On pages 82-85 of Le Poidevin’s Arguing for Atheism, he makes an argument against Christianity based first on pluralism, and then introducing the problem of autonomy. The main thrust of this argument is: Since there are so many “equally compelling” religions, and most of them cannot coexist ideologically or even practically, why should Christianity be favored? One answer would be relativism, but the Christian, as Le Poidevin describes, cannot easily be relativistic. Le Poidevin then discusses entirely basing morality on whatever God commands. However, he quickly brings up the regressiveness of such a morality, which leads him to doubt that approach as a basis for belief in Christianity.The problem for the Christian is then: can we, on moral
…show more content…
Le Poidevin’s other issue is that submission to God’s will seems to be defeating the need for human autonomy. He cannot reconcile what seems to be a moral necessity (human freedom) and what he sees as the Christian belief that God is the absolute dictator of every human action, or at least that humanity ought to obey God’s every command without moral scrupulosity. Patrick Lee’s response to Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology has an answer to this problem, although it is more implicit in the argument he makes against Plantinga than a clearly defined response to the issues Le Poidevin is struggling with here. Lee’s response to Le Poidevin would first be to make distinctions within morality. Le Poidevin makes a false dichotomy between God as absolute dictator of morality and total autonomy. Lee would argue that there is a difference between natural law, aimed at human fulfilment, and divine law, aimed at divine fulfilment of humanity. This distinction is necessary because there is a level on which humans can morally judge for themselves, and a level on which they are obligated by God to perform certain actions. Lee argues that on the level of
Le Poidevin’s other issue is that submission to God’s will seems to be defeating the need for human autonomy. He cannot reconcile what seems to be a moral necessity (human freedom) and what he sees as the Christian belief that God is the absolute dictator of every human action, or at least that humanity ought to obey God’s every command without moral scrupulosity. Patrick Lee’s response to Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology has an answer to this problem, although it is more implicit in the argument he makes against Plantinga than a clearly defined response to the issues Le Poidevin is struggling with here. Lee’s response to Le Poidevin would first be to make distinctions within morality. Le Poidevin makes a false dichotomy between God as absolute dictator of morality and total autonomy. Lee would argue that there is a difference between natural law, aimed at human fulfilment, and divine law, aimed at divine fulfilment of humanity. This distinction is necessary because there is a level on which humans can morally judge for themselves, and a level on which they are obligated by God to perform certain actions. Lee argues that on the level of