You responded that there are two options: “a) either an intelligent agent (gods or humans) arbitrarily decides what is right or wrong; or b) all intelligent agents recognize that something is good or wrong, which means they turn to some other source of moral knowledge outside of themselves.”
Let me try to restate this: If God DISCOVERS morality, then God is less than God; if God CREATES (or chooses) morality and then imposes it upon us, He is an arbitrary despot. I tried to answer that this isn’t a question of either-or, but both! Morality is not arbitrary or antecedent to God, because it finds its origin within the Being of God. It’s also freely and willfully endorsed by God.
The only objection that you raised against this understanding is that it’s not possible for God to embody both. Ironically, it’s the atheist’s butt that “Euthyphro’s Dilemma” finds particularly succulent. You concluded, “God is still superfluous to make someone a moral individual.” However, according to Euthyphro, the atheist CAN’T be a moral individual. Here’s why. The atheist must also either create or discover his morality. However, the atheist rejects the idea of discovering morality, because this implies that there is a higher moral truth that exists independent of human will. It also implies a moral truth Giver.
However, the atheist also hesitates to create his own morality, knowing that it would be completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Where then does this leave the atheist? He must find some middle ground. However, you correctly pointed out that there isn’t any middle ground—morality is either humanly CREATED or DISCOVERED.
What then to do? Create a middle position! Here are several:
1. PRAGMATISM/UTILITARIANISM (The maximum good for the majority of people): However, this solution is disingenuous. It secretly smuggles in a discovered good (that there is something that is good, namely the maximum good for the maximum number of people) and tries to dress it up as the product of intellect.
2. THE ACCUMULATED WISDOM OF EVOLUTION OR CIVILIZATION: However, we must ask, “wisdom regarding what?” Again we must start with a discovered value. (Why even survive? Pass on our genes? Procreate? Love? Why not kill or exert my own dominance?) Even if there is survival wisdom in evolution or civilization, why bother to follow it? Why should their lessons be authoritative for us today? We get on airplanes and overcome gravity. Why not also overcome the archaic “wisdom” of evolution or civilization?
3. ENLIGHTENED SELFISHNESS (If I am selfish in a wise way, I will also be moral.): The first obvious problem is that we can’t always derive moral living through selfishness. Besides, this formulation also is parasitic upon some idea of a discovered morality. How do we know that enlightened selfishness (ES) will produce moral good unless there is first a standard of moral good by which to measure ES?
The Bible talks about the evil who dig a pit for their enemies but inevitably fall into it themselves. Euthyphro is your problem, not mine! This is God’s world. By denying Him, the atheist digs a pit for himself. He denies moral absolutes, but is coerced to sneak an inferior product in through the back door. In doing so, he stumbles into his own pit.
Mann: The only objection that you raised against this understanding is that it’s not possible for God to embody both.
ReplyDeleteInstead of addressing this question, you changed the topic.
Mann: However, the atheist rejects the idea of discovering morality, because this implies that there is a higher moral truth that exists independent of human will. It also implies a moral truth Giver.
It does no such thing, in the same way that logical or mathematical truths do not imply a logical or mathematical truth giver (assuming one is putting forward an objective morality).
Just as there are mathematical and logical platonists, as well as naturalists, so too are there moral platonists and naturalists (and a whole host of other positions besides).
Nothing in the rest of your post does anything to demonstrate these positions to be false, nor to show that your position is true (remember, even if you were to show every other current "moral theory" to be wanting, you'd still need to show yours to be more likely than not true, else we're left in an agnostic positions).
Mann: However, the atheist also hesitates to create his own morality, knowing that it would be completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
Not so. A "subjective" morality could be completely reasonable and rational, non-arbitrary etc.
Some support for these contentions of yours might help strengthen your case.
I won't even bother addressing your very poor understanding of non-theistic morality, in "point form".
So, Daniel, why did you change the topic? Instead of trying to justify your own Divine Command morality, accepting that you wind up on one horn or the other of Euthyphro's Dilemma (Personally I'd aim for the "God loves that which is good", but I think WLC finds the "Good is that which God loves" side better) and try to justify your morality (Why should we do that which God commands, for example).
As it stands your position rings rather hollow :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeletePlease explain how "A subjective morality could be completely reasonable and rational, non-arbitrary!"
Daniel, someone could work out a system of morality starting from a from some sensible, yet subjective premises - happiness, for example.
ReplyDeleteIt also depends on what you mean by the term "subjective" - it tends to be used in a perjorative fashion by theists such as yourself, without realising that, in most senses, the morality they themselves endorse is subjective (dependant upon God's will) ;-)
I'm more interested in the justification for your own morality.
Mann: Morality is not arbitrary or antecedent to God, because it finds its origin within the Being of God. It’s also freely and willfully endorsed by God.
So three is some standard of Good, which God embodies (objective) but God also freely "chose" what was moral (subjective).
What you're putting forward still appears to be incoherent, Daniel :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteYou put forth "happiness" as a subjective basis for morality. However, this basis is totally arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
Instead, posting God as the source of morality isn't arbitrary, because He is also the source of all truth, reality, logic and reason. To attempt to dismiss His morality as arbitrary, you need to use His logic and reason, something equally "arbitrary."
Besides, you can't argue that His morality is arbitrary without also acknowledging that the morality He has written upon your heart is also arbitrary.
Mann: You put forth "happiness" as a subjective basis for morality. However, this basis is totally arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, positing God as the basis of morality is just as arbitrary (as you seem to acknowledge further down your comment).
Mann: Instead, posting God as the source of morality isn't arbitrary, because He is also the source of all truth, reality, logic and reason.
I see a lot of claims there Daniel, but very little to substantiate them.
Mann: To attempt to dismiss His morality as arbitrary, you need to use His logic and reason, something equally "arbitrary."
I really hope you're not going to delve into the intellectual black hole that is "presuppositional apologetics"?
Mann: Besides, you can't argue that His morality is arbitrary without also acknowledging that the morality He has written upon your heart is also arbitrary.
Daniel, I don't accept that your deity even exists, let alone "wrote" his morality upon my heart. I'm simply pointing out that, should it exist, and things be as you claim, then there things which follow from that premise. Things such as morality being arbitrary.
If you don't like such conclusions, then you'll need to point out not only why the conclusions don't follow from the premises, but also why and how your own conclusions (that morality is not arbitrary, etc etc) do.
I'm curious as to why, if your deity wrote morality onto our hearts,that morality has changed so much during the history of human civilisation. For example, ancient cultures found slavery to be morally acceptable (including the ancient Israelites). Today we don't see slavery as morally acceptable.
So far, all you've done is make (grandiose) claims with nothing in the way of argument or justification.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI think that your challenges require a more expanded response. You've inspired me to write an essay. It will soon be posted.
My Response To An Atheist
ReplyDeleteBy: James Wiggins
God is real He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Since He is omnipotent and omniscient, He holds the power/rein of creation. His power's unlimited and unrestrained/unrestricted. Man's rejections of the Living/True God is the root of our problems, however sin must be accountable and paid for. To deny the existence-more important-Christ is to become foolishness being about God's wrath (see Romans 1:24).
In Psalm 14:1 we read that the fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt- (depraved, morally degenerated).
What a joy and blessing to know that Christ bled and died on the cross to rise again on the third day-as prophesied-therein conquering death and its sting. Because of this, merciful act we are redeemed, reconciled, restored to God.
Another response I have is "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God- Romans 14:11 - who then is left out?
James W.
JamesW: God is real He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.
ReplyDeleteJames, you claim these things and then carry on as if they were so. Omnipotence and omnipresence are difficult attributes - omnipotence seems somewhat incoherent itself, and omnipresence seems to contradict claims of God being a mind or person of some kind.
Apologies that the previous post is not quite on topic (though a response would be interesting).
ReplyDeleteJames, you seem to miss out mentioning one of the traditional attributes of God, namely Omnibenevolence. Your claims regarding God's authority seems to imply that whatever God wants is "good" - which means that slavery is a moral good, as it human sacrifice (both of which seem to be condoned and approved by Yahweh in the Christian Bible).
As I recommended to Daniel, you ought to read Erik Weilenberg's arguments regarding the relationship between God (should it exist) and morality, which appear as Chapter 2 in his book "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe". You can read the entire chapter via amazon and google books. I also provided a summary of the relevant parts at my blog.