I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.
This is my second post which analyzes MS Quixote's argument for why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism rather than atheism.
Last time, I explained my assertion that one cannot avoid the ED by positing that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature:
The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.
(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)
MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.
Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:
Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:
No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,
No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,
Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.
You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?
Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.
Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?
Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.
Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.
It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.
God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.
Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?
If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".
Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.
Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire
Posts
15 comments:
"So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good."
Tele,
Atheists, theists, agnostics, and anyone else you can think of with few exceptions, recognizes the good. Why would you suggest we suddenly don't recognize it when it comes to God?
BTW-great first comment of yours over there at DA...
**recognize**
very irritating...
As I said in the comments section of Part One in reply to your comments, I agree that we are all capable of seeing the good.
What I would like to explore further is how we could see the good in any potential God, with respect to questions like divine hiddenness and things of that sort.
Since I don't know any God so well, how could I declare that a God is good?
I don't suggest that we can't recognize things that are "good": I just struggle to see how anyone could recognize that in a God.
What is the evidence for a God? Scriptures, personal testimony, theology (maybe).
None of these have convinced me that if there is a God, that s(he) is good; necessarily, it would also help if I believed in a God before considering potential goodness of such a being or beings.
Btw, thanks on the comment compliment. I am serious that my atheism is no more culturally influenced than my heliocentrism (even though both are heavily influenced by culture) - what I mean to say is that, the evidence indicates to me that we orbit the sun, and it doesn't indicate to me that there is a god or gods. Of course, if I lived in a different place or time, I would likely have entirely different beliefs. But I disagree that atheism and individual religions are really on the same playing field as far as that goes.
I have no problem with recognizing "good" or "the good", as I keep saying. But how would we know that any God is good? That is my question, and that is what I am asking with these posts.
For me, everything boils down to our knowledge of gods:
How can we have a personal, loving, caring God that is also beyond our knowing? If such a God is beyond our knowing, then how can religious people claim to know anything about such a God? It's a paradox, seemingly.
And why do people of all religions seem to have eerily similar experiences?
The sum of all these questions seems to point toward naturalistic explanations of religion.
Teleprompter,
If there is no absolute good, by fiat. Then there is no good. Good has no real meaning. It is only what we wish it to be, and there can be no real differentiation between good and evil. If there is no perfect good then there is no degrees of perfection. Evil, injustice, sorrow, pain, has no meaning and is no different than good, justice, happiness, etc.
Something has to be perfectly good in order for any of these ideas to have meaning. Not just something, but someone. A personal mind/nature is needed to be that perfect goodness or else it still has no real meaning. Plato acknowledged the need for the good, but rooted it in some external intangible abstract.
We know good and evil exist. So the only way for those ideas to have real meaning is if there is a Good. Then good is that which lines up with the good and evil is that which is contrary to what is good.
If you wish to dispense with the idea of a good God, you have to dispense with the idea of any real goodness or evilness in this world. You are then left with neutrality except with regard to our subjective feelings about things.
"How can we have a personal, loving, caring God that is also beyond our knowing? If such a God is beyond our knowing, then how can religious people claim to know anything about such a God?"
I would say that He is not beyond our knowing. There is more about Him than we can know, but we can know Him more and more all the time. We can know about Him to some degree, and we can know Him relationally/personally, but no matter how much our capacity is for knowing Him in both these manners, He is greater still. There will always be more to know. See the difference? We can know in part, but not fully, but that doesn't mean He is beyond our ability to know. He has revealed Himself so that we can know in part.
Too many damned Philosophers on the planet!
Teleprompter, you make a brilliant argument (much better than I would have) however, you're arguing the wrong question (which makes the fact that you did it well even more impressive).
But to defend Euthyphro against a positive attack, is to miss it's point. The Euthyphro argument was the absolute ancient genius of it's time. It is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" of ancient Greece. Yes, it is unfortunate that it took us more than 2000 years to rediscover it, nonetheless it is a reply not an argument.
What Euthyphro does, is one important thing; it pushes the, "Where does morality come from?" question back on the person that is asking it. It makes it OK to answer that question, "I don't know, but neither do you, so what is your point?"
Since the discovery of evolution and testable concepts such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism, Euthyphro should almost be looked at as a quaint anachronism of a specific argument (however, still a brilliant way to show the defect of an argument from ignorance from a general standpoint). It is however still a great way to end an argument when you don't have time to teach kin selection and reciprocal altruism to someone (as well as another example of why the argument from ignorance is incoherent).
So, if someone wants to start out with, "Let me show you how Euthyphro proves..." The only question that should be asked is, "Can you provide the context that that argument was first given in?"
If someone tries to, fine you can point out that they have taken it out of context and you can ask them to move on. If they can't you have two ways to go. The easiest but not as powerful is, "come back when you can." The more powerful is, "Well, please let me provide the context" and then do.
Shifting the burden of proof is a common theist move. We have ALL of the evidence on our side and we should NEVER let them do it!
Oh, my bad...
Then the closer is, "So show whether something is good because god commands it (meaning if god commands rape, genocicde, or me killing you right now, it must be a good thing) or that morality existis outside of god and he only passes it on is somehow a proof that true morality couldn't exist without your god ... I'll wait...waiting, waiting...crickets again."
I'm telling you, never let someone shift the burden of proof away from that which has been tested and proven trustworthy.
"Since the discovery of evolution and testable concepts such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism"
Quite irrelevant to the discussion, Tully. If these concepts were demonstrated, it would not demonstrate that they created morality, just that they were potentially means utilized to have us apprehend the objective morality Euthyphro attempts to deny.
If research hypothetically demonstrated that moral principles are derived as an emergent property of human behavior, would that not be relevant to the discussion of whether an objective morality exists?
Quixote,
When you wrote, ""Since the discovery of evolution and testable concepts such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism"
Quite irrelevant to the discussion, Tully. If these concepts were demonstrated, it would not demonstrate that they created morality, just that they were potentially means utilized to have us apprehend the objective morality Euthyphro attempts to deny."
Please define the tenets of "objective morality?" You're the one using the term, you must define what it is.
Can you define it? I'll wait...
Bet you can't. See, "objective morality" is an equivocation argument. People naturally assume that their definition of "objective morality" naturally matches everyone else's and that they can not possibly be wrong about it.
So lay it out for me. What are the absolute moral rules. What can never be violated under any circumstances and support why.
When you can, you can come and talk to me about "objective morality." Until then, your just blowing smoke (equivocating).
Oh, by the way,
Quixote,
If ever someone were to provide a powerful argument for a well defined "objective morality," they would still face answering Euthyphro. Well, we truly can all agree on this, so how does that mean it has to be supernatural? Why wouldn't a species that evolved to be social agree to that rule? Or more importantly, can you find an objective moral truth that a species that evolved to be social should reject (absolutely counter to natural selection) that we all accept?
Then you have a powerful argument. If anyone can say, that "Hey, here is is this objective moral truth, that everyone knows, that guaranteed our extinction on the savanna. But we are still here."
Damn, not only would I be interested in that, I'd be absolutely fascinated.
"People naturally assume that their definition of "objective morality" naturally matches everyone else's and that they can not possibly be wrong about it."
I agree, Tully. definitions are important, and I can think of multiple conceptions of objective morality. So, not only would you lose your bet, you'd lose it more than once. None of this means that none of the definitions are correct, however.
"What can never be violated under any circumstances and support why."
I think you're asking what ought not be violated. Your question, though a non sequitur, is answered by situational absolutism. It's not a defeater for an objective moral system, as even non-theists will agree under their objectively moral systems.
"they would still face answering Euthyphro."
I answered it, claiming that it argues in favor of theism. that's what prompted Tele to write these two posts.
"Why wouldn't a species that evolved to be social agree to that rule?"
That was my comment to you, Tully, and why you're objection was not an objection. all evolution might prove is the mechanism by which we apprehended an objective morality.
"Then you have a powerful argument."
Thank you. I agree.
""Hey, here is is this objective moral truth, that everyone knows, that guaranteed our extinction on the savanna"
An objective moral truth would be true if there were no one around to know it...
MS Quixote "An objective moral truth would be true if there were no one around to know it..."
Precisely.
Tully, you seem to be confusing objective with absolute. Objective is something external to us. We may apprehend it through reason, but we don't create truth. We discover truth.
Certainly people create systems of law for others all the time, but there is something outside of that by which we judge if those laws are just or right.
Quixote has addressed the Euthyphro Dilemma and does so quiet well.
I am SOO MADD I just have to unload somewhere!!!!
I am an atheist and I have grown very disheartened by our self-defeatist culture. I was corresponding with one of the biggest atheist bloggers – the guy who guys by the name of ‘Sabio Lantz’ (he acknowledges that this is not his real name) over at http://triangulations.wordpress.com
I told him that he should read this new book called the Real Messiah by Stephan Huller which I had been turned on to by Robert Price. I wanted to reach out to every atheist blogger to tell them that we can finally disprove the entire rationale of Christianity at one fell swoop.
He send me back a nasty email and then proceeds to slam the book in a manner which is worse than anything ever said about the Real Messiah by religious nutbars:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Messiah-Throne-Origins-Christianity/dp/1906787123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246919916&sr=8-1
His negative review of this book is a depressing demonstration of the selfishness and self-defeatism that often pervades individuals on our side of the debate:
“My site and many others were spammed for the sale of this book. That alone is enough to stop me purchasing it until I hear amazing reviews from those I trust.”
The point is that I actually sent him links to positive reviews for
the book in Publishers Weekly:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6640240.html&
And a list of New Testament scholars who support the book:
http://plainview.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/jesus-was-not-the-messiah/
The aforementioned site was from a CHRISTIAN BLOG for God’s sake!!!
Look at the objectivity even with these people when compared to us.
Now I am not against someone having their own opinion about a book. ‘Sabio’ or whatever his fake name is can say whatever he wants about the Real Messiah IF HE READ THE BOOK. Yet it seems entirely self-defeatist to me for we atheists to deliberately sabotage a work whose specific intention is to destroy the Christian paradigm.
Unlike our enemies in the Religious Right we are rarely united, politically naïve and basically content to sit around engaging in intellectual masturbation while our rights are systematically stripped away from us.
My intention was not to spam anyone. I was simply trying to find a way for our side to go on the offense for once. We are always on the defensive while they (the religious folks) take shots at us.
I thought the Real Messiah was special because it is centered around a physical object which the author found in the Basilica di San Marco in Venice. It is universally understood to have been taken there by Italian sailors stole from the most ancient Church of St. Mark in Alexandria in the ninth century. Huller demonstrates that the throne goes back much further than that - i.e. all the way to the beginning of Christianity in Egypt.
In any event this throne is the real deal. It has an inscription written out in Hebrew letters and symbols which prove that Jesus was not the messiah of Christianity. Here are pictures of the throne:
http://www.therealmessiahbook.blogspot.com
We have to defeat the myth of Jesus Christ with another myth – a ‘rational myth’ to coin the language of Robert Price.
I am not asking you to ‘join my cause.’ I just want to defeat the oppressive ideas of Christianity with freedom and rational discourse. Is that really too much to ask?
Hi stuart, I'm a Christian, but I just wanted to say I'm sorry for what your going through. It's not cool to dismiss people and not take them seriously.
Could you tell me more about this new research? I've not heard anything about it.
Post a Comment