea of the world learning morality through evolutionaly means fails because you just admitted socieities do not always evolve. No matter which way you slice it the Moral Argument still stands.
I do have to give Dawkins some credit...he is at least consistent in some sense. Since he doesn't believe in God he can't condemn the act of pedophilia which happened to him. I only wish he would use that same logic when it came to his condeming other things. But he would find, what many others already have, that you cannot live by that ideology. Everyone intuitively knows there are 'good' and 'evil' things in this world. The real question is not 'who can know them?' but 'why are they wrong?".
You can read the full article by clicking here