THE MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR DEITY
The section title “The Moral Arguments for Deity” implies that Russell is trying to invalidate a proof for God based on morals. In this section, Russell explained that the philosopher, Immanuel Kant proposed the idea that we know God exists, because of morality. Russell then mentioned how this argument can take many forms. He presented the form, “… there would be no right or wrong unless God existed.”
Russell then focused down to the specific nuance, “I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation, 'Is the difference between right or wrong due to God’s fiat or is it not*.'" Unfortunately, Russell answered with a Red Herring fallacy. He sidetracks us from the proof ‘that we know God exists, because of morality’ **.
He does this by taking us to a ‘God’s Eye view’ of God (so to speak). Here he says (numbering convention the author’s):
1. “If it [right vs wrong] is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good."
2. "If you are going to say … that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning, which is independent of God’s fiat.”
3. "You could … say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God who made this world …^”
With these three points, Russell seems to add a second fallacy, to his original Red Herring fallacy. The second fallacy is the False Dilemma/False Dichotomy fallacy (or equivalent). This is when someone limits the number of options^^.
With the first two options above, Russell tries to disassociate God from goodness, as in:
1. If God is arbitrary, then God is not good.
2. Right and Wrong are logically anterior^^^ to God.
Russell’s fallacy is that he did not mention the alternate solution that goodness, or that which is morally right, may actually be a part of God’s inherent nature. Furthermore, whatever God makes will therefore automatically exhibit the quality of his inherent goodness^^^^ . In other words, no arbitrariness was involved. Nor was goodness ‘imposed from above’.
As it is, Russell (hopefully not the book editor) mislabeled this section title. Russell never actually sought to disprove that the existence of ‘right vs wrong’ proves God existence. Russell only seemed to want to disassociate God from being good. This again is a moralistic line of reasoning, coming from the heart, and not the empirical data.
* The wording of this point brought out an interesting irony. In the section entitled The Moral Problem, he uses the notion of absolute right vs. wrong to bolster why he is not a Christian. He comes across as being quite sure that he is right, and Jesus is quite wrong. His confidence leads to the question, “Since Russell is quite sure of this difference between right and wrong, is that due to God’s fiat, or is it not?”
** In his essay What I Believe (published in 1925, prior to Why I Am Not a Christian) in the subsection Nature and Man, Russell states, “We are ourselves the ultimate and irrefutable arbiters of value. … Thus in this world, we are greater than nature. … In the world of values, nature in itself is neutral.”
Russell recognizes that nature itself (e.g. basic chemistry) is neutral. It has no concept of value. It has no concept of right vs. wrong. Whatever the laws of nature describe, that is how nature will work. Even animals respond to ‘The Truth’ of what their senses tell them, albeit with much more sophistication.
However, people can choose to believe either ‘The Truth’ or ‘Lies’. Because we can choose to believe a lie, this sets us humans into a different dimension of existence than animals. Whereas the physical body obeys the ‘laws of nature’, our innate sense of value makes us greater than Nature. Therefore, the entity that looks at value – i.e. the soul - is also greater than nature, or super-natural. Since the human soul has a beginning, and is supernatural, it must have come from something else super-natural, i.e. God.
^ Russell’s point of imposing ‘right from wrong’ onto God from some Super-God, can always be applied to ever-higher-level hypothetical Super-Super-Gods. So logically, where does one stop. Therefore, the best solution is as the idiom goes, “The buck stops with God, not a ‘super-God’”.
^^ Russell actually added a couple of other minor options.
^^^ Anterior: coming before or in front of God.
^^^^ This does not mean that outside influences, such as sin, cannot later corrupt what God has made.