Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 03:21 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Don't have time to read the whole thread but, in my opinion, there is no real Euthyphro dilemma since the Euthyphro involved the fact that there were multiple gods often in conflict. Ie this God says this is Good, but this other God says it's bad. If you believe that a single God created all the universe then all morality essentially comes from him since so do all cause and effect. The question would rape be wrong if God said so is basically what happened . He made it painful ect.

Makes it painful for the woman.

Condones it in the Bible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 03:21 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Don't have time to read the whole thread but, in my opinion, there is no real Euthyphro dilemma since the Euthyphro involved the fact that there were multiple gods often in conflict. Ie this God says this is Good, but this other God says it's bad. If you believe that a single God created all the universe then all morality essentially comes from him since so do all cause and effect. The question would rape be wrong if God said so is basically what happened . He made it painful ect.

That solves nothing. You're attempting to evade the point. The discussion was in Plato's Dialogues, in which he had Socrates discuss the question of "piety", and it's origins with a mythical Euthyphro. It's not a question about conflicts between the gods, it's a discussion about the origins of piety, and was later interpreted to be a discussion about morality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Saying "all morality comes from him" is no answer. The question is "Where did he get it ?".

No deity "made rape painful". Forced sex is painful for many reasons.
None of which need any gods for their explanation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
I apologize, I have read the Euthyphro and I thought the dilemma he was referring to was the idea that piety is doing what the God's love and that if the god's love different and even opposing things, how can one be pious. Since that conflict is resolved with monotheism, I didn't understand what the dilemma was.
However using morality instead of piety also seems pretty easy to deal with (at least in my opinion). In a certain sense god gives us morality. Using the concept of Natural Law, which is rational creatures looking at the eternal law (or Nature) and divining morality from that, we can form a fairly solid morality. Since all nature is created by God, and we derive morality by applying reason to nature, then in effect all morality comes from God.

If God decided to make men physically immortal or able to resurrect themselves, then murder would not be wrong.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 01:49 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Catholics, under the thinking of Thomas Aquinas refute that evil "exists." God is the source of all existence, so all that exists shares in God's life and holds truth. Evil is merely the absence of God; it is a consequence of free will, and the fallen human nature (it is human nature to share in God's love since we were created out of love, but sin separates us from God's will). Evil does not exist, just as cold does not exist. Cold is only defined by the absence of heat. Likewise, evil is only defined as the complete absence of God, who is goodness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 03:17 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)ssmith Wrote:  Catholics, under the thinking of Thomas Aquinas refute that evil "exists." God is the source of all existence, so all that exists shares in God's life and holds truth. Evil is merely the absence of God; it is a consequence of free will, and the fallen human nature (it is human nature to share in God's love since we were created out of love, but sin separates us from God's will). Evil does not exist, just as cold does not exist. Cold is only defined by the absence of heat. Likewise, evil is only defined as the complete absence of God, who is goodness.

EEK!

ZOMBIE THREAD! ZOMBIE THREAD!

Bechased

....

So in other words, when God, say, kills a bunch of Egyptian children who were too young and, in most cases, too lower-class to be in any way responsible for the treatment of the Jews, that's a good act because God was present for it, but if some mass murderer had done exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, that would not have been good, because....

... wait.... how would we determine whether or not that mass murderer was separate from God, again?

It's not like being a mass-murdering maniac's been a deal-breaker in the past. Just read Judges. So how do we tell if a person's actions were good or evil?

I mean, I don't happen to have a God-detecting divining rod in my back pocket that lets me go up to someone -- say, Charlie Manson -- and figure out whether he was acting with God or separate from God.

I also wouldn't have any means to tell a working God-detecting divining rod from a malfunctioning one.

So.... maybe the mass-murderer WOULD be good, under Aquinas's... curious definition.

Curious, and completely useless for anything other than philosophical discussion. Because frankly, I DON'T CARE about that type of good or evil.

If a complete stranger comes after me with a machette screaming for my blood because I live in an infidel land (or at least, so he says), whether he's being guided by God is the least of my concerns. If someone with such a track record moves in next door to me, I'm justly worried for my safety. I'm worried for my safety if he was guided by God and I'm worried if he wasn't. I'm worried for my other neighbors and my community at large. Same if it was a rapist, or someone who liked to corner children in dark alleys and beat them with a baseball bat for kicks. That meets my definition for evil. These are people I do not like, and I also know that impeding them helps the rest of society. Does it meet Aquinas's definition of evil? I don't know. I left my god-detector in my other set of pants. I also don't care.

On the other hand, if I know someone likes doing a lot of charity work for orphans, or is a doctor who volunteers in a clinic in his spare hours, or a teacher who really cares for his students and puts in lots of extra time after hours getting the lessons just right, I'll think of those as good people. I'll try to help them out. Partly because I like them as people, but also because I know that helping them helps everyone. Does this meet Aquinas's definition of good? Quite possibly not, if these people are atheists, but I don't know. I left my god-detector in my other set of pants. I also don't care. If the doctor is a kindly person healing people without God being present, then I care about him being a kindly person who heals people.

We could attempt a hand-wave, to say that our intuitive and compassionate notions of good and evil -- the kindly doctor is doing good and the rapist is doing evil -- are our God-detectors. But this doesn't match up to the way that God is depicted in the Bible. When we look at the description of wanton and unnecessary deaths of the firstborns in Egypt, for example, that intuition-based God-detector would clearly show that God is not present, but the Bible says God was there. Similarly, right before, when Pharaoh's about to let the Jews go but his heart is hardened by God, we'd think that keeping them (or anyone else) as slaves is an evil act. Our intuition-based God-detector would say God wasn't there. But in the Bible, God is very much there, robbing Pharaoh of free will and making that choice for him.

So, this clearly is not how we should register the presence of God. What is?

Aquinas's definition raises two questions in its attempt to answer one.

First: How can we discern whether actions occur separate from or with God?

And second: Why would we even care about this notion of good and evil, when it doesn't inspire our admiration or disgust and doesn't serve as indicators or descriptors of another person's character or likely future actions nearly as well as other notions of good and evil do?

In the end, this doesn't escape the dilemma. It simply redefines good and evil in a completely arbitrary act of rhetorical chicanery, devoid of practical application, that has no use beyond the author's desire to evade the question.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
19-09-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)ssmith Wrote:  Catholics, under the thinking of Thomas Aquinas refute that evil "exists." God is the source of all existence, so all that exists shares in God's life and holds truth. Evil is merely the absence of God; it is a consequence of free will, and the fallen human nature (it is human nature to share in God's love since we were created out of love, but sin separates us from God's will). Evil does not exist, just as cold does not exist. Cold is only defined by the absence of heat. Likewise, evil is only defined as the complete absence of God, who is goodness.

References. Provide the references from Aquinas, then tell us why we should pay attention to him, (chapter and verse).

You are totally wrong. Sin exists for Catholics. It's real, and they think it happens. It's not an "absence" of anything when humans perform evil actions, (according to them). Sinful actions are real. IF it were an absence of God, then why was redemption necessary ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)ssmith Wrote:  Catholics, under the thinking of Thomas Aquinas refute that evil "exists." God is the source of all existence, so all that exists shares in God's life and holds truth. Evil is merely the absence of God; it is a consequence of free will, and the fallen human nature (it is human nature to share in God's love since we were created out of love, but sin separates us from God's will). Evil does not exist, just as cold does not exist. Cold is only defined by the absence of heat. Likewise, evil is only defined as the complete absence of God, who is goodness.

So God is not omnipresent. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 05:56 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Let's imagine we have two universes.
In both universes, you have mass starvation, rape, torture, murder, natural disasters and the occasional world war.

One universe has a god and the other does not.

If a universe with a god looks like one without a god, how do you determine which one you're living in ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
19-09-2016, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 11:08 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
There is no such thing as "free will", as defined by Moral Theology. In order for it to be authentic, humans would have to be completely aware of ALL the elements, simultaneously, that enter into a moral decision. Science has proven that is not the case. Many of the determinants entering decisions, we are not aware of, at the time of the decision.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
No, never heard a believer explain how the OT god can be good properly, but I'm rarely in the habit of discussing the morals of fictional characters any more, so take that into account.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: