Philosophers often debate whether Moral Realism is true.  But either, there is a way we should live our life, or there is not.  One or the other must be true.   And by “a way we should live our life” I mean objectively moral realism is true.   And in particular the “should” is an “ultimate” end, not just something we “should” do to achieve some other ultimately worthless goal.   

So let’s consider the possibility that “there is not a way we should live our life” holds true.   If that is the case and, yet I still live my life with the false belief that there is a way I should live my life, what then?  I am living my life with a false belief, probably many false beliefs.  That would be true.  But we cannot say I “should” have lived my life a different way.  Why?  Because in this possible situation “there is not a way we should live our life.”  So no matter how I live my life, it will *never* be the way I “should” live my life.   For this reason I consider this possibility a dead end.  By the rule of the excluded middle I therefor suggest we should live our life entirely based on the possibility that “there is a way we should live our lives.” 

Now if there is a way we should live our lives, then there is a way should live our lives.    It seems to me that if we accept this then we should also accept that we should try to figure out how we should live our lives.    The problem with knowing how we should live is it goes beyond our five senses.  Our five senses tell us how things are they don’t tell us how things should be.  

For example, someone from PETA may say that killing billions of broiler chickens is wrong.  I may agree about all the empirical facts and even agree as to what we can deduce from those empirical facts such as the method of killing the chickens caused them pain etc.  Yet I might still believe it is moral for people to eat chicken.  There is no empirical way to resolve who has the moral question right.  So if we want to learn how things “should be” we need to appeal to some entity that has access to information beyond our five senses.  Of course, just looking to other normal people will not solve this problem.    They being normal humans have the same limitations we do.  To learn how we should act we need to access something beyond our natural senses. 

Unfortunately, we do not have direct access to information beyond our normal senses.  So we need to rely on some other source/entity for this information.  Now this other source/entity would not necessarily be God but it would have to have access to information beyond our senses.  Many ideologies tell us how to live, but fewer claim to have access to information beyond our natural senses.   We can immediately exclude the ideologies that are just created by other people with the same limitations we have.    So in order to learn the way we should live our lives we need to look specifically for something has access to information beyond our natural senses.  

So at this point we are looking for something that has two requirements.  1) It tells us how we should live our lives and 2) it has the best evidence of being from a source beyond our natural senses.   Now by the “best evidence” I mean it has better evidence that it is from a non-natural source then other moral ideologies.   We do not need evidence that meets some arbitrary percentage of making the religion true, such as we should only accept this if it is 80% or 50% or 40% likely to be true.  As long as it is more likely then the other options we should go with that option.  Even if it has only a 1% chance of filling these criteria as long as it has a better chance then the other options it is still the correct choice.    We are not in a situation where we have the luxury to pause life and demand more evidence – we have to make the best of what we have now.   And by now I mean right now not even waiting for tomorrow.    

So what is evidence that someone/thing has access to information beyond our natural senses?   Signs or miracles provide the most direct evidence.   Now many wonderous things have been claimed.  Some people may believe Nostradamus could predict the future which – if true – means he would at least meet the second qualification.  Unfortunately, he did not offer a way to live your life along with his alleged miraculous accomplishments.   The same is true of much of the alleged supernatural events that have been alleged over time.   But some supernatural claims are tied to ways we should live our life.    

Now as I argued we can get buried in trying to argue about every claimed miracle. And that would not be a good use of our time. But here I would just briefly suggest that we might consider the evidence of the two most prominent religions, Islam and Christianity.  Clearly the earliest evidence from the recordings of Jesus allege he performed many wonderous deeds Even Bart Ehrman never denies that using a straight forward application of historical criteria would mean miracles historically happened.

Unfortunately, Bart Ehrman has philosophical issues (basically he subscribes to Hume’s argument against miracles) with applying historical criteria to miracles so he never applies the historical criterion. But if someone is not convinced from the start that miracle claims should never be accepted, then we are not bound like he is In my case, rationality has lead me not only to be open to the idea of miracles, but to actually look for them. So I do not prejudge the possibility.

But how do Christian miracle claims hold up against other claims of miracles?  I don’t want to digress to much ( I offered an overview here ) but I will offer a comparison with the second most popular religion – Islam. According to Islam the Quran was the word of God recited by Muhamad through the Angel Gabriel. This is claimed to be a miracle but obviously this is different then for example Jesus saying he will die and rise on the third day and then actually doing that. I mean there is nothing in the Quran that would suggest it was from God.  Indeed there is much in it that makes it clear that it was from a human.  It makes many mistakes about what Christians and Jews believe as well as what is in the scriptures of these religions. Other parts are just mundane and obviously self serving – like the Quran saying Muhammad’s guests should leave right after dinner because he doesn’t really want them hanging around to talk.   Now of course if in fact it is a recitation from God then it is a miracle But that is like what I believe to be the Catholic miracle of the Eucharist.   I believe it is the body and blood of Jesus but it takes on all the properties of bread and wine.  I believe this is a miracle, but I would not use this particular miracle as a “sign” that Christianity is true.  It is only once people choose to give authority to Jesus and our scripture that this miracle becomes important. The Quran appears as a book just like any other book, just as the bread and wine appears as any other bread and wine There is scant reason to think the Quran couldn’t be from a human author.  I don’t want to digress here but suffice it to say I find the claims of prophecies, and “advanced scientific knowledge” in the Quran bad, and if anything leaning against it being from God.

Moreover, in the Quran itself Muhammad makes it clear that he will not do any miraculous signs.   Instead the Quran offers excuses why Muhammad does not offer any signs.  These are repeated such as you wouldn’t believe me even if I did a miraculous sign, and the Quran is enough of a miracle.  For example:

Surah Al-Isra (17:59)

“And nothing has prevented Us from sending signs except that the former peoples denied them…”

Well Christians and Jews did not all deny them.  But regardless, here the point is he is not offering any signs.  See also, e.g., Surah Al-An’am (6:109) and  Surah Yunus (10:20).   So I genuinely wonder why Muslims believe the Quran or Muhammad had anything to do with God. 

The miracles do not only need to be from Muhammad or Jesus themselves.  There have been numerous Christian miracles recorded in scripture and throughout history.  I imagine even though Muhammad made it clear he did not perform any miracles some Muslims believe in Islamic miracles have occurred.  I haven’t done a close study of the Islamic claims but from what I have researched it is not even close to being better documented then the numerous Christian claims to overcome the lack of a sign from Muhammad himself.    You can feel free to investigate for yourself. 

As for other religions claiming to be from God, I would compare the miracle evidence of them individually against the miracle evidence supporting Christianity in much the same way as I did with Islam.   But Christianity is one of the most attested as being authenticated by miracles.  And remember the question is not whether you believe all of the miracles – just one will do.  If Jesus offered even one miracle as proof he was from God that should be enough.  And as Bart Ehrman indicates the same scriptures that he considers historical evidence in some respects records a huge number of miracles.  “On the one hand the miracles of Jesus are virtually ubiquitous in our gospel traditions.  Nearly everywhere you turn Jesus is healing the sick, casting out the demons, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves, walking on the water and so on.” 

Christianity has the best evidence (signs/miracles) that it comes from God.   It also informs us how we should live our lives.  From what was said we should assume there is a way we should live our lives and Christianity provides the best evidence for how we should live our lives.

Now I realize that there is much argument about a few of the steps I took.   For example whether we can know what moral realism demands of us even if we are limited to our natural senses.  I have provided arguments for this in earlier blogs so I would direct you there. But I would also just note that among Philosophers surveyed there is a huge correlation between accepting moral realism and theism and rejecting moral realism and theism.

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/correlations?category=Philosophical%20questions&variable=Meta-ethics%3A%20moral%20realism

So those who try to claim they can believe in real morality even if they leave theism behind, seem unaware of the problems. They may not see the issue, but the views of those whose profession investigates these issues demonstrates that theism is better suited to moral realism.