Adam Johnson

Erik Wielenberg argued that William Lane Craig’s attack against nontheistic ethical models is detrimental to Craig’s Divine Command Theory (DCT) as follows: Craig claims it is unacceptable for ethical models to include logically necessary connections without providing an explanation of why such connections hold. Yet Craig posits certain logically necessary connections without providing an explanation of them. Wielenberg concluded that “Craig is hoisted by his own petard.” In this paper I respond to Wielenberg’s criticism by clarifying, and elaborating on, the DCT. I will attempt to provide a preliminary explanation for the logically necessary connections included in the DCT.

Evolutionary Debunking Arguments argue that, if naturalism and evolution are true, then our moral beliefs are merely human constructs nature selected because they increased our prospects for survival and reproduction. Atheist Erik Wielenberg disagrees; he has recently argued that morality could be objectively real, and that we could have moral knowledge, even if naturalism and evolution are true. I argue that Wielenberg is unsuccessful in his attempt to deflect a major concern raised by EDA proponents, namely, that moral knowledge would be extremely unlikely given naturalism and evolution because it would involve a vast amount of unexplained lucky coincidences.

Erik Wielenberg is the most important contemporary critic of theistic metaethics. Wielenberg maintains that God is unnecessary for objective morality because moral truths exist as brute facts of the universe that have no, and need no, foundation. At times his description of these brute facts make them sound like abstract objects or Platonic forms. At the American Academy of Religion’s annual meeting in Boston in November of 2017, we organized an Evangelical Philosophical Society panel to discuss Erik Wielenberg’s book Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism. All five papers presented there are included in this journal.