Evidence · Case 09 · Atheism
Erik Wielenberg, Robust Ethics
One exhibit from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
The philosopher Erik Wielenberg defends what he calls godless normative realism, the view that there are objective moral facts that do not depend on God, existing as basic, non-natural features of reality. He argues this is at least as plausible as grounding morality in God. In reply, the theist points out that free-floating moral facts anchored in no mind are hard to account for, and that a moral law fits more naturally with a moral lawgiver. But this is a genuine debate among careful philosophers, not a knockout.
Sources
Objections & responses
- Saying free-floating moral facts anchored in no mind are hard to account for applies equally to the theist’s view that God’s nature is good without further explanation. Wielenberg makes this parity argument explicitly.
The parity argument is Wielenberg’s central move: if the theist can stop at God is good by nature, the atheist can stop at certain moral facts are basic. The theistic reply is that a mind is the kind of thing that can be a source of obligation, since obligations are owed to someone, whereas abstract facts are not; so the theist’s stopping point explains the bindingness of duty and the atheist’s does not. Wielenberg has a response to that too. This is a genuine debate, not a knockout, and the exchange is worth reading in full.