The more I see mildly intelligent people being theists... who also seem rather honest (like Ignorant for example, he seems sincere)... the more I realize how much theism is really just about mental gymnastics and self-delusion to cope with the shittiness of life more easily.

(October 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The trouble, Igno, is that your "third option" can be restated -as- the dilemma.  That means that it isn't a third option, it's contained in the two options already presented.

Right, but when "being the best human you can be" is the same thing as "being human", let's read what you see as a dilemma:

Does God command that you "be human" because it is good? or

Is it good to "be human" because god commands you to be so?

Now one step further, substituting what it means to "command" that you "be human": i.e. create

Does God create you to "be human" because it is good? or

Is it good to "be human" because God creates you?

Not exactly euthyphro is it?

---

(October 16, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Hammy Wrote: The more I see mildly intelligent people being theists... who also seem rather honest (like Ignorant for example, he seems sincere)... the more I realize how much theism is really just about mental gymnastics and self-delusion to cope with the shittiness of life more easily.

I'm just thrilled you find me mildly intelligent. 

Or maybe just honest and sincere... I'll take those too!

Quote:Does God create you to "be human" because it is good to be human? or

Is it good to "be human" because God creates you to be human?

Quote:Not exactly euthyphro is it?

Indeed it is.....and I'd struggle to see why you didn't realize it...except for having left out the bit I added, in bold, above.

(October 16, 2017 at 4:04 pm)Ignorant Wrote: I'm just thrilled you find me mildly intelligent. 

Yeah. That's how I would describe your level.

Lol.

-I think that the nominalist approach you're grasping for, btw, is a comment on the nature of god, not human beings.  Not that I would share the opinion that it escapes the dilemma...but, figured it might help to steer you towards the position you're advocating for.

While I appreciate the help, I have been trying to communicate that I am NOT a nominalist, and only a nominalist has a problem with choosing between moral value inherent to human nature on the one hand and divine command of moral value without relation to human nature on the other.

I have been trying to say that the third option is that the inherent moral value of human action IS DIRECTLY DETERMINED BY the inherent telos of human nature which, in turn, is the free creation of god. God creates humanity in such a way that human nature itself communicates what is truly good or bad for human nature.

Your dilemma comes across to me as this:

Do things exist because they are good? or

Are things good because they exist?

And when "being" and "goodness" are interchangeable... it isn't much of a dilemma.

I'm wrong all of the time so I'm happy to be shown how.

I'm a universalist.

For me: Redness is the totality of all red objects. For example.

You're being repeatedly shown how.  

The question being asked is not why "things" exist, and so asking that question or answering that question, nor conflating or equating terms in that question will approach the central issue of the dilemma.

In any case, in your elaboration above, you refer to telos and gods creation..which is an explicit acceptance of the second horn of the dilemma no matter how you phrase it.   You haven't resolved the dilemma or offered a third option, merely sided with the second horn.  Well, okay.......but.....

The god that created the human, the god that determined it's purpose or aim..also extorts it's creation to rape and genocide.  That is, apparently, also an aim or purpose of the same god - at the very least contained therein.  If that's what we're going by to determine whether or not something is good...then those exhortations to rape and genocide were good.  Obviously the authors of the OT thought so, they go to some length to describe how certain characters had fucked up for not adhering to that objective fully. In this acceptance, we've decided that failure to adhere or fully manifest whatever purpose or objective god has or creates us for is the reason that something is bad, but not anything about the act in particular, some other standard apart from gods designation of purpose.

(October 16, 2017 at 4:58 pm)Khemikal Wrote: In any case, in your elaboration above, you refer to telos and gods creation..which is an explicit acceptance of the second horn of the dilemma no matter how you phrase it.   You haven't resolved the dilemma or offered a third option, merely sided with the second horn.  Well, okay.......but..... [1]

The god that created the human, the god that determined it's purpose or aim..also extorts it's creation to rape and genocide. [2] That is, apparently, also an aim or purpose of the same god. [3] If that;s what we're going by to determine whether or not something is good...then those exhortations to rape and genocide were good. [4] Obviously the authors of the OT thought so, they go to some length to describe how certain characters had fucked up for not adhering to that objective fully. [5]

1) Things are the way they are because god commands/creates that they be so. Yes. How is that mutually exclusive from the idea that things have their own inherent goodness?

2) I don't follow. What about human nature leads you to believe that rape and/or genocide leads to people becoming the best sort of humans?

3) What, exactly, makes that apparent?

4) But we aren't going by that. I have stated repeatedly that human nature/being-human is what determines/communicates what is morally good. I am no divine command theorist.

5) I'm not so sure it is obvious. They are, at best, confusing on these subjects and, at worst, contradictory. It is hardly obvious what they were trying to communicate.

(October 16, 2017 at 5:09 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 1) Things are the way they are because god commands/creates that they be so. Yes. How is that mutually exclusive from the idea that things have their own inherent goodness?

If there's an inherent goodness to something than this must be, by definition, apart from god.  Something that's good in it;s own right is not good because of anything to do with a god.  Not by being created by a god, and not because of some whispy telos.  You'd have to side with the first horn.  

Quote:2) I don't follow. What about human nature leads you to believe that rape and/or genocide leads to people becoming the best sort of humans?

It doesn't matter whether or not I think so.  If rape or genocide were included in gods aim or purpose, and goodness was determined by this, then they would be good.  This is what leads some to state that such a morality is arbitrary, however, a person who sides with the second horn responds to this by invoking telos.  The morality isn't arbitrary, it's definitely been determined by something - the purpose or objective decided by a god.  I think this might be why you're confusing the telos response as a third option to the dilemma, because it's commonly used to respond to criticisms of arbitrarity arising from acceptance of the second horn.  

Quote:3) What, exactly, makes that apparent?

Magic book...but frankly, it doesn't matter. Siding with the second fundamentally affirms this regardless of whether or not ones pet deity has some objective or purpose that we might describe as evil. It's just a lucky coincidence that it doesn't, if and when it doesn't.

Quote:4) But we aren't going by that. I have stated repeatedly that human nature/being-human is what determines/communicates what is morally good. I am no divine command theorist.

I can repeat the dilemma for human nature without a reference to god.

Do human beings love the good because it is good, or
Is it good because it is loved by human beings?

-Being a divine command or human command moral theorist is functionally equivalent to the dilemma.

Quote:5) I'm not so sure it is obvious. They are, at best, confusing on these subjects and, at worst, contradictory. It is hardly obvious what they were trying to communicate.

I take the authors for their word.  It's not my problem that they can't all agree, nor does their disagreement with each other cloud what they were individually conveying.