Replies

There are a number of philosophies that are neither materialist nor theistic. For example, there are some that believe in Platonic forms, others that believe that concepts are neither matter nor merely an extension of matter. There are still others that believe intuitively in the existence of moral laws which were not promulgated by a lawgiver such as God.

That's pretty close to my position. As a Platonist, I believe, for example, in the objective reality of mathematical truth. Thus, 2+2 = 4 not just in our world, but in all possible words - it is a transcendent truth. But I don't believe that some divine being promulgated a law that 2+2 must be 4 - the truth is part of the nature of number.

Likewise, I believe in an objective, transcendent moral law, but do not believe this implies a lawgiver - as Plato said, The Good is part of the Platonic realm, along with the True and the Beautiful. Indeed, I would go further. If a moral principle is demonstrable by natural reason, it is binding on us, with or without a God to promulgate it. And if a moral principle is repugnant to natural reason, we are bound not to observe it, regardless of what any God may or may not command.

As an obvious example - I guess, as the obvious example - murdering ones own son in cold blood is objectively wrong, semper et ubique. It is an intrinsic evil, and there is no power in heaven or earth that can make it good, anymore than such a power could make 2+2 equal 5.

Now, I grant this is way insufficient as a foundation for a just society, just as a knowledge of mathematics is way insufficient as the blueprint of an habitable house. The rest of morality is contingent upon the nature of man, and established by, perhaps, some form of social contract theory. But I believe an objective moral law must be the bedrock, otherwise how do you prove one is obliged to adhere to the contract?