(May 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm)whateverist Wrote: ...the new pope has declared that we are all saved by the sacrifice of that guy, what's his name .. oh yeah, Jesus. Atheists too. Good works are now officially enough.

The Whore of Babylon never ceases to arrogate the authority of God to itself. =-0

Babylon's got a whore? I am so gonna bang that bitch.

---

(May 23, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: You'll have to settle for a kudos equipped with my unsatisfied intentions to Rep!

You sir, are too kind. I've noticed a similar irreverence and whimsy in your own turns of phrase. If you stick around I suspect we may be able to tickle each other's funny bones a good deal more.

(May 24, 2013 at 12:49 am)whateverist Wrote: Babylon's got a whore? I am so gonna bang that bitch.

Careful. You could catch a case of rosary beads.

(May 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 22, 2013 at 8:41 pm)Sal Wrote: Nice hand-wave.

That's all an appeal to that 'dilemma' deserves because it only applies to polytheistic gods.

It's origins were between Socrates and Euthyphro discussing moral actions, but it has been a stop-gap for monotheistic religions as well ever since it was first worded with plenty of hand waves against it, From Socrates to Thomas Aquinas to William James. No theologian has been able to explain it away without a considerable effort of edifying their terms upon how they view their particular version of god.

Essentially, it's a dilemma because it makes an astute observation about the question of morality and where morals come from. Plainly stated it's:

Quote:"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Source

All the "answers" to this dilemma are built upon submitting that one cannot understand god's reason for authoring morality, IOW: we're incapable of understanding god's moral authority. There's one major problem with this approach, which Aquinas missed (and several theologians have echoed throughout history) yet used: If humans are unable to understand the basis of morality of that god authors, then they're equally unable to understand the moral itself and thus it falls back to an arbitrary command.

Saying stuff like "God's nature is good" or that "God's nature is beyond reproach" just makes it a corollary regression, i.e. instead of god it's his nature that's in question, which ultimately changes nothing about where morals come from.

But really, all this hand-waving really accounts for is that people have decided beforehand what is moral and what isn't before even hearing of Euthyphro dilemma, which only elicits rationalizations by theists.

(May 24, 2013 at 12:49 am)whateverist Wrote:

(May 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The Whore of Babylon never ceases to arrogate the authority of God to itself. =-0

Babylon's got a whore? I am so gonna bang that bitch.

---

(May 23, 2013 at 10:16 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: You'll have to settle for a kudos equipped with my unsatisfied intentions to Rep!

You sir, are too kind. I've noticed a similar irreverence and whimsy in your own turns of phrase. If you stick around I suspect we may be able to tickle each other's funny bones a good deal more.

Flattery will get you everywhere with me, and makes me more inclined to agree with your opinions. I beg that you remain cognizant of this circumstantial gullibility so as not to lead me down a path of fools. With that said, I too anticipate a future of auspiciously symbiotic discourse! He he he...

(May 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Sal Wrote: All the "answers" to this dilemma are built upon submitting that one cannot understand god's reason for authoring morality,...one major problem with this approach, which Aquinas missed...If humans are unable to understand the basis of morality of that god authors, then they're equally unable to understand the moral itself and thus it falls back to an arbitrary command.

Your interpretation of Aquinas seems colored by your desire to see his argument fail. The dilemma depends on our conception of what is good, making it a problem of epistomology.

Our conceptions of what is good come from judgments we make about the various states of affairs. We compare these with each other, find common features, and conceive a universal category of goodness. Since those common features accord with attributes of God, God serves a universal standard.

Thus the dilemma is not a dilemma about God. The dilemma is about how we identify what is good. It is not like an ideal good exists apart from God, it is whether God's nature matches our human abstract conception of good for which God can be a common standard. Or to put it another way. Since our conception of an ideal good is identical to the nature of God, we feel justified in saying that God's nature is the ideal good.

I think it is important to add the following. One thing that makes Christianity unique is that God is not just a collection of abstract principles. He is a real Person that exemplifies the highest standard we can conceive. Thus serving Him is following a just and merciful king, not just adhering to a particular philosophy.

Thus you either accept God as the standard or you do not. "Choose this day whom ye shall serve." Should you obey God? Its up to you. Choose wisely.

-Or you "choose god" as one standard while simultaneously holding up a different (and possibly more stringent) standard in your day to day life amongst your fellow man. Special passes for special friends.

(May 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Our conceptions of what is good come from judgments we make about the various states of affairs. We compare these with each other, find common features, and conceive a universal category of goodness. Since those common features accord with attributes of God, God serves a universal standard.

All through reasoned discourse and experience without ever invoking an authority on who's right.

Except, who gets to decide what attribute is of god and its "universal standard"? The pope? Your local priest? The Council of Nicea?

If it's agreements from judgments about the state of affairs - then it's merely a human consensus. No god needed.

(May 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Thus you either accept God as the standard or you do not. "Choose this day whom ye shall serve." Should you obey God? Its up to you. Choose wisely.

How would I be able to determine if that standard is arbitrary or not?

Again, if I simply "obey", then I wouldn't know whatever authority (those speaking in behalf of god, e.g. priests) would be good or bad - somewhere down the line, no matter how much one dodges, one is effectively using ones own ability to reason to determine what is moral without ever invoking a god or any authority other than ones own reason, lest one submits to authority and in effect following commands, not a morality.

---

Personally, I think morality is derived from our interaction with our immediate environment, in particular those who respond to stimuli (from a plant to another human being). I don't think this interaction gives in any sense an objective morality, but merely that the interaction with the immediate environment shapes my moral values and (cultural) ethic. My main tool for this is comparison between own stimuli with the stimuli I can see in my immediate environment. We have more asserted names for these stimuli like "joy" "suffering" and whatnot, and since I receive no stimuli response from, e.g., a stone, I can only reason that it has no moral value (no offence to people with pet rocks).

(May 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I think it is important to add the following. One thing that makes Christianity unique is that God is not just a collection of abstract principles. He is a real Person that exemplifies the highest standard we can conceive. Thus serving Him is following a just and merciful king, not just adhering to a particular philosophy.

Then, why does God's behavior, in scripture, fall short of even the lowest standard to which I would hold any human being? There is nothing about God which is good according to the standard of contemporary human civilization. In humans, we consider behaviors such as jealousy, selfishness, murderous rage, and blackmail to be negative. These are all behaviors which are not just occasionally committed by God but innate to his personality.

It may be sufficient for you that you think God is good just because God says he's good, but if that's what you consider to be the 'highest standard we can conceive', that only demonstrates the weakness of your standards.

(May 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Then, why does God's behavior, in scripture, fall short of even the lowest standard to which I would hold any human being?

This is your judgement based on the literal interpretation of Scriptures to which you cling. And you refuse to question this fundamentalist mindset because without it you could not justify your anti-religious bigotry.

-and as soon as you depart from a literal standard you can say absolutely nothing about god which does not immediately fall to the axe of your own imagination and desires. If you're going to write fanfic..and that fanfic is going to alter whats in canon, own it Chad.