A True-False Test for Theistic Moral Relativists

Tom has an nice little True/False quiz for moral relativists. What I can't figure out is whether it's aimed at theists or not.

1. (T/F) All moral values are entirely constructed or produced out of persons’ or cultures’ beliefs.

This is false for a theist who believes in morals that originate from a supernatural deity. But since they can not definitely prove the existence of their deity, much less this deity's moral demands, then the morality they lay claim to cannot be differentiated from the moral relativism to which they criticize atheists, agnostics, and the irreligious of subscribing.

2. (T/F) Let us assume that everybody in some cultural grouping G believes that some behavior B expresses a good and valid moral value. (It doesn’t really matter what B is.) For that culture, at that time and in those conditions, B is good.

True. Old Testament laws, if enacted today by a society, would be a moral abomination. We would react in horror as outed homosexuals would instantly be murdered, as well as insubordinate children, and a host of other atrocities. This was considered moral back then to theists who believe morals come from their god of choice, and similar horrors are visited upon gays and women today in the name of Allah. Gosh, so many different views of morality by these theists who claim to follow a being with perfect, absolute morality, is it not? Why, you might even say it's quite relativistic.

3. (T/F) Another cultural group H may disagree with G on this, but nevertheless for GB is still good; for cultures may validly hold different opinions on moral values. H’s disagreement with G does not make B bad or wrong in itself, it only makes it bad or wrong for H.

True. The hideously immoral codes portrayed in the Old Testament were OK for that society back then, but the New Testament provides us with a new or different morality for us today. Huh. So much for absolute, objective, god-given morals.

4. (T/F) Suppose there is no group H that disagrees that B is good. Then everyone would be in group G, and would agree that B is good. For that time and in those conditions at least, B is therefore good for everybody. It is a universal good in the sense that it is universally shared by all persons then living, though not in the sense that its value comes from somewhere beyond the persons who have made it a value.

Let's suppose that everyone on the planet were good, solid, fundamentalist, conservative Christians. Then everyone would be in this group, and therefore would all agree Old Testament punishments of certains sins are good. For that time and in those conditions at least, stoning sinners to death is therefore good for everybody. It is a universal good in the sense that it is universally shared by all persons who share the same beliefs about a type of deity. The missing objective verification of this deity's existence, as well as the requisite proof the deity's moral commands, goes blissfully ignored.

5. (T/F) In most cultures of the world, the Holocaust of WW II is regarded as having been a severe moral evil.

True, except for this small part:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
--Hitler, Mein Kampf
You see, Hitler wouldn't be able to prove the existence of his version of god, nor what his god's actual will was. But then again, any Christian who denounces Hitler's actions and beliefs as being contrary to their particular god's will and moral authority can't prove it's existence either. It's a moral relativistic he said she said.

6. (T/F) If, however, Hitler had won the war, and if he (and his followers) had been able to exterminate or brainwash everyone who thought the Holocaust was evil, then the situation would be like that of (4), where every person in the world agreed that the Holocaust was morally good. (This example also follows one given by W.L. Craig.)

True, because all of these brainwashed people would be following Hitler's faith in an unprovable, unverifiable god.

7. (T/F) In that case, the Holocaust would be correctly regarded by the remaining population as having been morally good.
Self-check: compare your answers to (4) and (7).

True. Are you seeing what this theistic moral relativism is capable of? Horrifying, isn't it?

8. (T/F) Some remaining persons (call them Group H again) may think it was morally evil to massacre and/or brainwash the dissenters. Those persons themselves (the members of Group H) could conceivably be brainwashed and/or killed by the others (Group G), so that every remaining person would then be a member of group G and would believe the following:
(a) To exterminate the Jews was a morally good goal.
(b) To kill and/or brainwash those who disagreed with (a) was morally good.
(c) To kill and/or brainwash those who dissented from (b) was also morally good.

Yeah, I can see all three happening. We're talking about a like-minded majority who are basing their morals off the demands of a supreme being that nobody can prove or disprove. (a) is actually a big part of Christian history, and we find (b) and (c) happening all the time between opposing religions. That's the problem with the relativism inherent in theistic morals: they all follow the true god, and everyone else is wrong. Can a single one of them empirically prove it? Nope.

9. (T/F) With no Group H, and with every person alive believing that 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) were morally good, then those moral beliefs would indeed be universally good, taking “universal” as described in (4).

We're getting really repetitive right now, but yes, group H would definitely answer "True" to this.

10 (T/F) In other words, relativism could coherently lead to a possible world, as philosophers term it, in which the Holocaust was morally good, and where brainwashing or killing off all possible dissent was also morally good–universally so, in fact. This moral good, as suggested in (9), would rest on a much stronger social foundation than, say, the current common Western belief that slavery is wrong. It would in fact be more clearly good than current beliefs that slavery is wrong.

Self-check: compare your answers to (9) and (10) with your answer to (4)

The moral relativism inherent in theism would say yes, repeat ad nauseum. Same goes for question 11.

From this you see one reason I am not a moral relativist.

I understand that you see yourself as shunning moral relativism, Tom, but when you base your morals off of a being that you can't objectively prove exists, then you can't claim that this being's moral laws are absolute. Your moral code, to an outside observer, is indistinguishable from moral relativism. Without proof of your god, then your moral code is nothing but your relative interpretation of your god's moral code.