Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 4:15 am
Quote:Wiki
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
An interesting thought.
Theists, judging by what God has done to his own creations, why would anyone mention God and good in the same sentence? 
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 6:53 am
I think the answer to that is pretty simple. People like it when the sun comes up yet again, and the birds are singing, and there are pretty flowers in the fields, and they know that they didn't make any of those things. They also have a tendency to anthropomorphize things: "Hello, today, Mr. Flower? Need some water?" and so on.
Posts: 3541
Threads: 0
Joined: January 20, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 6:58 am
(October 13, 2017 at 4:15 am)ignoramus Wrote: [...]Theists, judging by what God has done to his own creations, why would anyone mention God and good in the same sentence?
Because if you do not suck up to god - he might do to you, what he did to those other creations. 
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 7:10 pm
(This post was last modified: October 13, 2017 at 7:10 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
I always find it amusing when theists respond by saying it's a false dilemma because God *is* goodness... and yet they fail to acknowledge how that completely fails to address the fact that God is still completely redundant because goodness is all you need. And they also completely fail to explain how such a shitty God=goodness too of course. They merely redefine goodness to be "whatever God says or does" even when what God says and does in the Bible is morally repugnant and very very not good.
Posts: 44011
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm
I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:
-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.
-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: October 13, 2017 at 9:50 pm by ignoramus.)
I also find it baffling how a good christian can just arrogantly and blatantly ignore the divine wisdom of their creator which they worship? Theists, you have the microphone. Is it the innerant word of God or not? Yes or No answers will only be accepted as valid. Everything else is just apologetics.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 9:57 pm
I agree with SodHammingBrian on this one. I bet a lot of theists twist themselves into pieces because they know how full of shit they are but they just can't cope with life without belief that they will go to heaven and SURELY NO ONE HAS TO EVER REALLY DIE OH GOD GOD NO!
That's why theists have to rely on their mental gymnastics. They have to mentally loop around those bars otherwise they really will go completely fucking loopy.
Brihammidsoddito
Posts: 9338
Threads: 19
Joined: September 8, 2015
Reputation:
79
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 13, 2017 at 10:52 pm
(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:
-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.
-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.
Boru
It's mostly just not even knowing what is actually in that book. We (back when I was a regular attendee) just listened to the stuff said, and walked away feeling better in some way, if only for the experience of community, or knowing that we were "good" for having been there. I sure as shit never got around to thinking about "god" as a moral being in those days.
Once I started looking at it, I was disgusted and had to leave it, scared witless, in the beginning, that I was going to hell. I worked out of that bullshit, too, with more education.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
Posts: 708
Threads: 8
Joined: February 22, 2015
Reputation:
14
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 16, 2017 at 4:48 am
(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:
-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.
-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.
Boru
Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.
But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.
Posts: 3164
Threads: 117
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
(October 16, 2017 at 4:48 am)Ignorant Wrote: (October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:
-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.
-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.
Boru
Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.
But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.
Huh?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
