to do session 20:

• the argument
• the moralistic question
• Anderson’s evidence against morality of scripture (read)
• one reason paper:

• is theism necessary to, detrimental to, or neutral to morality

• careful with the scope of the question:

• not is theism moral or immoral, but does it provide reasons for moral behaviour, or against them

Intro

• Anderson takes the theist’s argument that religion is necessary to support moral value and turns it on its head

• the idea, what she calls the moralistic argument for God, is that God’s authority is the source of morality

• “If God is dead, everything is permitted”

• Instead, Anderson argues that belief in God is inconsistent with moral uprightness

• and moreover, because we accept the truth of morality, it is evidence against the existence of God

The argument

1. part 1

1. the core evidence for theism is the revelation in scripture
2. Scripture presents heinously immoral acts and teachings as right
3. we know that these acts and teachings are wrong
4. therefore, the scriptural evidence cannot be ‘taken at face value’

2. part 2

1. we must at least reject those parts of scripture which condone morally repugnant ideas and acts
2. then we must come up with a theory to explain how those immoral parts of scripture came to get included
3. this is tantamount to conceding that scripture’s ‘extraordinary evidence’ is a projection of our own fears and wishes onto a deity
4. furthermore, all religions rely on extraordinary evidence which is mutually incompatible but is also of a kind that cannot trump its competitors
5. therefore, this evidence is not credible at all

it is  unclear to me how part 2, especially d,  hangs on part 1

The Moralistic question

• for theists, this is the argument that God’s authority is the source of morality

• and the only source

• or, only unassailable source

• “I believe that people object to atheism because they think that without God, morality is impossible.”

• Anderson argues that moral concerns are primary in objections to atheism

• “can (morality) be maintained without religion”? Joe lieberman

• three possible interpretations of the moralitic argument:

• we wouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong without God’s revelation

• this can’t be right, because every ‘stable society’ has acknowledged ‘the basic principles of morality’ whether or not it is founded on theism

• whether or to what extent it follows them is another question

• “This fact suggests that moral knowledge springs not from revelation but from people's experiences in living together, in which they have learned that they must adjust their own conduct in light of others' claims.”
• this assumption may be far too optimistic about the moral behaviour of societies

• god’s authority and ability to sanction and reward bad and good behaviour is necessary to get people to care about morality

• soteriology

• this can’t be right because we have many other motives

• love, respect for others, honour

• and, pagan (or secular) societies have not been less moral than theistic ones
• also wrong because sanction and reward doesn’t play a big role in theology:

• Judaism nealry ignores hell
• christianity has two doctrines of salvation, neither of which is straightforwardly incentive-based

• faith in God alone justifies one

• Catholic

• Salvation is a free gift from God, that one cannot earn

• Lutheran/Calvinist

• no major Christian theology says that salvation is earned through good deeds

• In Islam, forgiveness from God is the way to salvation

• God determines the difference between right and wrong

• only the authority of God determines the truth about what is right and what is wrong

• Anderson does not initially reject this hypothesis—it will be the topic of her paper

• Anderson deals with the (usually atheist) arguemnt that reasoning from morality to the existence of God is illogical

• metaphysical facts come first: either God exists or not, and then we figure out what the state of morality is

• Anderson rejects this: we are much more confident in basic moral truth than in teh existence or non-existence of God
• therefore, a theory which violates our moral certainty can be argued against on those grounds

• the immorality of a theory counts as evidence against it

• so, if the theists are right that without God, everything is permitted, that would be a powerful argument for the existence of God

• But the converse is also the case:

• if theism contradicts our moral certainties, then this provides good evidence that the theistic hypothesis must be rejected