Rawlings School of Divinity


Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics (MA)


John Knox


moral disagreement, classical apologetics, morality, moral argument, C. S. Lewis, William Sorley, free will defense, Alvin Plantinga


Christianity | Religion | Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion


Moral disagreement is commonly regarded as a threat to objective morality in academic literature and popular culture and perhaps one of the most significant objections against the Christian theistic moral theory. Some skeptics argue that, since people diverge about what is right and wrong, and in doing so, they provoke moral evil and human suffering, the Christian view that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God is behind morality is inconsistent. Numerous questions about the revelation of God's moral law, God's power to prevent moral disagreement, and even the reasons for creating a world with such moral disagreements lead people to rethink the Christian worldview's rationality. The present thesis will investigate if moral disagreement defeats the Christian view about God and the ontology of morality. It is difficult to find solid arguments that begin with moral disagreement and finish with an objection to the Christian view of morality. Nevertheless, this thesis will propose and analyze what one may call the “Logical Problem of Moral Disagreement,” applying the methodology proposed by the Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his “Free Will Defense.” The thesis analyzes theological and philosophical data about God's omniscience and creational power and the human attribute of free will. Further, this thesis aim to equip Christians with an apologetical evidentialist strategy for a cumulative defense of objective morality and the idea of God, arguing that the Christian view of morality is not logically inconsistent but rather that it is logically consistent in the face of the phenomena of moral disagreements.