"The Euthyphro dilemma has been addressed by many philosophers and theologians since the time of Plato, though not always with reference to the Platonic dialogue. According to scholar Terence Irwin, the issue and its connection with Plato was revived by Ralph Cudworth and Samuel Clarke in the 17th and 18th centuries.[61] More recently, it has received a great deal of attention from contemporary philosophers working in metaethics and the philosophy of religion. Philosophers and theologians aiming to defend theism against the threat of the dilemma have developed a variety of responses."
David Moyer Posted: I am a Christian Engineer/Scientist and I have no problem with conflicts between the facts of science (as opposed to some hypotheses of science) and the teachings of scripture. I know literally dozens of other engineers and people with doctorates in technical fields including medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, etc. who also see no conflict. I was once a staunch evolutionist and I could easily teach a high school or community college course on evolution. There are some aspects of evolutionary theory/hypotheses with which I have no quarrel. But nearly the entire field is a matter of hypotheses with very little of it proven by the scientific method, because so little of it is falsifiable. It certainly does not deserve to be classified as a theory- that is a hypothesis that has been tests by real scientific methods so often that almost no one can devise another test that might disprove it. Remember, that scientific hypotheses are not prov...
Comments
Oh, I do love that dilemma.
I I think it is a wonderful construct for arguing the logical problems with the idea that a behavior is right because "God demands it."
It's not a dilemma that is immediately clear: it requires understanding completely buying into the PREMISE C "If A causes B then B cannot cause A." Interestingly enough, I can think of a simple physical model in which precisely such an explanation is actually pretty accurate: the motion of a pendulum. Its position at the end of motion is what causes its motion. Its motion at the bottom of its travel is what causes its position at the end of travel. So there are cases where Premise C is false.
I happen not to give any credence to any of the problems cited with the Socrates interpretation that Gods love the good because it is good. But then, that is because I think our notion of God is a kind of human invention or projection. I think it can be useful from a social perspective for humans to imagine a God who wants them to do good things; but I don't think that makes it so.
I think anyone living in a society in which there is no notion of God or of any religion, for that matter, will quickly see that there is moral judgment made by morally intelligent people. They will see people acting as morally informed agents - even when this moral agency is informed by nothing other than group norms. And they will see it breaking down here and there under certain kinds of pressures.
I think it is a little perverse to risk smashing what little good religious piety can do in the world by insisting on God's authority. It shifts the focus from exercising our own good judgment about what is good to that of "someone who hears God" speaking. Too frequently those are precisely the people who have the most dastardly evil designs on our souls.
I agree--we should think for ourselves and make our own moral decisions--in the careful reading of the Bible we can see how God wants exactly that--for us to think for ourselves, guided by his directions for us...so the problem is less philosophical than it is pragmatic; it matters not where the source of what is "Good" is located [God or Man] but that we follow some kind of guide in our decision making...for Christians and non Christians there are many "guides" to moral behavioral choice..even Jesus teaches us that we should obey those [people] in authority over us, pay our taxes, etc...So, resolving this dilemma may be unnecessary...