A common refrain against atheism and secular humanism is that without belief in God, "everything is permitted." Walter Sinnott-Armstrong dismantles this argument and argues instead that God is not only not essential to morality, but that our moral behavior should be seen as utterly independent of religion. This short, accessible book is on a major aspect of the arguments against atheism and will interest those intrigued by the "new atheism" (Harris, Dawkins, etc).

Contrary to the claim of many defenders of religion, the author argues that morality cannot be based on religion. If anything, the opposite is partly true, for nothing can be God unless he or it is worthy of worship, and it is our own moral judgment which decided such worth. Men can and do have purposes in a godless world. What we need to ask is whether there is any good sociological or psychological evidence to show that people will despair, lose their sense of identity and purpose, if they are not followers of Christ.

Nielsen argues that morality cannot be based on religion, and that there is no evidence to show that nonbelievers despair or lose their sense of identity and purpose. He shows that the implications of Christian absolutism are more likely to be monstrous than are those of a secular ethic that incorporates an independent principle of justice.

Ethics Without God? brings the theological perspective of the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions to bear on a variety of current political and theoretical questions. The main essays explore a place for the role of God in recent academic philosophy and political theory. The volume also explores the implications of two recent books, each a major scholarly venture in theologically realist ethical reflection: a defense of Platonism in John Rist's Real Ethics and a natural law jurisprudence in Russell Hittinger's The First Grace. With lengthy essays prompted by these books - four essays each, by prominent theologians, moral philosophers, and political scientists - and with extended responses from Rist and Hittinger, the result is a volume that engages ultimate questions across academic disciplines and intellectual traditions. Book jacket.

Some argue that atheism must be false, since without God, no values are possible, and thus "everything is permitted." Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that God is not only not essential to morality, but that our moral behavior should be utterly independent of religion. He attacks several core ideas: that atheists are inherently immoral people; that any society will sink into chaos if it is becomes too secular; that without religion, we have no reason to be moral; that absolute moral standards require the existence of God; and that without religion, we simply couldn't know what is wrong and what is right. Sinnott-Armstrong brings to bear convincing examples and data, as well as a lucid, elegant, and easy to understand writing style. This book should fit well with the debates raging over issues like evolution and intelligent design, atheism, and religion and public life as an example of a pithy, tightly-constructed argument on an issue of great social importance. "In his call for sincere dialogue with theists, Sinnott-Armstrong provides a welcome relief from the apoplectic excesses of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, while also addressing objections to homosexuality and evolution frequently raised by evangelical Christians." --Publishers Weekly "[I]t is accessible and lively, my hope is that it will be widely read, especially by theists."--Peter Lamal, The Humanist "... the clarity of this text successfully defuses many erroneous claims about religion and morality, both popular and academic; this volume certainly deserves a wide audience in this increasingly secular and skeptical world." -Choice "Morality Without God? is an engaging, pithy book arguing against the necessity of God and religion for a robust morality. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has distinguished himself as a leading philosopher in his work on metaethics and moral psychology, as well as books on moral and epistemological skepticism, and in Morality Without God? he commendably succeeds in writing a philosophically respectable introduction to the problems facing religious morality suitable for virtually any audience." --Philosophia Christi

"Morality and religion: intimately wed, violently opposed, or something else? Discussion of this issue appears in pop culture, the academy, and the media - often generating radically opposed views. At one end of the spectrum are those who think that unless God exists, ethics is unfounded and the moral life is unmotivated. At the other end are those who think that religious belief is unnecessary for - and even a threat to - ethical knowledge and the moral life." "This volume provides an accessible, charitable discussion that represents a range of views along this spectrum. The book begins with a lively debate between Paul Kurtz and William Lane Craig on the question, Is goodness without God good enough? Kurtz defends the affirmative position and Craig the negative. Following the debate are new essays by prominent scholars. These essays comment on the debate and advance the broader discussion of religion and morality. The book closes with final responses from Kurtz and Craig."--BOOK JACKET.

"This book deals with Restoration ethics and - at length - with the works of Thomas Shadwell, author of extraordinarily successful plays including The Squire of Alsatia (1688). In Squire, the hero discards a mistress with whom he has had a child, seduces the daughter of a lawyer, lies to father and guardian, and, in the fifth act, promises to reform and be a faithful husband to a convenient heiress. Modern critics have argued that Shadwell was either a fool or a knave when he claimed, in the prologue to the play, to be writing morally instructive drama. Yet - as Christopher J. Wheatley points out - in his own lifetime Shadwell (frequently a target of satire on political, religious, and aesthetic grounds) seems not to have been attacked for moral hypocrisy despite his repeated claims that drama should be morally instructive. In investigating the real reasons for Shadwell's waning popularity, Wheatley uncovers much about the history of ethics." "The introduction to this book examines the ways in which critical misconceptions about the history of ethics and literary representations of ethical beliefs hinder an understanding of Restoration literature. The first chapter posits that ethical obligation in The Squire of Alsatia is based on one's role in society. It also holds that the foundations of such a role-based ethos are custom and prudential judgments about social consequences, rather than divine law or universality of ethical principles. The second chapter examines a wide variety of sources (philosophical and theological works, courtesy books, and popular literature) to explore how a dialectical tension between traditional ethical systems and skepticism about God and reason could make a role-based ethic an acceptable option for dramatic representation to a Restoration audience." "Subsequent chapters show that an ethic based on social role and custom is consistent with the body of Shadwell's works and the didactic component of Shadwell's drama undergoes little change even after the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that made him Poet Laureate. The book also argues that the emergent concept of "mutual love" is central to Shadwell's ethics as the force that draws gentlemen from destructive rakish behavior to their role as guardians of community stability. The last chapter examines the logical incoherence a role-based ethic generates in Shadwell's plays, particularly in the portrayal of women. Wheatley speculates that the divorce of role from obligation becomes the dominant ideology, at least as represented on the stage in the seventeenth century, and that this shift in ethical belief contributes to the decline of Shadwell's reputation."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved