Q&A: Russell's Morality
Russell's Morality
Question
What does the Rabbi say about Russell's claim regarding morality (he argues that if the good precedes God, then we do not need God in order to be moral, and if God precedes morality, then what is such a morality worth)?
Answer
This is really a demagogic argument.
First, who said that we need God in order to be moral? The purpose of religion is not morality (see Column 15 here). But in the fourth notebook I showed in great detail why we nevertheless do need Him. Atheistic morality is an oxymoron.
And if God preceded morality, why would that empty morality of its meaning? That's just nonsense.
Discussion on Answer
I referred you to the fourth notebook. See there in the third part.
Russell comes to empty out the argument for God's existence from morality.
What counter-argument can be raised?
First explain the argument to me, and then I'll think about counter-arguments. I said above here that I do not agree. What are you asking?
Given that morality precedes God, does the argument for God's existence from morality collapse?
Assuming the argument really does collapse, why does the Rabbi think that morality does not precede God?
See Column 457.
In what sense is atheistic morality an oxymoron?