In this philosophical essay regarding God and the controversial existence of objective morality, I will argue in favour of Shafer-Landau’s conclusion that if you are an atheist, then you should object the proposition that objective morality requires the existence of God. In addition, for Shafer-Landau’s argument to make sense, I will be mentioning the Argument from Atheism, a classical argument based upon moral skepticism. I will also be providing Shafer-Landau’s arguments in objection to the Argument of Atheism along with key pieces of terminology and definitions which are crucial to understanding his argument in support of objective morality. Lastly, I will be providing possible theistic and atheistic objections against Shafer-Landau’s criticisms …show more content…
This is the “view according to which an act is morally right just because God commands it” (Shafer-Landau 2004, 145). If we assume God were to exist and he is the creator of all moral laws then it creates a twisted image of a God who whimsically created the moral laws that guide his teachings by pure chance. As Shafer-Landau mentions: “if an act is only right because God loves or commands them. Now it is God’s say-so that makes it so, transforming something that was previously morally neutral into something that is good or evil, or right or wrong” (Shafer-Landau 2004, 80). An alternate solution Shafer-Landau provides is to imagine God as a referee of a sports game, simply a follower of rules or laws which were previously created by a higher power. By creating this new concept of God, we can understand that morality exists this way for a significant and just reason. It has to be noted that Shafer-Landau and I believe that theists should reject the first-premise on top of the second premise because it would create shaky and untrustworthy implications of God and our laws of morality. Regardless of whether God is the author of his own moral laws or not, if he were to exist, then morality would still be
Religion has been a controversial topic among philosophers and in this paper I am focusing
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.
The conclusion is that since God exists (due to the theistic nature of Divine Command Theory), then morality is determined by his word.
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
The theological problem of evil is a problem that many philosophers have tried to solve. The problem is stated as, "if one believes that god is omnipotent and wholly good, why does evil still exist?" In this writing I will discuss the solutions/propositions of John L. Mackie in his work, "Evil and Omnipotence." I will do this in order to illustrate the concept of free will for understanding or resolving the problem, and to reveal how and why Mackie arrives at his conclusions.
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
In this paper, I will be presenting logical reasons why the existence of the problem of evil conflicts with the existence of an all-powerful (P), all-knowing(K), and morally perfect God. First, in order to fully comprehend what is being argued we need to make a few of these terms clear. What exactly do we mean by the problem of evil? What is a PKM God?
The problem of evil is a big topic in today’s society and will continue to be for forever. The problem is that so many bad things happen in the world that Gods existence is debatable and if he is real, it is questionable that he is as powerful as the bible portrays him to be. In this case, we ask the question, how can such a good and powerful God not prevent evil in the world? The argument at hand is that if a perfect God exists, there would be no evil in the world and since evil exists, there is no God. In this paper, I will examine both sides to the problem. I will discuss views on why God is in existence and allows evil, as well as views on why God is not in existence based on the fact that there is evil in the world. After that I will take my stance on the issue and justify why I think that way.
Divine command ethics is a theory that states, that an action's moral content is equivalent to if it was commanded by God. It states that if God is all powerful, then he must also be all good. It then follows that if God is all good, everything He commands must be moral. It uses God as the only basis of determining if a particular action is moral. Moreover it states that an action cannot be moral if, God did not expressly command the action to be performed, this theory also does not allow an atheist to be able to perform a moral action even by mistake. Since the morality of the action depends entirely on if God would have commande...
“Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or God merely a mistake of man?” These words spoken by Friedrich Nietzsche, the late 19th-century German philosopher who challenged the foundations of Christianity and traditional beliefs of morality, are central to the ages-old discussion; are atheists less moral than theists? While theists place their faith into the hands of an almighty being, atheists place their faith into their own hands. Contrary to popular belief, atheists are not devil-worshipping thugs who corrupt our cities, but are ordinary people, just like you, with many of the same morals and values.
Giving up on the idea that God created all right and wrong, theists can come to terms with objective morality while still believing in an all-powerful God. Since the Divine Command Theory states that an act is right (or wrong) if, and only if, God commands (or forbids) it is easy to disagree with this theory because it demands to much. To think that an act is right or wrong if and only if god commands or forbids it is much too specific with the information that we think we know about god. There are many different religions in the world and although nearly all of them share common rules/values as it comes to right and wrong subjective views are almost always included in those rules. When referencing only the Christian faith, The Bible is basically the rule book in which the Divine Command Theory is based from yet there are many different Christian religions that are based off The Bible that pick and choose what they like from it to support their beliefs. With this going on a theist wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny that an act is right or wrong only if God commands or forbids it because they don’t actually know what god thinks are moral and which are not. There is room for Russ Shafer-Landau’s objective ethics and theists belief in God to coexist when looking at
The problem of evil is widely considered to be the most powerful argument against the existence of God. The central issue of the problem of evil is whether evil, as it exists now, either proves that God as he’s traditionally seen, does not exist or the belief in such a God is irrational. This problem challenges theists who believe in the existence of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, but also face the reality of the evil around them. In this paper, we will be looking at the logical problem of evil confronting the Theist. In addition, we will look at the Free Will Defense and its attempt to explain why God permits evil.
1) Oxford Readings in Philosophy. The Concept of God. New York: Oxford University press 1987
Atheism is a touchy subject, this paper does not seek to answer whether a God exists, but rather the misconceptions people might hold over nonbelievers. There are misconceptions surrounding atheism due to its connotation, the misunderstanding of their morals, and how they view religion(s). According to pewresearch.org the people who identified as atheists in the united states doubled from 2007-2014 in the United States. Since being a secularist can get you killed in 13 countries currently, we should do our best to educate ourselves to avoid being ignorant or bring discrimination to these people. Although the United States allows for religious freedom, a 2012 Gallup poll shows voters in America are least likely to vote for an atheist president than anyone else.