The Naturalistic Fallacy is most commonly invoked by theists when
they argue that morality cannot have a natural explanation, so it must
be supernatural in origin. In philosophical terms, this idea is
expressed by saying that OUGHT cannot be derived from IS. In
simpler terms it says that value cannot be derived from fact. To do
otherwise is to supposedly commit the Naturalistic Fallacy.

The validity of this claim is still a matter of philosophical debate,
but
that hasn't prevented theists from trotting it out whenever the
opportunity presents itself. While considering the implications of the
claim it occurred to me that many theists actually commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy themselves, despite their opposition to it.

The theist's deity represents an ideal such as "good" or "love". Many
of the arguments that theists put forward attempt to infer the
existence of such a deity, ie: the existence of an ideal, from some
feature of the natural world. This is a clear attempt to derive value
from fact, which is the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Some examples:

- The natural world is a place where there is pain and suffering, and is
therefore said to be the source of evil.

- The deduction is made that scripture must be divinely inspired and
that it represents the will, nature or characteristics of a deity.

- The claim that prayers have been answered, which infers the actions
of a benevolent deity from some event that has been observed.

- The claim that miracles have been witnessed, again inferring the
actions of a benevolent deity from some event that has been
observed.

- Observations regarding the appearance of a saviour or redeemer
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Furthermore, it cannot be determined
that salvation is necessary or even possible.

 - Observations regarding "demonic possession" commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy.

In addition to these examples there are a number of theist
arguments, such as the Transcendental, the Argument from
Martyrdom, and arguments for Meaning and Purpose which also
commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. If theists both oppose and commit the
Naturalistic Fallacy in their arguments then their world view is
supported by contradictory claims, which is a good reason to discount
it.

Another interesting point that emerged from all this cogitation is that
the theist's Argument from Morality is self refuting. The theist's
argument uses the premise that value cannot be derived from fact
and then proceeds to infer value, ie: the existence of a deity and it's
moral code, from the supposed fact that nature's laws are not
prescriptive. Theists do not even have a basis for making the claim
that moral values exist in the outside world. Such values could only
be inferred from fact, ie: from observations of their surroundings. To
do so, however, is to commit the Naturalistic Fallacy. Since theists
have no basis for inferring the existence of moral values in the world
at large, they then have no basis for inferring the presence of a moral
deity in the world at large.

The theist has yet a further problem because moral judgements
cannot be meaningfully tied to the facts of the world. No observation
can determine if moral prescriptions are in any way correct or
effective. Also, the restrictions of the Naturalistic Fallacy prevent
moral
values from being defined by natural referents. This means that the
proper implementation of moral prescriptions by natural means
cannot be assured, for otherwise moral values could be defined by
the means of implementation. For the theist the moral value of
prescriptions such as the Golden Rule is therefore uncertain.

  Regards,

   Josef

There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.

        -- Albert Einstein