Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 1 of 181 (537430)
11-28-2009 2:50 PM


For all of you who know what this is: Congratulations! Have fun!
For all of you who don't already know, here is the dilemna:
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
First proposed by Plato, the dilemna has pretty much made many theological philosophers bat**** insane, if you'll excuse my French. Here's the dilemna in English:
Many if not all religions (especially the Abrahamic Faiths) claim that their God s source of all goodness and morality. However, how do you define "good"? This is where you get into the good part.
If "good" is doing what feels right, then you don't need God to explain it.
If "good" is what God says, then we get into the messy area.
If God's "good" command are given because they are moral, then you're back to the first part: You don't need God (an intermediary) because you can explain human morality just as well using biology/genetics/whatever.
If, however, morality is "good" because God says so, then you really have no standard for determining goodness! It's really nothing more than saying "God is good because he is good" (circular). By this logic, whatever God commanded would be good and moral and thus he could easily command atrocities. If God commanded you to burn down your neighborhood and kill all your neighbors, would you do it?
At this point, most theists would probably respond with the idea that "goodness is an essential part of God's nature." However, this is only moving the goalposts. For one thing, it is still circular (God is good because God is good) and, also, if God's nature was such (hypothetically) that genocide and torture were morally commendable, would you think that moral too? In addition, just because God is a certain way, how do you deem that "good"?
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 11-28-2009 7:11 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 8:28 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 11-30-2009 9:58 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied
 Message 92 by Hawkins, posted 12-08-2009 8:57 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 111 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-13-2009 12:57 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 150 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2009 7:09 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 181 (537434)
11-28-2009 3:00 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Euthypro Dilemna thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 3:07 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 3 of 181 (537437)
11-28-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
11-28-2009 3:00 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Maybe this could be in the Faith and Belief section, actually?
I don't know, that just seems to be a better fit.
But that's just me
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 11-28-2009 3:00 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 181 (537462)
11-28-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
11-28-2009 2:50 PM


Just a few info, corrections, and nitpicks.
Plato was recording from the dialogue between his teacher Socrates and a man name Euthyphro. While Socrates was standing outside the courthouse waiting to be tried for corrupting youths with his skeptical mind, he met Euthyphro who was there to accuse his father of murder. What happened was 2 of his father's slaves fought each other and one killed the other. His father ordered the surviving slave to be tied up and sent someone to the city to ask for advice. Back then, it took days to go the city and back. When the servant finally came back, the slave had died of exposure.
Socrates asked the man why he was there to accuse his father of killing a slave. He said that it was the right thing to do. Socrates thought for a minute and asked his question.
Teapots writes:
At this point, most theists would probably respond with the idea that "goodness is an essential part of God's nature." However, this is only moving the goalposts. For one thing, it is still circular (God is good because God is good) and, also, if God's nature was such (hypothetically) that genocide and torture were morally commendable, would you think that moral too? In addition, just because God is a certain way, how do you deem that "good"?
I would also like to point out another problem with the theists' usual response. By saying god's nature is good, the theists has taken away god's free will. To them, god could never approve of atrocities. This means that god has no free will since it is incapable of committing evil.
Get ready for some very long and jargonic posts coming from buzsaw, iano, and other theists here. Watch this, haha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 2:50 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 9:03 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 7 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 11:15 PM Taz has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 5 of 181 (537464)
11-28-2009 7:33 PM


Thread Copied from Comparative Religions Forum
Thread copied here from the Euthypro Dilemna thread in the Comparative Religions forum.

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 6 of 181 (537470)
11-28-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
11-28-2009 7:11 PM


Hi Taz,
I would also like to point out another problem with the theists' usual response. By saying god's nature is good, the theists has taken away god's free will. To them, god could never approve of atrocities. This means that god has no free will since it is incapable of committing evil.
Yeah, in addition I wonder sometimes why God couldn't have just made us like him, i.e. goodness as 'an essential part of our nature', as well as 'holy'. Why bother with a flawed creation?
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 11-28-2009 7:11 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 8:51 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 7 of 181 (537481)
11-28-2009 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
11-28-2009 7:11 PM


Taz writes:
Get ready for some very long and jargonic posts coming from buzsaw, iano, and other theists here. Watch this, haha.
Actually I tried posting the Euthyphro Dilemma several times on EVC to no avail (i.e. Message 188 and Message 62. The first time no one responded to my post and the second Iano states
Iano writes:
Fortunately, the God of Christianity predates Plato by a decent amount. And He is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
And that was it, on the subject of the Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
I would be surprised if anyone dillegently digs down and honestly and intelectually addresses it here much less fundamentalists like Iano and Buzzsaw. But who knows maybe someone will provide some new incite on it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 11-28-2009 7:11 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 11-29-2009 4:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 8 of 181 (537531)
11-29-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
11-28-2009 2:50 PM


Authority for Morals
quote:
For all of you who don't already know, here is the dilemma:
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

I never knew this had a name. Learn something new everyday. May I babble until the theists get here?
Given the time frame the laws (not just the ten) or morals of the Bible were really written, I would say that attributing them to God is what gave authority to the morals of the time. Many of them have been dropped or changed over time. The more universal morals (lying, stealing, murder) still remain. The oral law was created so that the laws could adjust with the society.
When the rules came down, no one seemed surprised. God didn't seem to give them any significantly different morals than what they already had.
I don't think it's about intermediary, but about authority.
So I would say it was a matter of giving higher authority to morals they already had.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 2:50 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM purpledawn has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 9 of 181 (537537)
11-29-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
11-29-2009 8:28 AM


Re: Authority for Morals
I don't think it's about intermediary, but about authority.
So I would say it was a matter of giving higher authority to morals they already had.
So then, god isn't required for morals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 8:28 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Stile, posted 11-29-2009 10:56 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 11:12 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 10 of 181 (537543)
11-29-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Teapots&unicorns
11-28-2009 9:03 PM


Why bother with a flawed creation?
he DID create us perfectly, in his image. rib woman screwed that up for us. It's our fault as mankind for electing her as our representative.
I think the typical response to this question would go something like this: God IS. It is not a choice for god to make to be "good" or "moral". He IS those things. Anything that goes against his will is what is deemed as "bad" or "immoral". He IS the law.
Does it sit well with me personally? nope.
Now, to bat for the right team. if you were to create, say, a childrens toy, and the second one you ever made (using parts from the first) ripped a childs finger off, would you not shoot for a different design? or would you create millions of them, damaging every child in the world? oh, but wait: you have a recall lined up a few thousand years down the road tht will fix the problem (screw all the kids who already lost their finger). However, you only tell a select few about this recall, and in such a way that it sounds untrue or muddied, so many choose not to opt in for the recall. Tough, they lose their fingers.
I guess his choice lies not in being "good", but in being a prick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 9:03 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 11 of 181 (537560)
11-29-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by hooah212002
11-29-2009 8:43 AM


God is not Perfect
hooah212002 writes:
So then, god isn't required for morals?
No, of course not. Not only just morals, though, He's really not required for anything at all. If you can show me a single thing that God is actually required for, I'd be very interested.
In fact, saying "God is the perfect embodiment of ..." anything at all (morals, virtues, good...) actually reduces that ideal. That is, whenever an action is referenced as being "from God," it is always possible to think of an action that would be a bit more loving or good or whatever. In which case, either God is not a perfect embodiment of those ideals, or He is a perfect embodiment of lesser ideals.
For example:
God sacrificed His only Son so we could be "saved" or "have eternal life" or whatever...
But, how is this perfect?
There are greater sacrifices... sending His only Son while not being able to resurrect Him would be a greater sacrifice. Or resurrecting Him in 3 weeks instead of 3 days would have been greater.
Or, God could have found a way to "save" us without requiring the need for a sacrifice at all. This would be a better embodiment of Love.
Either way, there are always better, or more "perfect" options that can be thought up.
This is likely because the stories about God are man-made. Obviously it is easy to think up more pefect options to human-created stories... and this is what we see. If the stories are divinely inspired, why is it so easy to think of more perfect options that could have been taken? If God was restricted into taking these less-than-perfect options (perhaps they're 'the only way it can be done') we're left with wondering what's restricting a perfect God? In which case, again, we have God being restricted by things that would not restrict the ideals (virtues) themselves.
With what we know of God from the Bible and from people who profess to know Him... it's just plain silly to claim God as a perfect anything.
Obviously, in regards to the Euthypro Dilemma... I don't feel there is a dilemma at all because I don't feel that there is a God at all. Therefore, I would answer that God does what is Good because there is a greater Good that God answers to... the ideals of the virtues themselves.
This, actually, makes God an honourable and worthy-of-respect God.
The only way to earn an intelligent being's respect is to show that you are capable of adhering to the same rules/regulations/morals/laws that they hold respect for.
If God adhere's to the same morals we find respectful, then we will respect God. It's the actions of choosing to defend and stand for something that is more than ourselves which earns respect. If there is nothing that is "more than God" then it is impossible for God to earn respect.
If God is the source of the morals we find respectful, then God is only capable of doing those things which we find respectful. Therefore (as Taz has mentioned) God doesn't actually make any decisions. God becomes a mere zombie following whatever it is we find respectful. There is no honour or respect for such a being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 11:13 AM Stile has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 12 of 181 (537563)
11-29-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by hooah212002
11-29-2009 8:43 AM


Re: Authority for Morals
quote:
So then, god isn't required for morals?
Not that I can tell. Aren't there cultures that thrived without "receiving" laws from a god like the one in the Bible?
Are any of our morals derived from nature?
IMO, God reflects the morals of the people enforcing or preaching the morals. That's why he changes. With Greek philosophy, God was changed to all good and bad was a separate entity.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 8:43 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 11:16 AM purpledawn has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 13 of 181 (537564)
11-29-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stile
11-29-2009 10:56 AM


Re: God is not Perfect
I agree, for the most part. The part i am in contention with is this:
Stile writes:
....Therefore, I would answer that God does what is Good because there is a greater Good that God answers to...
If god answers to ANYONE at all, he isn't the abrahamic lord of all as depicted in the bible. This depiction you stated creates your own personal god. For me? I have absolutely NO problem with that, however, with regards to the subject at hand, I don't think it quite fits. As a matter of fact, it is similar to what I am spinning in my head as what I think god, if there is such a thing, is: a force of nature. not a figure, but life in and of itself. Thinking that way, genesis becomes more clear, provided you take it allegorically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stile, posted 11-29-2009 10:56 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 11-29-2009 5:15 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 14 of 181 (537565)
11-29-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by purpledawn
11-29-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Authority for Morals
So god IS what man makes him? is god not the ruler of all? Since when do we (mankind) make the rules?
More fuel, IMO, for god being a manmade invention.
IMO, he reflects the morals of the people enforcing or preaching the morals.
So, god is a pedophile when a child molesting preacher is preaching about him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 11:12 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 11:43 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 181 (537568)
11-29-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by hooah212002
11-29-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Authority for Morals
I added thoughts to Message 12.
quote:
More fuel, IMO, for god being a manmade invention.
Gods are the personification of nature. That personification took on a life of its own in some religions.
quote:
So, god is a pedophile when a child molesting preacher is preaching about him?
No, the preacher isn't preaching that pedophilia is morally right. (At least hopefully he isn't.)
My assumption is that those who enforced or preached the morals were basically following the morals or at least the morals they enforced or preached were what they wanted their group or populace to follow.
The commands in the OT were rules for a nation. Groups can agree on rules to manage a group even if some individuals within the group may break the rule.
quote:
is god not the ruler of all?
Who rules, man or nature?
Edited by purpledawn, : Last question

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 11:16 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 12:13 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024