Member-only story
Is it better to be a moral realist or relativist?
This is the fourth post defending specific propositions about the benefits of believing what theism and Christianity teach. Proposition #3:
It is better to believe in Christian ideas of virtue and morality, than to believe there is no such thing as moral realism.
In the previous post we argued it was better to believe in a good God than the alternatives. This proposition follows from the idea of there being a creator who is good and who created a world that is good. Such a good creator would not create a world in which only evil existed, if such a world were even possible. Nor would such a good creator create a world in which there was no reality to good or evil.
There are a great many today who are moral relativists. One of those is Yuval Noah Harari and I explained in two posts why I found his ideas about moral relativism objectionable. I discovered, quite to my surprise actually, that a great many of those who commented on my review of Sapiens accept his position. I should not have been surprised as I understand that moral relativism follows naturally from atheistic-physicalism. If we are here due to a mere accident based on the purposeless laws of chance and necessity then Richard Dawkins is very correct:
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and…
