Has William Lane Craig and his ilk ever addressed Euthyphro?

[Jolly_Penguin]

People like William Lane Craig always make the same argument. It goes something like this:

1. God's essential nature is goodness, and God decrees what is good and what is bad.
2. The above is objective morality
3. Absent a moral law giver as above, absent God, there is no basis for objective morality.
4. Objective morality exists. Murder is bad. rape is bad, etc.
5. Therefore God must exist.

Now, there are a lot of problems with the above logic, but the point I would like to focus on, that I have rarely heard put directly to the likes of William Lane Craig, rests in the first premise. Craig waxes on about how absent God you can have no objective morality, but he rarely addresses how adding God fixes that problem.

Why presume that directives from God are objective? Are they not subjective based on God's whims? No, he would say. They will be based on his nature, which is perfect goodness. Why must a creator God be good? Because God must be a being worthy of worship, and only a perfectly good being is worthy of worship, he will say. Because a being that isn't perfectly good is flawed, and god is perfect by definition so can't be morally flawed, so he must be good, he will say.

But that just leads into Euthyphro's circle. How do you know what is good? Because God said it. How do you know he is God? Because he is perfectly good. And around and around and around that goes.

At the end of the day, how do you distinguish this sort of "morality" from might makes right? God is the most powerful force in the universe, therefore, God is good and what he says is right. Might makes right. Right? I did see Sam Harris bring this up with Craig when he said that the only difference between Craig and the Taliban is what God they worship. If god said to rape babies and fly planes into buildings, it must be Good, because God said it. But Harris didn't stick this to Craig and make him squirm out of it.

It would seem to invite a very evil or morally ambivalent state, pushing one's actual moral compass deeply buried under dogma to the point that atrocity can be done with pride. To paraphrase Wineberg (I think it was), Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad tings, but religion enables good people to do bad things and think it good. This is actually one of the scariest things I see in religious believers. When they start sounding like sociopaths declaring that without their belief in God they would rape and kill, and it is only their obedience to authority that keeps them in line.

Has the above been put to Craig and his ilk, and if so, what is their response?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

On looking further, I found this thread from last year: http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...divine-command-theory-etc&highlight=euthyphro

I've always thought "God is good", and similar phrases such as "God is Holy", is an empty phrase. Because if what God does is good because he wills it, therefore "God is good" only means "God acts in a typical fashion for his taste", no matter how cruel or unequitable he may be acting on a given day.

If what God does is good because he wills it, ethics is meaningless. "Objective" ethics self-destructs.

This sums my thinking up well. I would like to see this more engaged from the theist side. It doesn't seem to get raised by the people who debate Craig. The best debate I can find with Craig is the one with Shelly Kagan, but even he didn't push this on Craig.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Craig would not agree with P1, you got his view wrong - at least mostly by his own fault, given how obscure he is.

He claims that moral obligations are constituted by God's commands, and "moral values" (a very obscure term; sometimes, he says love, courage, justice, are moral values) are determined by God's nature (not by his commands). As for good and bad (which he also uses ambiguously, though he distinguishes that from right and wrong), he is unclear, but it seems that he holds that to be good is to resemble God in some unspecified way (things are good because they're found in God's nature, according to Craig).
E.g.: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument-for-god


Also, he does address Euthyphro on several occasions, in his website (www.reasonablefaith.org); a search for "euthypro" gives the following results:

https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=...aith.org&btnG=Search&num=20&newwindow=1&gbv=1


For example: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-again

 

[Shake]

Thanks for asking this, JP. I've recently been watching some debates between Craig and others like Dawkins and Harris. I've got to say that Craig is very well-spoken and if you're not listening carefully, you might get sucked into his arguments. The first times I saw him speak, I just had a feeling something wasn't quite right, but couldn't put a finger on it. My conclusion now is that he is working off of, at best, dubious propositions to make his arguments. It all winds up sounding circular. God is going to act the way he does because that's how he is. His actions, commands, and morals are good because he is. Although, this presupposes that he is indeed good; the ultimate good, Craig would argue. But this leads to the problem of what standard do we use to evaluate God's goodness? Objective, to me, means a judgment from without, but what then, is outside God to judge him?

Another way I recently heard it put — I believe by YouTube-er AronRa — is that objective means something which everyone agrees on, and since there is disagreement about whether or not things like rape and murder are always wrong, then they are not objectively wrong. In fact, by definition, the cannot be.

I'll have to look for the Craig-Kagan debate.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dr. Craig: For those that aren't familiar with it, the question is: does God will something because it is good, or is something good because God wills it? If the theist says that God wills something because it is good then the good is independent of God and, in fact then, moral values are not based in God. They are independent of him. On the other hand, if you say something is good because God wills it then that would seem to make what is good and evil arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good; then we would be morally obligated to hate one another, which seems crazy. Some moral values seem to be necessary, and therefore there would be no possible world in which hatred is good. So the claim is that this shows that morality cannot be based in God.

I think it is clearly a false dilemma because the alternatives are not of the form “A or not-A” which would be an inescapable dilemma. The alternatives are like “A or B.” In that case you can always add a third one, C, and escape the horns of the dilemma. I think in this case there is a third alternative which is to say that God wills something because he is good. That is to say, God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is by nature loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth. Therefore, he could not have willed that, for example, hatred be good. That would be to contradict his very own nature.

So God's commands to us are not arbitrary, but neither are they based upon something independent of God. Rather, God himself is the paradigm of goodness.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-again#ixzz49g9lI8Id

So... God's commands are not arbitrary... God himself is arbitrary? And if it was God's nature to hate and rape and murder, then hate and rape and murder are good? If we read how God behaves in the Bible (especially in the old testament) we can see some pretty nasty behaviour on the part of God.... and if his nature defines what is good... then these nasty things are good? Genocide of your creation is good? Demanding the killing of your servant's child is good? etc? I think Craig creates more difficulty with this than he solves.

 

[Brian63]

The flaw in his argument I think is most visible in this statement of his:

I think in this case there is a third alternative which is to say that God wills something because he is good. That is to say, God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character.

Note that it is Craig himself who is uttering that “God himself is the paradigm of goodness” and so basically we are supposed to just take Craig’s word for that being truth. Does he have any way of verifying that it is true, with some kind of evidence? Or are we supposed to take Craig himself as some kind of authoritative figure on declaring who or what is good or bad? Or something else? How did Craig determine that “God is the paradigm of goodness,” apart from him merely declaring it so and the rest of us supposed to take his word for it? If he does [attempt to] make some kind of evidential argument for it, then he is pinning himself on one horn of the dilemma, and he does not realize it. He is saying that God is a "reflection" of morality, not the "source" of morality. So there is something else besides God that should carry more authority on declaring what is moral and immoral. God is effectively just following someone or something else's orders.

If Craig instead just asserts it as true without any kind of evidential or logical argument for it, then ethics becomes useless, just a rehash of “might makes right.” If we humans are going to say that “God is good” or anything similar, then it is important that we actually have the ability to find out what it is that makes some entity good.

You can say “God is blue” but that phrase is meaningless unless you have a definition of what it means to be “blue,” same as if you said “God is glbveni.” It is just a collection of letters, a scribble, with no use or value or meaning. If you do define “glbveni” though as possessing certain characteristics, then any being with those characteristics does so out of luck, chance, and circumstance, being made that way, which was a process out of their control, and under the control of someone or something else. If God is the epitome of those characteristics, it is not a good enough reason why it should have authority over our entire lives and we must swear eternal obedience to it. That is good enough reason to reject religion.

Plus, snakes don’t talk.

Brian

 

[skepticalbip]

................ snip ...............


Plus, snakes don’t talk.

Not since the fall anyway...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If you take the Bible as true revelation, and WCL does, the problem is that God is often not good. So theology often is trying to save appearances, explaining why God is not so good, according to mythology. And then there are logical problems of why the Universe has so much evil God could deal with if he was good, and does not do. Luther and Calvin both papered over it with the handwave that God is incomprehensible and inscrutable. I don't see WCL being any better able to deal with these problems.

 

[Underseer]

If you take the Bible as true revelation, and WCL does, the problem is that God is often not good. So theology often is trying to save appearances, explaining why God is not so good, according to mythology. And then there are logical problems of why the Universe has so much evil God could deal with if he was good, and does not do. Luther and Calvin both papered over it with the handwave that God is incomprehensible and inscrutable. I don't see WCL being any better able to deal with these problems.

No, they simply define good as whatever God does.

God ordered all the babies in a certain city to be killed, therefore slaughtering babies is good, but only if god does it or if god commands it. Killing babies is bad if someone other than god does it or commands it. By the way, did I mention that they believe moral relativism is a bad thing?

 

[James Brown]

WLC: "It's good when God kills babies because they go straight to heaven, see?"

Does that mean that abortion and infanticide are good things?

WLC: "Oh no, that's a taking of innocent life. That's forbidden outright by God."

So to sum up: When people kill babies, that's bad. When God kills babies, that's different.

 

[Underseer]

WLC: "It's good when God kills babies because they go straight to heaven, see?"

Does that mean that abortion and infanticide are good things?

WLC: "Oh no, that's a taking of innocent life. That's forbidden outright by God."

So to sum up: When people kill babies, that's bad. When God kills babies, that's different.

Yeah, it's good when God does it, but evil if you do the same thing on a much smaller scale. Did I mention that WLC insists that objective morality proves God and that moral relativism is a bad thing?

 

[couch_sloth]

If newborn infants get a free pass to heaven, why not just have us live in heaven from the time of our birth/creation?
Just eliminate the natural world altogether, where we run the risk of damnation.

 

[James Brown]

If newborn infants get a free pass to heaven, why not just have us live in heaven from the time of our birth/creation?
Just eliminate the natural world altogether, where we run the risk of damnation.

Great question, one that I've asked apologists often.

If God wants people in Heaven with him, then why not create them in Heaven from the beginning? That way, no one goes to Hell (whether they deserve it or not.)

(Not that I think that anyone deserves eternal torture, but some apologists do.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If newborn infants get a free pass to heaven, why not just have us live in heaven from the time of our birth/creation?
Just eliminate the natural world altogether, where we run the risk of damnation.

Great question, one that I've asked apologists often.

If God wants people in Heaven with him, then why not create them in Heaven from the beginning? That way, no one goes to Hell (whether they deserve it or not.)

(Not that I think that anyone deserves eternal torture, but some apologists do.)

Well duh... he tried that with just two people and they mucked it up! Ate a piece of fruit. A piece of fucking fruit!

So God then decided, screw this, I'm out of here (though not before inventing S&M), they are on their own.

- - - Updated - - -

People like William Lane Craig always make the same argument. It goes something like this:

1. God's essential nature is goodness, and God decrees what is good and what is bad.
2. The above is objective morality
3. Absent a moral law giver as above, absent God, there is no basis for objective morality.
4. Objective morality exists. Murder is bad. rape is bad, etc.
5. Therefore God must exist.

I hate logic being used to prove anything about the universe we don't already know from observation.

1) Words have no viable meaning in the universe.
2) Therefore, you can't prove anything with just words, no matter how craftily they are placed together.

 

[abaddon]

WLC: “So he (God) has the right to give and take life as he chooses.”

Looks like ultimately he’s arguing for might makes right. In this video Craig didn’t make the case that things are right due to being in-line with god’s good nature but rather based on god’s “right” to do whatever he wills. He has no obligations at all, nothing can constrain his mightiness.

Oh, and he did the “death is good anyway” argument. Haha, death’s good if you’re evil cuz you deserve it as punishment and death’s good if you’re good because you deserve something better than this ugly world. So, death’s just good no matter what (so long as god's the killer).

 

[Lion IRC]

If newborn infants get a free pass to heaven, why not just have us live in heaven from the time of our birth/creation?
Just eliminate the natural world altogether, where we run the risk of damnation.

Great question, one that I've asked apologists often.

If God wants people in Heaven with him, then why not create them in Heaven from the beginning? That way, no one goes to Hell...

I think the theology goes like this;

God wants people to freely choose the good rather than be forced.
Because that would be more truthful than a bunch of robotic windup dolls (made by God) all mechanically chanting...'we love you God' - which would be fake and artificial and a sham and open to ridicule by atheist counter-apologists. (And satan)

 

[Lion IRC]

I personally find no problem with the so-called dilemma of Euthyphro. (A false dilemma)

If we equate 'good' with smart/wise then we can easily resolve the paradox because when we ask God why is something a 'good' thing to do, His answer is - because it is the wisest thing to do.

Surely another word for sin is stupidity. And most moral meta-ethical systems (like the wisdom of Solomon) require insight and foresight to ascertain what will achieve the greatest good. (Outcome)

God doesn't want us to choose the 'good' in order to help Himself. Gods' commands aren't for His benefit. They are for OUR benefit. And the theology which resolves Euthyphro entails God's superior wisdom as to what is best for us. Not just because He is Good by His nature but because He is really really really wise.

 

[Underseer]

I personally find no problem with the so-called dilemma of Euthyphro. (A false dilemma)

If we equate 'good' with smart/wise then we can easily resolve the paradox because when we ask God why is something a 'good' thing to do, His answer is - because it is the wisest thing to do.

Surely another word for sin is stupidity. And most moral meta-ethical systems (like the wisdom of Solomon) require insight and foresight to ascertain what will achieve the greatest good. (Outcome)

God doesn't want us to choose the 'good' in order to help Himself. Gods' commands aren't for His benefit. They are for OUR benefit. And the theology which resolves Euthyphro entails God's superior wisdom as to what is best for us. Not just because He is Good by His nature but because He is really really really wise.

The false dilemma excuse doesn't actually resolve the dilemma. Every third option offered merely moves the same dilemma to a slightly different topic.

 

[Wiploc]

I personally find no problem with the so-called dilemma of Euthyphro. (A false dilemma)

Oh good, I can't wait to see your third horn.

If we equate 'good' with smart/wise then we can easily resolve the paradox because when we ask God why is something a 'good' thing to do, His answer is - because it is the wisest thing to do.

That's not a third horn.

The choices are these:
1. Things are good because god says so.
2. God says things are good because they are good.

You picked number two.

To show that this is a false dilemma, you need to provide a third choice. You didn't do that.

Here's what you can say instead of what you said above: "Euthyphro's dilemma isn't a false dilemma, but that's not a problem for me. It's not a problem because I like one of the two choices. God doesn't make things good by declaring them to be good. Rather, he, in his wisdom, discerns what is good, and declares it to be good because he recognizes it's goodness."

Surely another word for sin is stupidity.

You can make up definitions all you want, but that isn't consistent with the way the word is generally used.

...
God doesn't want us to choose the 'good' in order to help Himself. Gods' commands aren't for His benefit. They are for OUR benefit. And the theology which resolves Euthyphro entails God's superior wisdom as to what is best for us. Not just because He is Good by His nature but because He is really really really wise.

Not just because he is wise by his nature, but because he is really really wise? If you were serious about "good" meaning "wise," that would be the meaning of what you just wrote.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not proposing a third horn of the dilemma. I don't have to because it's not a real dilemma.

God doesn't 'decree' what is good.

He KNOWS what is good (without having to ask.)


We, on the other hand, do not. Hence we argue about it and make up irrelevant paradoxes and imaginary 'dilemmas' as if God was one of us - just a slob like one of us - and is constrained by made-made either/or paradigms.