Moral relativism is the theory that denies that humans can possess any objective, universally meaningful knowledge, that there are any ultimate and unchanging metaphysical realities or that there are any moral absolutes. Philosopher Peter Kreeft said that "No culture in history has ever embraced moral relativism and survived." If you don't think objective moral values exist, Kreeft can teach you about that. But what's the problem with moral relativism? Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (who along with Francis Beckwith wrote the book on Relativism) wrote a great article in Salvo Magazine on that topic. Here are 7 Things You Can't Do as a Moral Relativist:

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Bonus #8: Stephen Meyer, in the TrueU video series (which is excellent for group study), lists a couple more. Edit: Meyer's number 8 is: Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil. But his number 2 is: The relativist can't complain about being mistreated.

If you want to know the detailed reasons that Koukl gives for each, read the article in its entirety over at Salvomag.

Want more resources on relativism? Find out what Jesus would say to a relativist, hear Greg Koukl's talk on relativism, or Paul Copan's interview about relativism.

Would you add any more to the list?

In this video by Reasonable Faith, the Moral Argument is explained. Can you be good without God? The question isn’t “Can you be good without believing in God.” The question is: “Can you be good without God?” Check out more videos by William Lane Craig at his YouTube Channel. Enjoy.

For Christian apologists, the publication of Divine Evil?: The Moral Character of the God of Abraham and the 2009 conference that gave birth to this volume together constitute an exciting development. Since September 11, 2009, the so-called “New Atheists” have not been shy about their objections to the moral atrocities committed in the name of religion throughout history. Among these moral atrocities are apparently evil commands issued by Yahweh in various Old Testament passages. But despite this persistent New Atheist critique, a thorough response from the apologetics community has not been immediate. When Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? appeared in 2011, he wrote in his first chapter that “Despite the strong intellectual response to the New Atheism, one area left unaddressed is that of Old Testament ethics.”[1] Copan’s book was a long-awaited and important step in addressing this neglected area. Although Divine Evil? first appeared around the same time and addresses the same subject as Copan’s book, it has something different to offer. The editors, Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, have produced a scholarly discussion of the character of the God of Abraham that offers an opportunity for some of the greatest minds in the philosophy of religion to directly interact on the salient Old Testament[2] passages. While discussion of these passages has long existed in other fields, in Divine Evil? we finally see the attention of contemporary Christian philosophers turning more fully to this important dispute.

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Peter J. Williams. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello. This is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today's interview is with Peter J. Williams, the warden of Tyndale House Cambridge. He was educated at Cambridge University, where he received his M.A., M.Phil, and PhD in the study of ancient languages related to the Bible. Peter is an excellent communicator and competent to speak to a variety of Biblical issues, including the text of the Old and New Testament, moral objections to the Old Testament, and the reliability of the Gospels.

The purpose of this interview is to discuss the reliability of the Gospels, look briefly at Old Testament morality, and get Peter's advice on the subject of apologetics.

Thanks for joining me for this interview, Peter.

PW: It's a pleasure.

Utilitarianism: The ethical theory, held by such thinkers as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserting that moral rightness is determined by what leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Traditional utilitarians identify the greatest good with happiness and define happiness in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain, while "ideal" utilitarians are willing to include other goods other than pleasure in their calculation of benefits. The traditional view is held by many animal rights advocates, who argue that the pleasures and pains of animals have great moral weight (equal to humans, in some cases). Act utilitarians hold that what is morally right is determined by the consequences of particular acts, while rule utilitarians hold that morality is a matter of conforming to rules or principles and that the right set of principles consists of those that would, if followed, lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.1

The Moral Argument for the existence of God has been graced with a long tradition of defense from theistic (and atheistic!) philosophers and thinkers throughout the history of Western thought…and a long tradition of misunderstandings and objections by even some of the most brilliant minds. To be fair, the argument is not always as intuitive as theists like to think it is. Essentially, the moral argument seeks to infer God as the best explanation for the objective moral facts about the universe. One of the most popular formulations is as follows:

1. Objective morality cannot exist unless God exists.
2. Objective morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There are a host of common objections that are usually blown in the direction of this argument, but for the sake of brevity, I will only deal with five.

In partnership with The PowerPoint Apologist, Apologetics 315 is offering a series of 12 Free PowerPoint presentations, released monthly. These cover 12 essential topics in apologetics. These are free to download, modify, and use for your own apologetics presentations. (However, please retain the final two slides featuring the PowerPoint Apologist and Apologetics 315 resources.)

The fifth in the series is
"Why God?—part 3: A Moral Cause"
Download it here. Slideshare here.
Enjoy.

"Tolerance has come to mean that no one is right and no one is wrong and, indeed, the very act of stating that someone else’s views are immoral or incorrect is now taken to be intolerant (of course, from this same point of view, it is all right to be intolerant of those who hold to objectively true moral or religious positions). Once the existence of knowable truth in religion and ethics is denied, authority (the right to be believed and obeyed) gives way to power (the ability to force compliance), reason gives way to rhetoric, the speech writer is replaced by the makeup man, and spirited but civil debate in the culture wars is replaced by politically correct special-interest groups who have nothing left but political coercion to enforce their views on others."

—J. P. Moreland

Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (p. 37). Kindle Edition. [HT: JM]

Can We Be Good Without God? This is a debate between Brett Kunkle (from Stand To Reason) and Dr. Richard Greene, philosophy professor at Weber State University. The debate was held April 5th, 2013, at Weber State University. Loren Pankratz from The Bridge Community moderated the debate. Read Brett Kunkle's post-debate reflections here, along with video. Video also here on Vimeo. Brett Kunkle YouTube channel here.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 55min)
Enjoy.

Sean McDowell (blog) debates James Corbett (news) on the topic: Is God the Best Explanation of Moral Values? Moderated by Craig Hazen. The flyer for this debate can be found here. Original debate video at ConversantLife.

Full MP3 Audio here. (95min)

Enjoy.

Also check out Sean McDowell's ethics book here.

(Please note there are few audio glitches due to feed interruptions during Corbett's opening statement.)

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Frank Turek. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello this is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today's interview is with apologist Frank Turek. Frank is author of a number of books including I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. He speaks all over the country at universities and churches. He hosts the Cross Examined radio program on American Family Radio as well as the hour long TV program each week called “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, available on Direct TV. This is my second interview with Frank and the purpose of today's interview is to talk about the moral argument, reasons for rejecting evidence for God, being involved in the community, and making an impact in the area of apologetics.

BA: Well thanks for speaking with me today Frank.

FT: Brian it's always great to be with you. You've got one of the best sites on the web for apologetics. I'm so glad you're doing what you're doing.

What is the moral argument for God's existence? How can someone use this argument when interacting with others? In this audio/video, Chad Gross of Truthbomb Apologetics presents a talk entitled God & Arguments from Morality. This teaching was delivered on a Sunday morning service at Faith Christian Fellowship in Maryland. This is a great example of a church-based Sunday morning teaching focused on an apologetic topic. Clear and practical training in apologetics on a Sunday morning.

MP3 Audio download here.
YouTube Video here.

Enjoy.

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?"

Peter J. Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, challenges the New Atheists' interpretations and condemnation of the Old Testament. This includes addressing the destruction of the Canaanites. (Video includes PowerPoint.) This talk is part of the Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: Countering the New Atheism during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. Watch the video on YouTube, or download the MP3 audio here. Enjoy!

Today's interview is with apologist Frank Turek. This is our second interview with Frank (the first can be found here). In this interview, he talks about lessons from Christopher Hitchens, the moral argument for the existence of God, two different versions of the moral argument, the meaning of objective morality, illustrations to help the argument, common objections to the moral argument, volitional reason for people rejecting God, the Cross Examined Instructor Academy, and more. Check out Frank's ministry, Cross Examined.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (51 min)

Check out books by Frank Turek:
• I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
• I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Curriculum
• Correct, NOT Politically Correct
• Legislating Morality
Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Paul Copan. Original audio here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello, this is Brian Auten of Apologetics315. Today I interview Christian apologist and philosopher Paul Copan. This is my second interview with Paul, the first covered a number of different topics for apologists, but today’s interview will focus on his recent book release entitled, Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. I hope to explore just a few of the many questions that Paul covers in this extremely useful book. Thanks for joining me today Paul.

PC: Glad to be with you Brian, thank you.

BA: Well, I’ve enjoyed all of the books that I’ve read of yours, but I must say that this one in particular could be one of the weightiest in its subject matter. It covers the emotionally charged issues that surround the “God of the Old Testament,” and you’re looking at the moral and the ethical questions that are raised by these various historical narratives in the Old Testament. Why don’t you, Paul, if you could, just describe briefly what your overall goal is in writing this book.

In this debate, Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig and prominent humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz discuss whether God is necessary for a sound foundation for morality. This debate took place in 2001 at Franklin & Marshall College.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 48 min)

Enjoy.

Want to hear every audio debate by William Lane Craig?
Check out the audio debate feed here.

How should we approach the question of the nature and limit of government? Should the government enforce morality? And how does the theory of natural law tie in with these questions? In his book Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, J. Budziszewski takes readers through the major players in the fields of philosophy and ethics, and he triumphantly demonstrates how natural law helps us in answering our modern political and ethical questions.


This book is divided into five units in which Budziszewski devotes the first four units to Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill, respectively. The last unit is spent defending a Christian view of natural law and how recent thinkers have taken and applied the natural law tradition to contemporary issues.

"The whole meaning of morality is a rule that we ought to obey whether we like it or not. If so, then the idea of creating a morality we like better is incoherent. Moreover, it would seem that until we had created our new morality, we would have no standard by which to criticize God. Since we have not yet created one, the standard by which we judge Him must be the very standard that He gave us. If it is good enough to judge Him by, then why do we need a new one?"

— J. Budziszewski
What We Can't Not Know (Kindle Locations 384-387). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.