The first question you should ask is whether God exists?
If your answer is "no" then whatever I suggest will be ignored. Of course, I, like the author, hold the view that the "no" answer is emotion-driven and doesn't hold up to reason.
If your answer is "yes", the next question is what is the nature of God? Is God a fearsome, jealous entity that will condemn you to eternal tortue if you so much as burp at the wrong time? Well, then the answer is obvious.
Or is God a detached watchmaker who set things in motion eons ago and then went off to do something else? The answer there is less obvious (although one would be wise not to ignore the provided owner's manual.)
Or is God a loving father who wishes only the best for you? In that case, why not obey?
And if this is the case, for those who choose not to, I'd imagine he'd grant their wish -- which ultimately would mean being without Him for eternity.
And if this is the case, for those who choose not to, I'd imagine he'd grant their wish -- which ultimately would mean being without Him for eternity.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in any of the cases, the reason to obey seems to be that it is the most profitable choice for the believer.
In the case of the vengeful God, obedience keeps the believer from being thrown in a realm of eternal torture. In the case of the detached God, obeying gives the believer a guide for life, or an owner's maual as you put it. In the case of the loving paternal God (which seems closest to the Christian concept), the believer obeys because God will know what is best for them, and their obedience will keep them from losing the eternal happiness that God can provide.
Is that any different from the utilitarianism that forms the foundation of athiest ethics, as the author of the article claims?