Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Euthyphro Dilemma

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:43:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).

I don't disagree but your question was only about the dilemma as you described it, whether gods loved pious acts because they were pious or because gods ordered them to be performed. It was not the philosophy or the political ramifications that were the subject..
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:44:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:43:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).

I don't disagree but your question was only about the dilemma as you described it, whether gods loved pious acts because they were pious or because gods ordered them to be performed. It was not the philosophy or the political ramifications that were the subject..

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:45:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:44:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:43:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).

I don't disagree but your question was only about the dilemma as you described it, whether gods loved pious acts because they were pious or because gods ordered them to be performed. It was not the philosophy or the political ramifications that were the subject..

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I stand corrected.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:53:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Agreed. Furthermore, it assumes that "pious" can be "objective" and a standard set independent of the one considering. The attempt at universality is intended to accomplish only one thing: take the decision out of the hands of humans. After that has been done, that leaves only "god" as an arbiter. This is the ultimate goal of the theist harping on "objective morality." There is and can be no such thing.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 4:54:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

If God was only good or only capable of good then what he created had to be unconditionally good. But we find that is not the case. God chastised man more than man chastised himself. God needs to get real.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:01:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:53:00 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Agreed. Furthermore, it assumes that "pious" can be "objective" and a standard set independent of the one considering. The attempt at universality is intended to accomplish only one thing: take the decision out of the hands of humans. After that has been done, that leaves only "god" as an arbiter. This is the ultimate goal of the theist harping on "objective morality." There is and can be no such thing.

You seem to misunderstand the dilemma. One horn supports the ideology which you criticize: that God is unaccountable, and the sole arbiter of good. That is known as Divine Command Theory. The other horn holds the exact opposite: that there is an objective standard of good apart from God which God must follow by his nature. Under this horn, there are certain acts which God cannot commit because they are not good.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible. God's character is objective and is the standard on which all good and bad things are measured against.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:01:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:53:00 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Agreed. Furthermore, it assumes that "pious" can be "objective" and a standard set independent of the one considering. The attempt at universality is intended to accomplish only one thing: take the decision out of the hands of humans. After that has been done, that leaves only "god" as an arbiter. This is the ultimate goal of the theist harping on "objective morality." There is and can be no such thing.

You seem to misunderstand the dilemma. One horn supports the ideology which you criticize: that God is unaccountable, and the sole arbiter of good. That is known as Divine Command Theory. The other horn holds the exact opposite: that there is an objective standard of good apart from God which God must follow by his nature. Under this horn, there are certain acts which God cannot commit because they are not good.

No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:37:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible. God's character is objective and is the standard on which all good and bad things are measured against.

Then your view of God is contradictory, If God's character is the objective standard against which all good and bad things are measured against, then there can be no questioning of God by anyone else. If it is within God's character to kill someone on whim, then that is good. If it is within his character to save him, then that is good. You cannot structure God's character on a human standard of good and then claim that God's character is the immutable source of that standard. Either God is the source of morality, or he is not. That's not a false dichotomy, it's the law of the excluded middle.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:49:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:37:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible. God's character is objective and is the standard on which all good and bad things are measured against.

Then your view of God is contradictory, If God's character is the objective standard against which all good and bad things are measured against, then there can be no questioning of God by anyone else. If it is within God's character to kill someone on whim, then that is good. If it is within his character to save him, then that is good. You cannot structure God's character on a human standard of good and then claim that God's character is the immutable source of that standard. Either God is the source of morality, or he is not. That's not a false dichotomy, it's the law of the excluded middle.

Already explained why this isn't the case. God is *essentially* good meaning that God can never make a subjective moral judgement nor does any standard of good exist apart from God. The Euthyprho dilemma necessitates that one or the other is true.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 6:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 4:44:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:43:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).

I don't disagree but your question was only about the dilemma as you described it, whether gods loved pious acts because they were pious or because gods ordered them to be performed. It was not the philosophy or the political ramifications that were the subject..

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

To put it succinctly, I think that believing that a divinity conforms to righteousness as understood by man will lead to a more peaceful, just, and prosperous society than one which believes divinity dictates what is right and wrong whether man agrees or not.

Think of it as the first scenario reflecting the Enlightenment, whereas the second reflects the Dark Ages. Today, in the US, we see mainly Enlightenment era religion with a disturbing amount of Dark Ages bias and fear mixed in-- especially in what is known as "The Bible Belt."
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 6:08:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"

First, I am agnostic, not atheist. Second, I will assume you refer to:

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I think that the presumption of the existence of god (that part is never questioned) is a fallacy of the "excluded middle." Religions never question the veracity of the existence of a deity. Further, they have a tendency to not question those that claim to speak on behalf of such deities. Both the religions and civilizations are shaped in a destructive manner, as a result. Such is the burden: Never questioning WHETHER or not the god/gods exist narrows the choices of those cultures that adopt superstition. All choices based on such a binary set of options always leaves the one that makes a selection from the offered options still under the assumption that either is the correct choice. In reality, NEITHER is the correct choice, and the masses are relegated to following fallacious data.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 6:17:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 6:08:33 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"

First, I am agnostic, not atheist. Second, I will assume you refer to:

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I think that the presumption of the existence of god (that part is never questioned) is a fallacy of the "excluded middle."

That's an informal fallacy, and it doesn't apply here. This isn't even an argument for the existence of gods, but over the nature of gods if they exist. People aren't expected to 'see the light' after being exposed to the Euthyphro Dilemma, so the fact that the presumption is unquestioned is moot.

Religions never question the veracity of the existence of a deity. Further, they have a tendency to not question those that claim to speak on behalf of such deities. Both the religions and civilizations are shaped in a destructive manner, as a result. Such is the burden: Never questioning WHETHER or not the god/gods exist narrows the choices of those cultures that adopt superstition. All choices based on such a binary set of options always leaves the one that makes a selection from the offered options still under the assumption that either is the correct choice. In reality, NEITHER is the correct choice, and the masses are relegated to following fallacious data.

This isn't a thread about the existence of God, or even the belief in God. It's a discussion of two different ways of looking at god, and the various nuances of their historical applications. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic, then why are you posting here? If you want to preach against the idea of God, then there are literally hundreds of other threads which are suited for that purpose.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 6:23:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 6:06:42 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:44:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:43:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:37:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:31:53 PM, dhardage wrote:
How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I find the dilemma illusory because it presupposes the existence of a god or gods, which is an unproven and unprovable concept.

Well, I'm an atheist as well, but it's still important for the ramifications which it has on history, theology, and philosophy. And it actually doesn't presuppose such things; Socrates used the Dilemma to argue against the idea of blasphemy laws, essentially making him an early proponent of religious freedom. He used it to discuss the state gods of Athens as if they were a hypothetical in order to debunk them (there's a general lack of knowledge about his purported religious beliefs).

I don't disagree but your question was only about the dilemma as you described it, whether gods loved pious acts because they were pious or because gods ordered them to be performed. It was not the philosophy or the political ramifications that were the subject..

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

To put it succinctly, I think that believing that a divinity conforms to righteousness as understood by man will lead to a more peaceful, just, and prosperous society than one which believes divinity dictates what is right and wrong whether man agrees or not.

Think of it as the first scenario reflecting the Enlightenment, whereas the second reflects the Dark Ages. Today, in the US, we see mainly Enlightenment era religion with a disturbing amount of Dark Ages bias and fear mixed in-- especially in what is known as "The Bible Belt."

I think that the first horn has its uses. When a society is in the early stages of formation, and is bound together by religion, the first horn is indispensable in fostering that unity and repelling threats to that society. That's why it reigned supreme during the tribulations of the Middle Ages, and again following the Reformation, as new sects attempted to assert themselves. The second horn tends to flourish once a society is secure, stable, and unthreatened, like the Middle East during its golden age, or Europe during the Enlightenment. You'll notice that as the Middle East became subjected to the projection of Western power versions of Islam which strictly followed the first horn became predominant, and those following the second horn were almost stamped out.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I define "Good" as what is consistent with God's will.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 9:12:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 6:17:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:08:33 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"

First, I am agnostic, not atheist. Second, I will assume you refer to:

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I think that the presumption of the existence of god (that part is never questioned) is a fallacy of the "excluded middle."

That's an informal fallacy, and it doesn't apply here. This isn't even an argument for the existence of gods, but over the nature of gods if they exist. People aren't expected to 'see the light' after being exposed to the Euthyphro Dilemma, so the fact that the presumption is unquestioned is moot.

Religions never question the veracity of the existence of a deity. Further, they have a tendency to not question those that claim to speak on behalf of such deities. Both the religions and civilizations are shaped in a destructive manner, as a result. Such is the burden: Never questioning WHETHER or not the god/gods exist narrows the choices of those cultures that adopt superstition. All choices based on such a binary set of options always leaves the one that makes a selection from the offered options still under the assumption that either is the correct choice. In reality, NEITHER is the correct choice, and the masses are relegated to following fallacious data.

This isn't a thread about the existence of God, or even the belief in God. It's a discussion of two different ways of looking at god, and the various nuances of their historical applications. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic, then why are you posting here? If you want to preach against the idea of God, then there are literally hundreds of other threads which are suited for that purpose.

ROFL!!! You asked me to answer your question. I answered it. That you didn't like the answer does not indicate that I didn't answer your question. I did discuss the topic, and it appears that you don't like the fact that you have no rebuttal. I answered your post, just not in the way you thought your were going to direct. You offered a false dichotomy, and attempted to exclude the obvious fallacy. If you aren't equal to the task, I understand. No hard feelings.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 9:17:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 9:12:30 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:17:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:08:33 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"

First, I am agnostic, not atheist. Second, I will assume you refer to:

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I think that the presumption of the existence of god (that part is never questioned) is a fallacy of the "excluded middle."

That's an informal fallacy, and it doesn't apply here. This isn't even an argument for the existence of gods, but over the nature of gods if they exist. People aren't expected to 'see the light' after being exposed to the Euthyphro Dilemma, so the fact that the presumption is unquestioned is moot.

Religions never question the veracity of the existence of a deity. Further, they have a tendency to not question those that claim to speak on behalf of such deities. Both the religions and civilizations are shaped in a destructive manner, as a result. Such is the burden: Never questioning WHETHER or not the god/gods exist narrows the choices of those cultures that adopt superstition. All choices based on such a binary set of options always leaves the one that makes a selection from the offered options still under the assumption that either is the correct choice. In reality, NEITHER is the correct choice, and the masses are relegated to following fallacious data.

This isn't a thread about the existence of God, or even the belief in God. It's a discussion of two different ways of looking at god, and the various nuances of their historical applications. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic, then why are you posting here? If you want to preach against the idea of God, then there are literally hundreds of other threads which are suited for that purpose.

ROFL!!! You asked me to answer your question. I answered it. That you didn't like the answer does not indicate that I didn't answer your question. I did discuss the topic, and it appears that you don't like the fact that you have no rebuttal. I answered your post, just not in the way you thought your were going to direct. You offered a false dichotomy, and attempted to exclude the obvious fallacy. If you aren't equal to the task, I understand. No hard feelings.

I guess this sort of thing why some strangers assume that I'm an insufferable @ss when they first find out that I'm an atheist. I don't need a rebuttal, as I don't believe in God, and I'm not trying to prove his existence; I just want to discuss religion without someone in the background dementedly chanting that there is no God throughout the conversation. Way to reinforce stereotypes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 9:19:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 6:47:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I define "Good" as what is consistent with God's will.

So DCT? Are you a Christian?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 9:17:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 9:12:30 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:17:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:08:33 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:39:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:36:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
No, I understand the dilemma, just fine. That horn's very existence is what I state is not a possibility. Completely removed from the discussion, itself, I submit that this horn is invalid, irrespective. The very horn presumes the existence of a god/gods (I dissent), and assumes that there is an independent, objective standard. The discussion between Socrates and his opponent took place within the context of presumption of the existence of the gods. I contend that there is and can be no objective standard of "good" and "evil." This is especially true when considering the christian god (as opposed the the Greek Pantheon), given that the very "objective" standard assumed by modern theists completely overlooks the fact that many of that god's commandments to violence and crimes against humanity are in direct violation of any "objective" moral standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question (for some) of causality. Does god's will make good, or does god choose/favor good as an objective good?

Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!"

First, I am agnostic, not atheist. Second, I will assume you refer to:

"How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?"

I think that the presumption of the existence of god (that part is never questioned) is a fallacy of the "excluded middle."

That's an informal fallacy, and it doesn't apply here. This isn't even an argument for the existence of gods, but over the nature of gods if they exist. People aren't expected to 'see the light' after being exposed to the Euthyphro Dilemma, so the fact that the presumption is unquestioned is moot.

Religions never question the veracity of the existence of a deity. Further, they have a tendency to not question those that claim to speak on behalf of such deities. Both the religions and civilizations are shaped in a destructive manner, as a result. Such is the burden: Never questioning WHETHER or not the god/gods exist narrows the choices of those cultures that adopt superstition. All choices based on such a binary set of options always leaves the one that makes a selection from the offered options still under the assumption that either is the correct choice. In reality, NEITHER is the correct choice, and the masses are relegated to following fallacious data.

This isn't a thread about the existence of God, or even the belief in God. It's a discussion of two different ways of looking at god, and the various nuances of their historical applications. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic, then why are you posting here? If you want to preach against the idea of God, then there are literally hundreds of other threads which are suited for that purpose.

ROFL!!! You asked me to answer your question. I answered it. That you didn't like the answer does not indicate that I didn't answer your question. I did discuss the topic, and it appears that you don't like the fact that you have no rebuttal. I answered your post, just not in the way you thought your were going to direct. You offered a false dichotomy, and attempted to exclude the obvious fallacy. If you aren't equal to the task, I understand. No hard feelings.

I guess this sort of thing why some strangers assume that I'm an insufferable @ss when they first find out that I'm an atheist. I don't need a rebuttal, as I don't believe in God, and I'm not trying to prove his existence; I just want to discuss religion without someone in the background dementedly chanting that there is no God throughout the conversation. Way to reinforce stereotypes.

I derived the conclusion of your theistic purpose from your own words:

"Then answer the third question; I put it there precisely so atheists could say something more substantial than "I don't believe in God!""

I don't think you're an "insufferable @ss," but I do think that you are completely missing my point: The exclusion of all but two possibilities is fallacious. Furthermore, I'm not chanting that there "is no god." Quite frankly, I don't know enough about the universe to make such a misguided assertion. I only contend that none of the gods submitted, to date, could possibly be the correct definition of "god." or description, or "properties and parameters." The Euthyphro Dilemma is simply a false dichotomy, and merits revisiting on the examination principle of a more complete evaluation. If you think I've reinforced a stereotype, perhaps you should revisit the exchange, and see if you have, perhaps, errantly drawn the incorrect conclusion from my posts. I answered your question about how the "dilemma" has shaped religions and the societies that have embraced them. No brow beating is necessary, from you. If you have formulated some conclusion different from mine, offer it up...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 9:19:27 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 6:47:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/17/2015 3:47:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Often summarized as "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?", or "are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?"

This dilemma is brought up during Socrates' conversations with an Athenian prophet on piety, as the prophet is about to try his own father on charges of impiety, and Socrates faces charges of his own. The dilemma has two 'horns', as they are commonly called:

The first horn, that 'the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious', holds that there are independent moral standards, and that God's commands follow these standards of right and wrong. This horn was followed by Socrates himself by the end of the dialogue, Leibniz, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Mu`tazila school of Islamic thought.

The second horn, that 'the pious is pious because it is loved by the gods', holds that any moral standards are decided by God's will, and cannot exist without God. This horn was followed by William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, al-Ghazali (Algazel), and the Ash'ari school of Islamic thought.

Do you accept the dilemma to begin with, or it is it a false one? Why?

Which 'horn' do you support, and why?

How do you think that these two opposing takes on morality and divine will have shaped both the religions and the civilizations which have adopted them?

I define "Good" as what is consistent with God's will.

So DCT? Are you a Christian?

Here's another

It's like asking does God do rational things because God only does logical stuff... or are rational things rational because God does them?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 10:48:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:49:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:37:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible. God's character is objective and is the standard on which all good and bad things are measured against.

Then your view of God is contradictory, If God's character is the objective standard against which all good and bad things are measured against, then there can be no questioning of God by anyone else. If it is within God's character to kill someone on whim, then that is good. If it is within his character to save him, then that is good. You cannot structure God's character on a human standard of good and then claim that God's character is the immutable source of that standard. Either God is the source of morality, or he is not. That's not a false dichotomy, it's the law of the excluded middle.

Already explained why this isn't the case. God is *essentially* good meaning that God can never make a subjective moral judgement nor does any standard of good exist apart from God. The Euthyprho dilemma necessitates that one or the other is true.

This doesn't resolve the dilemma, it simply re-formats it. Wes Morriston rebuttles Alston's reply (the reply you're using) with:

If we identify the ultimate standard for goodness with God's nature, then it seems we are identifying it with certain properties of God (e.g., being loving, being just). If so, then the dilemma resurfaces: is God good because he has those properties, or are those properties good because God has them? Nevertheless, Morriston concludes that the appeal to God's essential goodness is the divine-command theorist's best bet. To produce a satisfying result, however, it would have to give an account of God's goodness that does not trivialize it and does not make God subject to an independent standard of goodness.

the other problem with this response was pointed out by Peter Singer:

disputing the perspective that "God is good" and could never advocate something like torture, states that those who propose this are "caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 1:27:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 10:48:38 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:49:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:37:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible. God's character is objective and is the standard on which all good and bad things are measured against.

Then your view of God is contradictory, If God's character is the objective standard against which all good and bad things are measured against, then there can be no questioning of God by anyone else. If it is within God's character to kill someone on whim, then that is good. If it is within his character to save him, then that is good. You cannot structure God's character on a human standard of good and then claim that God's character is the immutable source of that standard. Either God is the source of morality, or he is not. That's not a false dichotomy, it's the law of the excluded middle.

Already explained why this isn't the case. God is *essentially* good meaning that God can never make a subjective moral judgement nor does any standard of good exist apart from God. The Euthyprho dilemma necessitates that one or the other is true.

This doesn't resolve the dilemma, it simply re-formats it. Wes Morriston rebuttles Alston's reply (the reply you're using) with:

If we identify the ultimate standard for goodness with God's nature, then it seems we are identifying it with certain properties of God (e.g., being loving, being just). If so, then the dilemma resurfaces: is God good because he has those properties, or are those properties good because God has them? Nevertheless, Morriston concludes that the appeal to God's essential goodness is the divine-command theorist's best bet. To produce a satisfying result, however, it would have to give an account of God's goodness that does not trivialize it and does not make God subject to an independent standard of goodness.

the other problem with this response was pointed out by Peter Singer:

disputing the perspective that "God is good" and could never advocate something like torture, states that those who propose this are "caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?

Do you believe that the Dilemma is inescapable?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:58:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible.

You never answered his question. If God commanded you to kill an innocent boy, would you consider the command to be good?

This is a yes or no question. If you can't answer it as such due to your knowledge of God's character then the objective morality argument can no longer be used as rational support for his existence, unless you consider circular argumentation to be valid.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 9:07:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:58:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:47:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2015 4:42:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's a false dichotomy when applied to a sovereign monotheistic God that is essentially good.

So if that god ordered you to kill your son (assuming that your had one), would it be a moral command which ought to be followed? Or do you hold that your god would not order such a thing because he is good? If the latter is the case, then you accept that there is a standard of good aside from God which he follows. If the former is the case, then you accept DCT.

You're putting this back into a false dichotomy. If God is essentially good then God can never not be good. Any scenario in which 'X' conflicts with God's nature but is commanded to be done by God would be impossible.

You never answered his question. If God commanded you to kill an innocent boy, would you consider the command to be good?

No because killing an innocent person is wrong. Your question is like asking "if a square was a circle, would it be a square?"

This is a yes or no question. If you can't answer it as such due to your knowledge of God's character then the objective morality argument can no longer be used as rational support for his existence, unless you consider circular argumentation to be valid.

It's a logically impossible scenario