Reddit reviews Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality
We found 2 Reddit comments about Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Hi everyone, the top comment before it was removed a moment ago read 'If you need to believe in God to be a good person, you are not a good person.' It was rightly removed because it had nothing to do with the link. However I wrote up a long post filled with information that the general sub may find useful, so I will post it here anyway.
I have to say that it is extremely telling of this subreddit that the most upvoted comment on this thread is a complete misunderstanding of Craig's moral argument. Not only that but it is the most common misunderstanding and most frequently corrected, yet it continues to be made!
I'll explain it clearly so that everyone who would make this mistake will be without an excuse, plus tons of resources to go research these things for themselves.
>If God does not exist, moral facts and duties do not exist.
In the [professional literature](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12021/abstract
) there has been a growing attack on non-theistic ethical realism. The criticisms of Mackie in the 70s have largely been refuted but other arguments like the Evolutionary Debunking argument (see Street 2006 especially, but also Kahane (2011), and Shafer-Landau (2012)) continue to raise problems for secular ethicists, especially it seems for non-reductionists.
Meanwhile there has been a remarkable defence of theistic ethics over the last 40 years, particularly divine command theory (DCT) which for a long time was considered indefensible. Now these defences of DCT, coming from such prominent figures as Edward Wierenga, Robert Adams, William P. Alston, and others, including Craig in the OP link, have persuaded some that the dangers facing secular metaethics don't pose a problem for theists who can appeal to God's essential goodness without worrying about an Euthyphro dilemma with less of a sting.
Now there have been numerous secular defences of secular metaethics, and I'm not stating any conclusions here. In fact, here's a wonderful post by /u/ReallyNicole which gives those defences and other interesting talking points. But this entire debate has never, ever, ever been about whether God makes you a good person- it has only ever been about whether atheism can provide a sound foundation for substantive metaethics.
As for my part, I don't agree with Craig's approach here. I don't think you can show non-reductive secular moral realism to be a failure, at least not with current research (and I'm conscious I say that as a measly undergraduate). I prefer discussions following from Baggett and Walls's abductive moral argument, that theism is a better explanation of moral realism.
>Moral facts and values do exist
Given, as we are assuming what follows from their existence.
>Therefore God exists
Valid and beyond the reach of that poster's terrible excuse for an argument.
Good God - https://www.amazon.com/Good-God-Theistic-Foundations-Morality/dp/0199751811
God and Cosmos - https://www.amazon.com/God-Cosmos-Moral-Truth-Meaning/dp/0199931216