The death of god

Simon Blackburn’s being good chapter 2 section 1
The death of god p 10-19
Critical review 700 ish words
Summarise message and conclusion, main points
Give my opinion as to how well his point is made
Ethics is not only tied up by religion but settled by it. Some people don’t think they have a bible or religious script to do the work for them. An Authoritative code. The word of God or the heavens or the higher being so to speak. We either interpret or perceive ourselves or let a prophet tell us what to do essentially. Obedience rewarded lol and disobedience is punished, heaven and hell. 19th century when traditional religions lost their grip, many people felt ethics went with it, the purpose isn’t to decide this, but whether it Is true that ethics can’t exist without a god or a religion to guide it/ them. Troubles with bible precepts, slave owning, birth control is a crime, child abuse. Bible quotes lalala. Dr Laura piece. New testament love, forgiveness and meekness. What is virtue? Can we do anything? Death of god-clearing of the ground.

Simon Blackburn is inviting the reader into a discussion as to whether ethics exist without the presence of a god or a religion telling us what is righteous and what is not. He wants us to act according to our own moral compass and believes if humans act this way we may not be god like but we certainly wont be sinners. His ending quote… Can humans act however we like? The passage of writing does very little, middle class view of the world, dull, offers no answers and doesn’t everyone think this way?
Blackburn is putting the message across that humans don’t have the impetus to act badly because religion and ethical debate has died out with many becoming atheists, he feels people need to take decisions individually. And that this wont lead to loads of problems and that people with no religious backgrounds still live perfectly righteous and happy lives.
Does he address the matters well? The passage is well researched and scholared as expected with many references from the bible and more quotes from notable philosophers. The passage comes from a larger book being good and the whole book an introduction to ethics clearly achieves it’s purpose as it would leave the uneducated in ethics better off at the end than they were at the start. It does this by explaining contradictions within the bible, gives informative and profound quotes. Offers truthful historical accounts. And shows how the world of ethics has changed.
Are all moral attitudes a sham? Some particular attitudes? Whether they rest on anything?