James Rachels 's critique of the Divine Command Theory in "The Elements of Moral Theory" rests on three points. Rachels 's first point is that the idea of God "making" something right is a mysterious and therefore not useful assertion. Another point raised by Rachels is the problem that God could easily have given us different commands, making the existing ones arbitrary. If God is the source of the reasons for what is right, then if God had commanded "Thou shalt kill", then killing would be the morally right thing to do instead of refraining from it - a clearly morally repugnant assertion. The final point raised is the simple fact that God 's will is not the basis of people 's reasoning in determining what is right and wrong. For instance, if God definitively didn 't exist, rape wouldn 't immediately be regarded as right. People 's sense of reason would let them see that rape is brutal and ruins lives, and from those points they decide not to …show more content…
The Bible and the New Testament may offer some answers, but we cannot be sure who actually wrote these texts. We need only look to the first chapter of Genesis to identify an ungodly mistake. Before God creates the sun she creates plants. Plants can 't survive without photosynthesis, and photosynthesis can 't happen without the sun. This sort of fifth grade scientific illiteracy is unbecoming of an omniscient God. How can we trust her word on moral issues if we wouldn 't even employ her as a gardener 's apprentice? If God 's prophets could have appeared at the same time in China (where they were keeping accurate historical records) perhaps we would have a reliable account of some of God 's