To start, this dilemma of looking to religious teachings as a moral guide is important because many people look to a god to guide them morally, while others do not believe in any god. However, religion is still a large part of philosophy. The strongest argument in favor of this view is, as stated by Shafer-Landau, the Divine Command Theory, which holds that “acts are right just because God commands them” (Shafer-Landau 2). In standard form, the argument would look like this:
P1: Acts commanded by God are morally right, and those not commanded are morally wrong.
P2: God’s commands are in the Bible and other religious texts/teachings.
C: Therefore, religious teachings are an infallible guide to how to act morally.
God is the entity that created …show more content…
P3: Those who do not believe in a god do not believe that God can guide our morals.
C: Therefore, religious teachings are not an infallible source.
This would mean that religious teachings are not an infallible guide, because to be “infallible” means to be incapable of error. Due to there being multiple ways to interpret religious teachings that would mean that they are not free of error.
To reexamine the argument in favor, I would say that it is a valid argument, because if the premises are true then the conclusion would also logically be true. However, premise one is not completely true, due to the fact that there are people who do not believe in God. Agnostics and atheists would not hold true that acts are morally right if God commands them. The objection to the existence of God is a major reason why the Divine Command Theory is not able to fully support the argument. If God is not real, then He could not have created or interpreted morals. A response that might be given to this is that agnostics and atheists simply need to be converted, not only to “save” their souls, but also to make them morally upstanding people. However, based upon personal experience, one does not need to believe in any god to act morally, and therefore does not need to be converted to a religion that has yet to be classified as myth (along with so many
P1: Acts commanded by God are morally right, and those not commanded are morally wrong.
P2: God’s commands are in the Bible and other religious texts/teachings.
C: Therefore, religious teachings are an infallible guide to how to act morally.
God is the entity that created …show more content…
P3: Those who do not believe in a god do not believe that God can guide our morals.
C: Therefore, religious teachings are not an infallible source.
This would mean that religious teachings are not an infallible guide, because to be “infallible” means to be incapable of error. Due to there being multiple ways to interpret religious teachings that would mean that they are not free of error.
To reexamine the argument in favor, I would say that it is a valid argument, because if the premises are true then the conclusion would also logically be true. However, premise one is not completely true, due to the fact that there are people who do not believe in God. Agnostics and atheists would not hold true that acts are morally right if God commands them. The objection to the existence of God is a major reason why the Divine Command Theory is not able to fully support the argument. If God is not real, then He could not have created or interpreted morals. A response that might be given to this is that agnostics and atheists simply need to be converted, not only to “save” their souls, but also to make them morally upstanding people. However, based upon personal experience, one does not need to believe in any god to act morally, and therefore does not need to be converted to a religion that has yet to be classified as myth (along with so many