By this approach morality is determined by the commands of God and free from objectivity. However, the theory cannot apply to atheist and possess some skeptical results. In “the Euthypro Problem,” Socrates asks, “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right?” Due Socrates’ question, God’s commands conclude to be arbitrary and His goodness as meaningless. The Euthypro problem also causes believers of this theological conception to choose between the goodness of God and a standard independent of God. To avoid this dilemma, Rachels suggests the Theory of Natural Law in the next section.
There are two different types of Atheists. As seen in figure 1, there are Agnostic Atheists who believe that God does not exist, but still think there is a possibility that they could be wrong. Gnostic Atheists, on the other hand, believe that there is no possibilit... ... middle of paper ... ...d Issitt, Micah, and Geraldine Wagner. “Athism Is a Philosophy of Social Development.” EBSCOHost. MackinVial, 2014.
In order to critique the Divine Command Theory, it is important to first understand it. According to the theory, morality is defined solely by the will of God and no moral standards exist independent of His will. It is simple and unambiguous; once accepted, issues such as moral relati... ... middle of paper ... ...tion, and therefore the Divine Command Theory has proved inadequate in this instance. In addition, accepting this alternative necessitates blind obedience, a condition which cannot be accepted by a critically thinking mind. In The Euthyphro, Socrates makes a distinction between two kinds of love; theophiles, which “is of a kind to be loved because it is loved”, and osion, which is “loved because it is of a kind to be loved.” (The Euthyphro) The former is representative of his first, unsatisfactory alternative, and the latter is his second; however, this too is problematic.
Do McCloskey’s arguments even meet his own strict standard? If they do not then McCloskey refutes himself. McCloskey would be better served to view theistic arguments as a cumulative case where each argument compliments, and builds upon the other in proving various aspects of the Creator. In this respect, each argument for theism provides clues to the nature of God, but does not supply every conceivable attribute. Another viewpoint McCloskey should have considered is what is the best explanation of the facts presented in the proofs?
Agreeing with the third choice allows the theist to avoid all problems associated with the other two. William Laine Craig asserts this, “the theist does not want to say that the God is good simply because God happens to approve of it, since this makes morality arbitrary. Nor does he want to say that God approves the Good because it is, in fact, good, since this seems to entail the existence of standards of goodness outside of God.” In other words, we do not want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Christians should affirm both God's power and His goodness. Since God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, one can simply say that God’s nature is then unchangeable and entirely good, His will is not arbitrary and that His declaration... ... middle of paper ... ...ts of the Bible and do not believe in others.
Therefore, free will should be labeled as a good and bad gift, or neither good and bad. With this established, Augustine’s argument should be amended as follows: 1) All things (good and bad) come from God, 2) God gave humans free will, therefore, 3) free will is a thing from God. Saint Augustine does not rely on any a priori propositions; his argument rests on improvable assumptions which still beg the question of whether free choice of the will is a good or bad gift. Although his argument is sound, he is not completely justified in his deduction as it was clearly shown that his first proposition can be easily jeopardized in its validity.
The Divine Command Theory and Relativism make strong claims on the source of morality. Robert C. Mortimer describes in Morality Is Based on God’s Commands that morality itself is derived from the act of God deeming things as either right or wrong. The following claim “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” is believable when following Divine Command Theory as compared to other theistic views. I shall display two theist claims which respectively accept and reject the previous statement, as well as arguing the the plausibility of each claim. First, Divine Command Theory derives morality from the word of God.
In conclusion, the modal ontological argument alone is not successful a proof of God’s existence. What it does, however, succeed in doing is greatly reduce the burden of proof on the behalf of the theist as they theist now merely has to prove that God is possible. This means that the other arguments for the existence of God now only have to show that God is possible in order to show he is actual. As such the Modal ontological argument is convincing at least when combined with other arguments for the existence of God.