نقد برهان راچلز درباره ناسازگاري وحي و پرستش با عمل اخلاقي

Critique of Rachels prooffor revelation and worships being in disagreement with ethical action

The paper is regarded as a critique of James Rachelsʹ proof against the Existence of God, the proof well known as ethical, in the proof morality is based upon the independence of ethical agent or upon the same norm considered by Kant for an action to be moral. Charles has claimed that morality so considered stands against the existence of God. Since God has been considered to be worshiped and Divinely submitted. Charles has really claimed that revelation and Divine law as known to be the guidance of ethical living, not only lacks the role but also opposes the ethical action. Granted inevitability of ethical action, therefore, revelation and thereof, the existence of God can not be reasonable. In this way, relying on the evidence of ethical agent, one is logically obliged to negate the existence of God, the adorable and the sender of revelation. It should be stated Charles put some objections against the proof but he answer them. This paper, surveying the objections, has paid attention to Quineʹs view opposing Charlesʹ.