Does there have to be a basis for morality?

Is the existence of right and wrong evidence for God? Here’s a great debate on the subject.

Harris says you can just take morality as a basic foundational truth, defined on a spectrum between the greatest well being of everyone and the worst possible most awful situation for everyone.

Craig argues that there needs to be a more substantial basis for our shared experience of moral values or they are an illusion.

But Harris suggests that you can play that card with anything. We can see 1+1 is 2 but does there have to be a basis for that fact for it to be really valid? The existence of the real world, our existence as intelligent beings capable of understanding it could all be just foundational beliefs from which we boot strap our thinking.

Theists would argue I think that all these things do in fact need a foundation in something outside of themselves and they would point to God as giving that. Surely, something is either eternal or it needs to be grounded in a source. Why not gather the eternal sources together under the title God? Now the Christian God is more than this definition so we would need to go a bit further.

Just as morality needs a source, this source should also ensure some future, eternal consequence for immorality. To not do so makes  every “ought” pretty meaningless. Sp morality needs to be linked to the source with some eternal consequences. That then raises the question of whether its possible to be saved from these consequences. There is a long was to go from here to the Christian God but it at least gives a good reason to check Jesus out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s