The Moral Argument for God Is Not Convincing

450 Words2 Pages
‘The moral argument for God is not convincing.' Discuss. (10 marks) Kant’s moral argument attempted to answer questions surrounding the idea of “right and wrong” and whether we got these ideas from a God and subsequently whether our morality depends on God. Thus his argument obtains a stronger focus on morality and duty as he felt it was not in human knowledge to prove God’s existence which is arguably why part that proves God is not necessarily as convincing and Kant merely states that we should postulate the idea of God as to explain morality it is necessary to believe that God exists. Kant believed that everybody had an innate moral awareness, “two things fill my mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”. He believed that this was given to us by God and worked out by us using reason. However, many disagree about the origin of our moral awareness; a far more popular idea given the evidence is that we assimilate our moral compass through our culture and genetic makeup. Freud believed that it can be explained by socialisation and that our conscience is the product of our unconscious mind or ‘superego’. Freud explained that the mind was divided into three areas; the ‘ID’ where our base instincts are such as desire and appetite, the ‘Ego’ a part of our mind that is shaped by external influences and the ‘Superego’ a part of the ego that is shaped by the influences that have affected our development such as parents and teachers. He believed that our conscience was the result of our social conditioning or socialisation thus all moral values are subjective. However, the argument for God is also largely supported, although the argument does not suggest that there must be a God, but rather that God is needed for morality to achieve its end. Cardinal Newman agreed with Kant that the existence of
Open Document