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. (shrink)

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. (shrink)