Allow me to propose a contrary proposition: “If a God _does_ exist, then no objective or universal morality exists.” My reasoning is that if there were a god-like entity, from whom a morality derives, then such a morality would be neither objective nor universal, but would instead express the parochial subjectivity of the god-like entity. As a result, the god-like entity’s rules, if universally enforced, will inevitably cause suffering and injustice.

All of human history supports this analysis. Every single god-like entity we humans have set up over ourselves - a Dear Leader, a Sun King, a People’s Party, a Holy Book, and so on - all without exception have proven incompetent at morality. And the more powerful and god-like we make the damn thing, the worse it acts.

Now for the contrapositive. “If there is an objective and universal morality, then no God exists.” If there is a true law, then none are above it.

It’s a combination: the first part is begging the question; it asserts something is true without showing that it’s true. The second part is perhaps even less honest ; it’s poisoning the well, a preemptive ad hominem directed toward anyone who dares question the first part (the only people who can possibly disagree with [Vox] are people who are not sufficiently educated and who are incapable of basic logic).

If God does not exist, then no objective and universal morality exists either. This is really not up for debate among anyone who is sufficiently educated and capable of basic logic.

I’m sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, perhaps it’s “the everybody knows” fallacy. I believe in God, but I can readily envision an objective and universal morality in the absence of God.

There’s the issue of wingnut reading comprehension, but also wingnut logic and imagination.

Although now I see what Voxy’s saying - that a) if there’s no objective&universal etc., b) one has to be made - which rather misses the point; if one believes a)*, b) is pointless by definition.

* Personally, I think the question is being asked the wrong way, and with the wrong words.

That doesn’t quite work, though. After all, in the (presumed) presence of an objective and universal morality, it’s pretty clear that one major reaction is that this morality must be imposed (although they imagine that they get to skip the ‘created’ part, it’s often clear that there’s a whole lot of creating going on as well). Indeed, one could make a much stronger argument for imposing such a morality by any means necessary, as it is both objective and universal and doubtlessly divinely-created to boot. If one does believes that systems of morality are at least in part subjective and particular, it’s a bit harder to justify getting all totalitarian.

It’s not just reading comprehension, though - after all, it’s not surprising that Vox leans towards an idea of morality imposed from Above, and has trouble with the idea of any sort of meaningful morality arising from ‘below’, especially from complex interactions (see, as you know, both Altemeyer and Lakoff).