(November 28, 2017 at 11:38 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:(November 28, 2017 at 10:30 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Plato contrasts the arbitrary will of the Greek pantheon with the ultimate Ideal. This concept is further developed not only by Aristotle but by other Platonists like Plotinus. Thus we get the God of Classical Theism. The Scholastics considered this pretty much the limit of what could be known of God apart from special revelation. So the difference is this. The gods of the Greek pantheon would issue commands of the "Because I said so" variety; whereas the Christian God says, "Be perfect as I am Perfect" which aligns nicely with the Platonic notion of "The Good".
No. The Christian God beats his chest in front of a bunch of shepherds and says,"FEAR ME!!! (and while you're at it, be sure to get circumcised)." You're adding a layer of nuance that the Judeo-Christian deity does not deserve. The notion of God that you speak of was formed by Augustine (who was exposed to Greek thought) and then extrapolated by folks like Anselm and Aquinas (similarly familiar with Plato and the Greeks). When you read the Old Testament, you can plainly see that Yahweh is just as petty as any Olympian, if not more so. I'll admit that the New Testament (or at least the Gospels when read charitably) takes us a few steps closer to Plato's Forms, but not much farther.
But all of that is beside the point. Euthyphro is an Early work. Plato hadn't really developed his theory of Forms when he wrote it. For all we know, it could have been Plato's rendition of an actual conversation that took place between Socrates and Euthyphro. This is a Socratic work. The arguments are rooted in a simple dialectic and should be viewed as apart from Plato's later elaborations. Either the God(s) value something arbitrarily or for reasons. The point he is trying to make is that reason and careful discernment can lead to correct valuation independently of what the God(s) think of it. In response to your original statement, reason gives us a way to avoid nihilism without "Divinity." To chain the Euthyphro argument to the God Plato speaks of in later works (like Timaeus) is taking it out of context.
I find it interesting that you see Christianity through the lens of the scholastics. It's a hell of a lot more sane than fundamentalism, I'll give you that. I haven't read anything by Plotinus, and my knowledge of Aristotle is rudimentary. But I really don't see what they can add to the conversation here. Your claim was that nihilism is inescapable without Divinity, and that "no historic or current atheistic philosophy" avoids it. I don't know if you can call Plato "atheistic" philosophy, but he certainly provides a way to avoid nihilism without Divinity.
Well, I will consed your point. The concept of God presented in the OT, in a plain reading, does at least appear the be arbitrary, vengeful, and has a decidedly national character. That is most certainly a conversation we could have. I see the problem largely within a framework of progressive revelation; although, I draw the line at dispensationalism. And I certainly don't want to get into a proof-texting argument where I present verses suggesting that later interpretations of God's nature are implicit in the text, since the counter verses would likely be presented from the perspective of a different hermeneutic.
You may be at least partially correct about the work of Plato. I'd have to go back and re-read since I'm drawing largely on my memory of study I did a long time ago. I would be very reluctant to accept the notion that any of the dialog is actually Socratic. Plato seems to have fictionalized Socrates to present his own philosophy. And I really find it difficult to call any from of Platonism atheistic given its close association with mysticism.
