("God provides a standard to emulate" is an infomercial for Rabbi Averick)
|Line 127:||Line 127:|
There's no need to keep adding this discussion to this page.
There's no need to keep adding this discussion to this page.
Revision as of 17:23, 26 April 2011
I don't see the section on game theory as directly related to the Euthyphro dilemma. It is a useful jumping off point to talk about secular morality, so perhaps a new article on that subject should be started and the game theory section moved there.
Question: should there be two separate articles on "morality" and "secular morality"? Another question: are "morality" and "ethics" the same subject, or do they require different articles?
--Kazim 17:39, 13 August 2006 (MST)
- Yeah, that was my attempt at rationalizing what the "external force" is from which God learns what is and isn't good. I agree that it doesn't really fit in well here, so feel free to move it (or delete it, if you want to obliterate my deathless prose :-) ).
- Also, I have no idea what the difference is between "ethics" and "morality". I've added these to the "wanted pages" page, in hopes that someone will define them.
- --Arensb 20:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)
The content of this article were removed as they were incorporated into the moral argument page. I've rolled this back to the pre-deletion state. At worst, this should have been changed to a re-direct and the moral argument page should include a section on the Euthyphro dilemma. However, it's also not unreasonable to have some nearly-duplicate content if the subject is one which we reference by name or where there is a potential difference. The moral argument page could reference this page, include it, etc. I haven't made up my mind on what the preferred solution should be - but before we go deleting content, let's see if we can figure out the best way to get to virtually-identical ideas to mesh. I'll be looking over both pages and encourage others to do the same - but, for now, let's keep this content available. Sans Deity 14:32, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
A better summary.
1. If god is the author of morality, then god himself cannot be said to be moral. In this case, god is not truly interested in morality per se, but merely obedience.
2. If god is not the author of morality, then belief in god is not necessary to be moral. It is still rendered questionable as to whether god even cares about morality, since he is uninvolved in the concept. --Yeahsurewhatever 10:12, 15 March 2009 (CDT)
- Your point 1 seems to be a non sequitur. How does "God is not moral" follow from "God is the author of morality"? (Which I understand to mean "God made up the rules as to what is and isn't moral.) Couldn't God hypothetically decide that killing people is bad, then go kill a bunch of people in violation of his own rule? --Arensb 22:15, 15 March 2009 (CDT)
- God can be the author of morality and be said to be moral if-and-only-if moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Keep in mind, however, that this means "God is moral" is an ontological statement, not a moral valuation; i.e., God is the final reference point in moral predication. -- Ryft 21:37, 23 August 2009 (CDT)
- You sound like you are following the argument of Thomas Aquinas, who answered that morality is the nature of God and as such his commands are not themselves moral or immoral but are rather an expression of his moral nature. But all this does is answer the question - he chose one of the two options Euthyphro and Socrates gave (that is, he's saying that things are okay to do if God says to do them). He did not actually answer the dilemma. --Jaban 10:34, 25 August 2009 (CDT)
I disagree that this is a paradox, and it isn't circular either, here is why:
The fist paragraph states that whatever God commands is good (or moral) by definition (according to Christians). The second sentence is: things are good because God commands it. This is not circular reasoning, this is simply restating the definition.
Further, if you accept this definition, then there is no sense talking about an "external source" for morality, because by definition there is no such thing. So the answer to the dilemma is: Something is good because God commands it. And of course if you do something else, that's called immoral.
Now, in theory this could mean that God could command killing and stealing (as he did according to the Bible). But at that point it would not matter, because per definition that would be moral. If you "believe", you might trust that that act has some ultimate purpose for the benefit of humans or humanity as a whole, but that does not change anything, and does not cause a paradox either. Remember, with the "rape" argument, you are trying to use your current sense of morality to judge something that would be happening in a completely different moral value system, this is not a good argument.
As for the quote from Bertrand Russell. I agree with the conclusion, that in this case, it would be pointless to apply "moral" or "immoral" to God, since it is in fact defined as his wishes or acts. So what? It still makes sense for us to "hope" or "trust" that God's "plan" aligns with our best interests (this last bit might be another definition of what's "good", for us at least).
The conclusion is, that if you believe that God exists, define moral as his wishes/acts/commands, than this dilemma is not unsolvable.
--Robert 06:02, 19 August 2009 (CDT)
Morality versus Ethics
As I understand it (in this context), 'ethics' examines and/or compares theories of values and morals, while 'morality' examines the implications and applications of a specific theory of ethics. -- Ryft 21:30, 23 August 2009 (CDT)
What the hell does this mean?
"Theists will claim that because God's nature is supposedly eternal and unchanging, that God's nature was not "created" by himself or otherwise. To overcome the objection, it may be necessary to restate the dilemma as a true dichotomy: either (i) Morality is derived from God or (ii) Morality is not derived from God. The burden of proof remains with the apologist to demonstrate that (i) is a true claim, irrespective of whether such morality is dependent on God's fiat or God's nature. It falls to the apologist to justify the claim that God's nature is necessarily good, and therefore that the various immoralities of scripture may be considered moral."
This was added to the article. What does it mean? Is it even necessary?
'Is morality derived from God?'- is a question which is begging the question since it needs a god to exist for morality to be derived from him, even though God's nature is not created and morality is independent of a deity (this means premise 1 of the moral argument is refuted).
- It does seem redundant. I'm in favor of deleting this section. --Arensb 17:34, 27 February 2010 (CST)
- Agreed. Same with the "not unsolvable" section above. Both miss the point of what the dilemma is. --Jaban 01:35, 28 February 2010 (CST)
Avoiding the Euthyphro problem
Of course, this argument is sound and is useful in refuting the moral argument. However, the moral argument can be reformulated to suit the theist.
1. Universal moral laws require a universal 'spreader'.
2. Universal moral laws exist.
3. Universal 'spreader' (aka God) exists.
How can we avoid this argument?
Also, I would like to share wikipedia's info on the dilemma. Please, have a look.
- Seriously? I don't mean to sound insulting but if you need to ask that question, you probably shouldn't be editing a counter-apologetics wiki.
- - 1 is an unfounded assertion... not only have they not demonstrated this to be true but it's possible that such a moral law might arise as an emergent property.
- - 2 simply isn't true.. there is no evidence that universal moral laws exist and every reason to think they don't. - Sans Deity 02:46, 1 March 2010 (CST)
What the hell? This is actually a common argument and I wanted to share this one because Euthyphro does notb adress it. This is a counter-apologetics wiki and the main page states exactly my point: "We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "evidence" for religious claims." Shouldn't we be adressing this argument?
- Sure we should, my point was that asking how to address it SHOULD have been unnecessary - you should know how to address it if you're contributing here. That was my point. Additionally, your claim that Euthyphro doesn't address it is as irrelevant as claiming that evolution doesn't address origins. As if Euthyphro was some catch-all for all version of moral arguments. Sans Deity 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)
I DO know how to address it but I wanted to take a vote if we should add it and how we should respond to it. I did the same when deleting the unnecessary section in the Euthyphro dilemma article. I don't like arbitrarily adding shit and fucking up the wiki. I can certainly do that but the purpose of my question was to get a swift refutation of the revised moral argument. Arguing this new argument takes more effort on the atheists' side and more time. Atheistic arguments should be succinct and swiftly delivered. The purpose of the euthyprho dilemma is ending the moral argument before it started ( no need for explaining the atheistic premises of how morality is naturalistic). On the other hand, your counter-arguments take a number of sub-premises and further explanation. The theist will take advantage of that. For example, premise 1 of this new moral argument would be supported by the impossibility of universal human legislation. Second premise can be easily argued. The theist will definitely argue the existence of objective moral truths and we are back to the stretched atheistic refutation which will take ages to discuss. Also, if you don't admit the existence of objective moral truths, the theist will appeal to emotion by implying that atheists are evil as they don't recognize what eevryone recognizes as good- a soft spot owned by the theist. Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?
And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument. Your article there is very poor. I should not be discussing this here but you need to know where your own wiki is the poorest in handling the best theistic arguments.
- The article could be improved, many of them could. That's the purpose of having a wiki where a community can work together on responses. However, your implication that Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments is particularly ironic when you're seemingly unable to recognize the scope of Euthyphro...and just a bit further down in your response you're going to demonstrate that you are certainly not ready for prime time. Sans Deity 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)
Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments. Ontological argument is dead (however, you might not have realized that there is a modal ontological argument advanced by Plantinga, which I introduced to this wiki). Design argument is dead (see my ultimate 747 gambit article, which I introduced and provided unprecedented counter-apologetic responses). Pascal's wager is dead. Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?
"The Cosmological argument does not prove that the cause was a supernatural cause, or not a natural cause."
Craig adresses this point. You might want to mention that. This cause must be timeless, personal, yada yada yada. Even if it is wrong, it deserves a response (for the atheists' sake).
From wikipedia: With Kalām's conclusion logically following from its premises, Craig concludes by arguing that impersonal, scientific causation exterior to the universe could not cause a finite universe. He gives the example of the temperature being below zero infinitely, and thus any water, although caused to be frozen by the subzero temperature, could not begin to freeze; it would be frozen infinitely. Similarly, any condition that could cause the universe to exist would have to be infinitely, and thus the universe would also exist infinitely. The solution, Craig posits, is that the cause of the universe's beginning to exist must be a personal agent. Craig has extended this argument to conclude that the cause must also be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.
Circularity- can't logic be admitted in NBE?
Counter-example- Craig addresses this point. These quantum flucutuations require pre-existing physical entities, returning to the question "what created the vacuum?".
Where's the kalam argument for atheists?
- And that's the point at which you demonstrate that you're not yet ready to contribute here. Where's the Kalam argument for atheists? There isn't one, nor does there need to be one. That question betrays that you've been bamboozled by the burden of proof and that you find arguments from ignorance to still have teeth. As if the lack of an 'atheist Kalam' is remotely relevant to the soundness of Kalam... Sans Deity 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)
No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do! This is not a shift in the burden of proof, it is acounter-argument to the kalam which demonstates the inadequacy of the God explanation. This is exactly why the article is poor. It's amazing how you have no knowledge about this COMMONLY-used theistic argument. It is the most basic argument and you don't even know half of it (as demonstrated in this poorly-constructed kalam article).
Where's quentin smith?
Philosopher Quentin Smith states that "the universe...both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist."
Where's imaginary time?
Where's the hartle-hawking model?
- You were free to add any of those, instead of just whining about why they aren't there. It's clear that we got off on the wrong foot here, but my current role is little more than policeman and editor, I've got more projects than available time. If you think you've got a handle on Kalam, by all means attack it. I don't think you're up to the task but I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Sincerely. I'm not pissed, I'm not frustrated, I'm just being honest...from what I've seen, I am not convinced that you're really ready to be taking on these counter-apologetics. I'd like nothing more than to be wrong...because we'd all benefit. But, this conversation is currently a waste of my time and there's nothing I despise more than having my time wasted. Sans Deity 10:48, 1 March 2010 (CST)
I am going to; it's not whining. You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki.
Go read your User talk:Wissam hemadeh page
There's no need to keep adding this discussion to this page.
"God provides a standard to emulate" is an infomercial for Rabbi Averick
This section presents an alternative argument against Euthyphro which essentially redefines morality as closeness to God. Fair enough, but it presents a large book quote which evades the implications entirely and goes off on a tangent about how it is ridiculous to compare God with the Incredible Hulk. Goodness is supposed to be an essential part of God's nature, not the nature of the Hulk, Jerry Seinfeld, or whoever, so the quote is off-topic at best, dishonest at worst.
After some invective, the section ends without any rebuttal. I've never edited Iron Chariots before and feel I probably wouldn't live up to the responsibility, but someone should cut out the sections of the book quote that are irrelevant and hopefully address the central claim.