I see people focusing on how the bible addresses this, but I think I understand what the guy is trying to do, so I’ll see if I can explain.
I think the logic goes something like, if they [the hypothetical atheist] say that it violates the honor or dignity of the animal, it would be some admission that there is a higher moral code and in a theist’s view morals come from God
What’s interesting is when you delve into the source of the higher moral code, you come to the conclusion that it must exist outside of a god. Let’s concede that there is a god for the sake of the argument, are they someone worth worshipping for being good if they themselves created good? This opens a whole new level of arguments such as do you worship him because you fear reprisal from god? Do you not worry that god could change his mind and make murder legal suddenly, since it is entirely up to him, and would that then make it morally required to do?
Arguably, even if someone was religious, it is not difficult to reason that morality exists separately and empirically, so I don’t need a book to tell me that banging roadkill is wrong to know it is wrong.
I see people focusing on how the bible addresses this, but I think I understand what the guy is trying to do, so I’ll see if I can explain.
I think the logic goes something like, if they [the hypothetical atheist] say that it violates the honor or dignity of the animal, it would be some admission that there is a higher moral code and in a theist’s view morals come from God
What’s interesting is when you delve into the source of the higher moral code, you come to the conclusion that it must exist outside of a god. Let’s concede that there is a god for the sake of the argument, are they someone worth worshipping for being good if they themselves created good? This opens a whole new level of arguments such as do you worship him because you fear reprisal from god? Do you not worry that god could change his mind and make murder legal suddenly, since it is entirely up to him, and would that then make it morally required to do?
Arguably, even if someone was religious, it is not difficult to reason that morality exists separately and empirically, so I don’t need a book to tell me that banging roadkill is wrong to know it is wrong.