In “Religion: A Barrier to Clear Thinking,” the final article in the award winning series of lay philosophy articles published in the Christchurch Press, Canterbury based Philosopher Simon Clarke addressed the question, “what is the biggest obstacle to thinking clearly about social and political issues?” Predictably he answered “Several answers suggested themselves but time and again I came back to the same thing: religion.” Clarke explained that “the fallacy of grounding morality upon religion was pointed out by Plato over two thousand years ago.” [1]
Clarke was appealing to a famous argument that purports to show that ethics (what is right and wrong) is independent of religion. This argument is known by professional ethicists as “The Euthyphro Dilemma” or “Plato’s Euthyphro” and is named after a dialogue Plato wrote. The current version used against mono-theistic religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, is an adaptation (the original applied to poly-theistic religions, those religions that believe in many gods).
The argument is usually framed in terms of a rhetorical question ‘are actions wrong because God prohibits them or does God prohibit them because they are wrong?’ As the question is framed, there are only two possible answers a person can offer.
The first is to contend that actions are wrong because God prohibits them. This answer is said to suffer a debilitating problem, it makes morality arbitrary – anything at all could be deemed ‘right’ as long as God commanded it. Philosopher Michael Tooley has suggested this, “if God had commanded mankind to torture one another as much as possible, then it would follow that that action was obligatory. … many people, including many religious thinkers, are very unhappy with that consequence.” Therefore, the critics conclude, actions are not wrong just because God issues commands against them.
The failure of the first answer means that the only possible way out is to claim that God prohibits actions because they are wrong; they are not wrong just because he prohibits them. This answer does not have the problems of the former. However, as Clarke points out, it entails that “there are independent standards for what we should do, independent that is of the dictates of religion.” Actions are wrong before God prohibits them. His commands simply tell us what is already wrong, quite independently of what he prohibits.
This argument is something of a cliché in contemporary secular ethics and is found in almost every secular text book I have read (and will undoubtedly make its way into the Ethics section of the new NCEA Philosophy course). Typically “religious ethics” is mentioned and then dismissed with a short rendition of Plato’s Euthyphro. When I studied Philosophy Plato’s Euthyphro was one of the first things I was taught in first year Ethics. The lecturer spelled out the argument, contended that it showed “religious ethics” was mistaken/confused/ muddle-headed/whatever and from there would went on with the serious business of offering secular perspectives on topics such as abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia, homosexual rights and so on.
Philosopher Peter Geach noted “In modern ethical treatises we find hardly any mention of God; and the idea that if there really is a God, his commandments might be morally relevant is wont to be dismissed by a short and simple argument that is generally regarded as irrefutable.” The short, simple argument he mentioned was, of course, Plato’s Euthyphro.
Given this backdrop it is perhaps not so surprising that Clarke, after mentioning Plato’s argument, stated “… Plato’s pretty convincing demonstration has been ignored by the vast majority of people in the intervening millennia. Why are appeals to religion so common?”
Despite the popularity of making claims like this, I still find them somewhat puzzling. Perhaps secular ethicists assume that theological ethicists have never read Plato or that, if they have, they have ignored him. In fact, the opposite is true. The last 40 years, in fact, has seen sustained defences of theological ethics including thorough refutations of Plato’s Euthyphro. These have been published in the philosophical literature at the highest levels – off the top of my head I can rattle off over 22 different articles and monographs which have offered rebuttals to Plato’s Euthyphro – yet secular ethicists and many textbooks blithely continue as though these answers had never been offered.
I maintain that there is an answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, one that many have pointed out; it is to adopt the first of the answers I mentioned above, to contend that an action is wrong because God prohibits it. Contrary to popular claims, this option can succeed. The objections raised against it are not as debilitating as they are made out to be.
The primary objection is that morality is made arbitrary; anything at all could be deemed ‘right’ as long as God commanded it – even atrocious commands. What is important to note here is that the objector assumes that it is possible that God could command atrocious things like ‘torturing people as much as possible.’ This assumption, however, seems very dubious. We need to remember that we are not taking about right or wrong as being based on the commands of just anyone, we are talking about these things being based on the commands of God. In the mono-theistic tradition that this line of argument seeks to criticise, God is typically defined as a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and is morally perfect.
So, as the terms are defined, the claim that it is possible for God to command people to “torture one another as much as possible” is true only if it is possible for a morally perfect person to command such an atrocious thing. But this is unlikely. The very reason critics cite examples such as “torturing others as much as possible,” is because these actions are paradigms of conduct that no morally good person could ever entertain or endorse. The situation the critic envisages then is a situation which is impossible.
Of course the critic could contend that he or she does not accept the existence of a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and is morally perfect. However, because those the critic is criticising do believe in such a being and also if the dismissal of theological ethics is to be based on an accurate understanding of what the various theological traditions actually believe and teach, and is not based on a caricature, then the sceptic must address what these traditions actually affirm.
This answer typically generates a rejoinder. If some action is right or wrong because God permits or prohibits it then God cannot be said to be good in any meaningful sense. This answer renders the claim ‘God is good’ into no more than the claim that God obeys his own commands, if this is so, can God be said to have any duties at all?
Philosopher William Lane Craig argues that “[duties] are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties, since He does not issue commands to Himself.” William Alston drew the same conclusion, “we can hardly suppose that God is obliged to love his creatures because he commands himself to do so!” William Wainwright suggests “the notion of commanding oneself to do something … is incoherent.”
The rejoinder that, if God has no duties then he cannot be said to be good in any meaningful sense, has a grain of truth to it. If we are going to understand God’s goodness in terms of God having duties or obligations that he consistently fulfils then theological ethics, of the sort envisaged, has problems. However, it is not clear to me why the phrase ‘God is good’ should be explicated in terms of God having duties that He follows.
Many theologians have suggested that one should not understand God’s goodness in this way. When God’s goodness is explicated in sacred texts like the Psalms or in official creedal statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith it is often explicated in terms of God having certain character traits. To claim God is good is to claim that He is truthful, benevolent, loving, gracious, merciful, that He is opposed to certain actions such as adultery, murder and rape and so on. Now, even if God does not have duties, it does not follow that he cannot have character traits such as these. It is true that God may not be under any obligation to love others or to tell the truth or what have you, but that does not mean that He cannot love others or tell the truth. God does not have to have a duty to do something in order to do it.
So there seems, on the face of it, nothing incoherent about contending that God is good, that he has certain attributes like being truthful, benevolent, loving and so on. It is not that theological ethicists have never read Plato or that they have ignored him – they have read him, found his arguments wanting and published responses explaining why – it is that some sceptics have never read the responses or they have chosen to ignore them.
Perhaps these rebuttals do not work (though I think that they do) but even if I am wrong the onus is surely on the sceptic to demonstrate why. Simply ignoring them, misrepresenting the situation and then dismissing religion “as a barrier to clear thinking” is simply not good enough.
[1] Clarke’s series “Clear Thinking” was awarded the Australasian Association of Philosophy Media prize in 2006.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled Contra Mundum. This blog post was published in the March 10 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to: ed*******@in*****************.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Contra Mundum · Euthyphro Dilemma · God and Morality · Investigate Magazine · Peter Geach · Plato · Simon Clarke · William Lane Craig35 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Thanks for that very carefully framed argument. I agree the issue is too often glossed over by secular teachers in a busy timetable. The problem for me is where does your description of God and of Morality begin. Does morality exist except in the presence of God (any or many). I would conjecture that morality does have an independent existence one that was (or is being) created by philosophers by logical thinking. That an action is wrong seems to me more self evident and justifiable than that God exists and can make it wrong.
Neil, any person can declare something to be wrong. Of course only God declaring something wrong actually makes it wrong.
It’s a matter of moral authority. God has it. You (and I) don’t.
Matt has expressed his belief that our moral intuition does follow God’s law, even if we’ve not encountered it before. Myself I’m unconvinced, since generally we’re talking about the “moral intuition” of a person raised (indoctrinated?) in a society based on the Christian moral code. If we examine the beliefs of pagan thinkers, we often find a disconnect between what we regard as moral and what they do.
When I see a sceptic launch into a diatribe against the evils of Christian slave owning, I confess to a mocking smile and the observation, “you wouldn’t have thought that 2500 years ago sunshine.”
Okay, I confess, I don’t generally use the term sunshine, but this is a family friendly forum.
OK … we are what we eat … at least I try to be objective
People who claim to be objective generally aren’t.
Also passive-aggressive is really unmanly.
You should write a book called “Confessions of an irenic iconoclast.” 🙂 This post somewhat mirrors mine at http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/03/euthyphros-problem/
.-= My last blog-post ..Euthyphro’s Problem =-.
“the objector assumes that it is possible that God could command atrocious things like ‘torturing people as much as possible.’ This assumption, however, seems very dubious…In the mono-theistic tradition that this line of argument seeks to criticise, God is typically defined as a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and is morally perfect.”
In your definition, you’re assuming the intelligibility of the attribute “moral perfection”. If we define “moral perfection” in terms of God’s character, then the definition is circular and therefore meaningless, since God’s character is already predefined as “morally perfect”. On the other hand, if “moral perfection” is defined independent of God’s character, then ethics can be derived independently of God, and so any moral dictates God makes are not original definitions of morality, but only reflect pre-existing principles which define “moral perfection”.
I think this is a trick. The Atheist is attempting to shift the real issue away from atheisms absolute lack of foundation for morality…ie Its Materialism. They must conjure up morality from the dead! From the periodic table or worse…from the Chaos of their supposed quantum flux. The Point of Morality hinging on the existence of God (or Gods) is that morality is rescued from being the mere dream/ pragmatism of mankind…a convention with no objective grounding outside man and above man.
As soon as we admit of God, the spiritual truths find their solid ground…ie They cease to be merely a human invention.
Now how and why God or the Gods dictate morality is open to debate, but is no longer optional. It could be like math/numbers that because God wanted to create something outside himself that numbers are a necessary outcome of plurality…God plus….so too when God made living creatures and especially a free willed spiritual being like man that Morality becomes as inescapable as numbers…Ie they are part or the requisites of God creating other spirit beings. Thus God had no option but to have moral codes that perfectly define our spiritual relationship with himself. These moral codes would be founded upon himself as God and his will for his creation. God is Good…that is simply a statement of fact that we must accept by faith…not blind faith but faith none the less….just as belief in his existence comes down to this too.
Even when we see God face to face we will still need to have faith in his goodness.
Atheists are smoking theists by avoiding their own a-moral predicament.
Tim Wikiriwhi
I agree that “morally perfect” is a problematic phrase. My starting point would be simpler: There is no reason to believe in a god who is not worth believing in. If God is arbitrary and capricious, then what’s the point of seeking him?
If we focus too much on the “morally perfect” condition, we can easily go down the road of rejecting any God that a tradition teaches because that God does not match our concept of moral perfection.
So we must approach the search for God with some sense of morality — otherwise we may not be able to distinguish between Yahweh and Baal — but also with the humility that whatever god we seek has an infinitely better understanding of morality than we do.
If we assume that the god we are seeking is a creator god, than it is not unreasonable to believe that we are imbued with some moral sensibility that is woven into the nature of creation. Again, we must realize that this is limited on our part.
It is also reasonable to assume that the God we are seeking has some interest in us. In other words, that God desires relationship with us. Otherwise, we are engaging in an intellectual exercise that has no bearing on our lives.
That’s why I reject the Euthyphro Dilemma — it lacks any of these starting points. Just as geometry requires some axioms to move forward, so does theology.
In the beginning the atheist had nothing to stand on, and in the end the have nothing to stand on. It must be taken as an article of faith, as creation is a sole entity and falls outside the realm of science. Morality, Predestination, and everything else is built on the foundation of what must require faith.
.-= My last blog-post ..Azusa Street Revival =-.
I have no doubt that morality is objective yet it is giant mistake usually made by atheists (who ironically have no moral foundations) to think that as in the case of judging the morality of human actions there ought to exist valid reasons that justify the morality we apply (Not mere arbitrary rules), so too they mistakenly think all Gods laws must conform to these same standards. This is false. They will say that God destroying the world by flood was wicked indiscriminate mass murder and that his laws that demand the keeping the Sabbath or males to be circumcised cannot be vindicated via truly objective moral reasoning and therefore are capricious and arbitrary and prove the God of the Old testament to be immoral. The errors they make in this way are many. For starters because the wages of sin is death and we have become a fallen race God is within his right to destroy everyone of us at any time…and it is only by grace that he does not do so. (The mistake atheists make is that they assume we are all sinless and innocent and that therefore any judgment by God is undeserved) The hard truth is if God allows an earthquake to kill 100 000 people, he has not committed any evil whatsoever…only the atheists hate him for it.
Next God gave the Jews special laws that were not morally based but covenant based to make them a peculiar/recognisable people…as Gods chosen people. Thus God can tell these people that he expects them to keep the Sabbath, to kill witches etc. Their covenant was such that if they kept their side of the bargain…God would be with them and would bless them greatly, but if they become unfaithful and wicked, and whore after other gods then he would punish them.
All this was to be an example to the world as to the Holy and judging nature of God and the peculiarity of the Jews.
That God made many peculiar laws for the Jews…some seemingly harsh…is no proof against God at all. they actually are assertions of his divinity. Nor are we in the age of grace expected to think the Mosaic Law is valid for our governments to enforce today. Christ has made us free from the Law.
We are not under the Mosaic covenant…and thankfully so.
Thus Christians ought to agree with many atheists (who ironically have not foundation for their morality) that our government and laws must be based upon firm moral principles not mere dictates from heaven or arbitrary whims.
Ie that there rightfully ought to be a separation of church and state.
God has given us a moral sense…our consciences.
God does expect us to use our reason in determining the morality of things, yet atheists have failed to apprehend that God has valid rights and reasons that can supersede our rights and reasons that are applicable to us as equals.
The ceremonial/peculiar Laws are tests of faith as to our heart condition towards God…ie to acknowledge his divine rights to judge as he sees fit…to maintain our trust in him even when we cannot fathom his reasons. And they are a stumbling block to the malicious who search the scriptures like Satan looking for any excuse to blame God for evil or to conspire to say Gods Laws are unjust and amoral. They have fallen into their own mire! (These are the stumbling blocks Susan has been landed with on your other thread…they are dispensational and not applicable to us today) If we know God all his actions are understandable and his holiness is beyond question and objectively moral.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
In Philip Yancey’s book “The Nature and Character of God”, the distinction is drawn between God’s Nature and His Character.
The argument is that morality is an attribute of character, but the definition of right/good and wrong/evil stems from God’s nature. Therefore God is morally perfect since he always chooses what is the highest good. Right and Wrong are not arbitrary since God’s nature never changes, and neither are right and wrong independent of God since they stem from his very nature.
I don’t fully understand the concept of right and wrong being part of God’s nature. But then it may be a bit too much to ask to try and fully comprehend God’s nature.
Ben. You wrote
“In your definition, you’re assuming the intelligibility of the attribute “moral perfection”. If we define “moral perfection” in terms of God’s character, then the definition is circular and therefore meaningless, since God’s character is already predefined as “morally perfect”. On the other hand, if “moral perfection” is defined independent of God’s character, then ethics can be derived independently of God, and so any moral dictates God makes are not original definitions of morality, but only reflect pre-existing principles which define “moral perfection”.
I agree that we can recognize and define good character traits without referring to believing in God. This however does not really establish much, because no where do I ( or any divine command theorist for that matter) deny this. Divine command theorists claim that moral obligations depend for their existence on Divine commands. The question of whether we can define or recognize goodness without referring to God is not the same as whether moral obligation can exist independently of God.
Take a well worn example, water and H20, we know that water is constituted by H20, and hence water cannot exist unless H20 exists. It does not follow from this however that one cannot identify or recognize whether a given liquid is water unless one believes in or refers to Hydrogen atoms. Numerous ancient and medieval people, all recognized water could accurately identify paradigms of water, distinguish between a cup of water and a cup of hemlock, and so on despite not believing in atoms or hydrogen.
So your objection really is beside the point, if I had argued that one cannot recognize or define good character traits without deriving them from propositions about God your argument would have a point. But I didn’t, I am defending the claim that the existence of moral obligations depends on Gods commands, and that’s a different claim. It’s a little frustrating making this point because defenders of divine command theory have done so over and over again, in almost every defense I have read the distinction between being able to recognize and define moral concepts without referring to God, and moral obligations depending on God for their existence is made. Moreover, its typically made by secular ethicist s such as the Cornell realists who identify moral obligations with natural properties.
Once again, just another point of view.
But first, because it’s getting quite offensive – Tim, to suggest that because someone doesn’t believe in god means they have no moral foundation is ridiculous. Seriously. Ridiculous.
Anyway – to the point. To boil it down to a basic level, morality/ethics etc, are about being able to recognise the difference between right and wrong, and – presumably – acting on it. Afterall, knowing Murder is wrong is a little pointless if you still kill people.
Humans are social animals, we need to function as a social unit to survive, pass on our genes, our culture etc (I’m speaking broad spectrum here, there will always be deviants from the norm, but collectively if we all said stuff this I’m going to live on my own.. you get the point).
If we were not able to recognise appropriate behaviour and act in ways which supported and enabled a group social living arrangement then we could not survive. It then, surely, has nothing to do with whether you believe a supernatural being remotely carved some basic examples of right from wrong onto a tablet of stone or two, it’s basic evolution. Darwinism in action. It is neccesary for survival, and in harsher times, when there were less ‘safety nets’ if you were cast from the group, because you couldn’t tell the difference, you would die. Counter-productive.
Studies have shown dogs – another social animal (coincidence? I think not) – can also distinguish right from wrong, because, like us they need the pack to survive and being shunned from the pack would result in death. Or perhaps dogs also being in God and he sent them a set of instructions – although that would require some pretty serious rethinking about where we sit in the grand scheme and how we treat animals.
I wouldn’t say religion is a barrier to clear thinking though, almost all early societies have used religion as a support. Spells (prayers) were cast for various outcomes, and the belief that some higher power was listening might have given them the confidence they were otherwise lacking to pursue their outcome, or at least, not be too knocked back when they didn’t reach it. Shared beliefs can be something that brings groups together and helps support social interaction and co-operation – that’s beneficial to survival.
I am aware I haven’t referenced Plato – whether ethics was reliant on religion seemed more the point, but I apologise if this was off topic. I just wanted to throw a different perspective into the mix for consideration – and, purposefully, one removed from religion.
Hi Randy, I am not sure why any thing you say addresses my point or for that matter the Euthyphro. You note that we must search for God already with some sense of morality. I agree entirely, however that only shows that we know or have some idea of morality prior to any knowledge we have of God. But the fact that I know X prior to knowing Y does not mean X can exist independent of Y. To use the H20 example again: people knew all about the existence of water before they discovered H20, it does not follow that water exists independently of H20. Similarly, people frequently discover the body of the victim prior to discovering that there was a murder, it does not follow from this that the body was not caused by the murder. The order in which we gain knowledge of something is quite different from the order in which they depend on one another in existence.
The Euthyphro does not attempt to make claims about the order we know things in. Its an argument about whether right and wrong depend for their existence on Gods commands or vice versa. This is a different question.
I also agree with you that even though we begin with some sense of morality we also need to be tentative about this and accept that we might be mistaken in our moral judgments on many things and allow them to be revised in light of theological knowledge. But again nothing in this observation tells us anything about whether right and wrong depend on divine commands.
.-= My last blog-post ..Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part II =-.
Just another point of view…As I am a mere layman, I will leave it to Matt to give you a logical chain of argument against this point of view you have expressed (which is the common evolutionary view of such guys as Dawkins etc) . I just want to say I did not say atheists don’t have a sense of morality from which they might reason out an ethical code. I said that they do have such a sense. (Ironically it is the modern materialist atheist who with one breath claims to be moral, next these same folk oftern deny humans have freewill and thus deny human morality in its true sense of Man being a moral agent.)
I take it from your antagonism to my arguments against materialist determinism you believe in free will ie you agree this much is true about Christian theism…that Man is morally accountable for his actions. If this is so you are already at odds with a great portion of your fellow atheists…and good on you! You are that much closer to the truth. But you are still a lost soul. You have not yet realized the true source of your own conscience. Your attempts at godless rationalizations are a complete failure. In your own mind you are merely an intelligent ape. A moral ape is an oxymoron and you know it…as for morality in dogs??? This shows you have a very poor idea of morality!
But even if we grant you all this myth…You are still far from being out of the Amoral woods!
The problem is now that even though we agree that man has a moral sense is how are we to ground our morality in objective reality in such a way as to be binding upon every one of us at all times?
By your point of view morality is a biological adaptation of mere expedience, you dehumanize man down to his reproductive organs saying whatever perpetuates the species is moral. You collectivize morality because though a murderer or a thief as individuals obviously may profit greatly from such despicable actions…to rescue your godless theory from such an obvious problem forces you to collectivize your moral theory and say such things are detrimental to the survival not of individuals but of the species. (You use the same reasoning that Mill and co use in the attempt to rescue their greatest happiness principle and suffer the same collectivism).
The problem then is once you tell me your whole Godless theory of morals…I can simply laugh at you and become a tyrant, a Highwayman, or a pedophile if I so desired because no reason exists to compel me to care about the perpetuation of the species, and as the world is filled with violence It proves evolution has failed to instill its social values. Reality rebuts the theory of evolutionary/ biological morality and supports the Christian veiw that man is a fallen race of sinners. If your veiw were true we would be like ants…governed by irresistible social instincts.
Thus your whole theory is amoral.
True morality is founded on the judgment of God and faith.
To be a moral agent requires intelligence and the possesion free will so as to be able to choose to act on moral precepts rather than simply react according to deterministic biological forces. Next The free agent must have faith that morality is objective and binding upon themselves as much as others.
Faith is key. We say we act in good faith when we say we are acting morally. Faith in moral objectivity is the motive force that empowers reason and raises it from mere mathematics into a social/ personal reality.
Faith that God is Holy, made mankind, and will judge us by his standards is essential.
Only those who possess such a faith are capible of trule moral action and may even face death rather than betray their convictions. It is true that an atheist may die for a good cause, yet is it because of vanity?(for fame or they don’t want to be called cowards?)… Is it because they had no alternative? Ie It is very easy to fake morality. The heart motive is essential and Faith is the proper motive power…the conviction that an act is objectively right or wrong, not merely expedient or socially acceptable.
When I say don’t commit murder, I am appealing to the belief that God made man equal and with certain inalienable rights.
It is individualistic. Each individual has Value and dignity ie they are not merely insignificant ants subordinate to the Hive super organism.
And their/my actions and intents will be judged by God Almighty…there is real moral accountability, not mere social stigma and treat of extinction of the species.
It is by this criteria (and much more) that I can safely state that atheists have no foundation for morality. They have a moral sense they cannot vindicate from their godless materialist evolutionary basis. That you have a conscience is the greatest self evident proof that we were created by a Moral creator…God, not beastly survival of the fittest.
What about all the evil committed in the name of religious faith?
This where reason and true divine revelation have their essential parts to play. When we read that Christ tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves he is appealing to our reason and conscience.
He expects that via reason you will accent to the truth of his command. By such an appeal He expects us to be able to discern truth from error and thereby avoid becoming fanatical tyrants or the followers of devils in Godly apparel. Thus the scriptures are appeals to reason, and if we are diligent we will Keep ourselves from becoming deceived superstitious devils.
Thus it is theism that vindicates the use of reason whereas the atheist cannot vindicate their own moral being of reasoning’s.
Another point of view: I think you are mistaking two question,s the first is whether a person can recognize what is right and wrong without believing in God, I agree with you that they can and do. The second, which is what I think Tim is getting at is wether, given the naturalistic picture of the world associated with contemporary atheist, its likely that moral duties would exist. That is quite a different question and those who argue atheism provides no foundation for morality typically are giving a negative answer to the second question not the first.
As to your answer I think its mistaken for two reasons, first it does not show that the existence of moral duties is likely in a naturalistic universe, what it does is simply assume they do exist and then argues that evolutionary pressures would lead us to recognize they do.
But second, it seems to me that there is an account of morality which is entirely compatible with all the evidence you cite which leads to the conclusion that on atheism we do not know or recognize the existence of moral duties. This is the view that moral duties do not exist, however, communities will survive better if they mistakenly believe they do, and hence evolutionary pressures have lead humans to believe the illusion that they do.
As far as I can tell, this understanding of moral knowledge is equally as supported by the empirical evidence, as your position is, and it’s more economical in that it does not postulate the existence of moral duties. Hence it seems that on the empirical evidence, theories that entail morality is an illusion and hence do not constitute knowledge are just as if not more plausible than accounts of moral knowledge which suggest we do have such knowledge.
.-= My last blog-post ..Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part II =-.
“But the fact that I know X prior to knowing Y does not mean X can exist independent of Y. To use the H20 example again: people knew all about the existence of water before they discovered H20, it does not follow that water exists independently of H20”
I struggle to follow the H2O example.
My browser shows H two zero rather than H two O, so that might be a start.
However when I see H2O, I read “water” similarly, when I see Homo sapiens sapiens, I read human.
To rephrase your argument: people knew about the existence of water before they discovered water, it does not follow that water exists independently of water.
Which is difficult to follow.
(You could substitute X with H or more accurately 2H and Y with O)
If we take your knowledge of XY (the product of X and Y) you can assert that knowledge of XY prior to knowledge of either X or Y does not mean XY can exist independent of X or Y.
Which is easy to follow.
However you raise the H2O example in the context of knowledge of morality (knowledge of X). The conclusion that knowledge of X does not mean that X can exist independent of XY is obviously mistaken.
CJ, he’s likening it to the way in which we knew about water before we knew what water was composed of.
Michael Onfray is a refreshing change from atheists who want Christian morality without Christian beliefs. He is a committed hedonist who roundly condemns efforts to construct a morality where none exists.
Hi Matt,
My comment was intended to suggest that Plato’s Euthyphro poses a question that lacks sufficient foundation.
I suggested that any God worth believing in must incorporate what we describe as goodness and love. Our sensibility of goodness and love may be partial and defective, yet also may find its roots in God himself.
So for me, the dilemma is that we are seeking a God whose nature we presume to be good and loving, yet we are aware that our moral compass is imperfect.
I think we have to pursue a God who we believe is involved in our process of finding our way. Otherwise, we’re here trying to figure out what to do and all we’ve got are what may or may not be “divine commands,” which may or may not be in sync with our sense of right and wrong.
Perhaps these comments are not germane to your discussion of Plato’s Euthyphro. I have to admit, I did not do well in Philosophy of Religion — I dropped out of the class half-way through. That was 1973. The instructor was Michael Tooley.
Tim – I’ll begin with a clarification – I meant only to propose an alternative theory. It’s a good thing in a debate to consider alternative points of view. But your emotional response would indicate that you found it upsetting. It wasn’t my intention. (Although, if I may point out, in an earlier post you suggested that atheists were angry with god about earthquakes… that doesn’t make sense. Atheists don’t believe in God, so why would they blame a fictional character for something that was clearly caused by tectonic plate movements?)
A couple of points based on your response…
The first being that to suggest we are slaves to our reproductive organs is missing the point of evolution. Yes, we seek the best mate for our genes, but there is so so much more to furthering the species than mere mass reproduction. Studies have shown that people are hardwired to respond to, and be attracted to mates, who provide the best chance for their offspring – so much so that there has been some evidence that we are attracted to mates who have different immunities, because that will produce the healthiest children. Symmetry is associated with health, and even babies respond more favorably to symmetrical faces compared to non symmetrical. Evolution has provided many ‘tricks’ (for lack of a better word, though I’m sure there is one), that encourage a social system. Babies look like their fathers to encourage bonding, the right chemicals are released etc. The thing about evolution is that we naturally select traits that benefit the survival of the species overall. Maybe you’ve misunderstood ‘survival of the fittest’ – many people so on first glance, it’s not about ‘fitness’ in the modern sense, but about fit with environment for the greatest chance of survival.
Secondly – we are apes, sort of. We share well over 90% of our DNA with chimps and gorillas, and the similarities between ape and human babies are extraordinary. Not to mention of course that the scientific record has substantive evidence of descending from a common ancestor.
I see no substantial difference between humans and other animals – in fact you may very well be able to receive an organ or a heart valve from a pig but depending on blood type my blood could kill you if you received it via transmission. I think the compatibility and similarities in our systems rule out any suppositions that we’re somehow different and special. Yes, we are more intelligent – and with that intelligence comes better ability to think and reason about morals etc (I suppose I had to get it back to the topic eventually). but now we’re using that intelligence to pollute and destroy our environment, which would have to be one of the least intelligent things a species can do.
I think the fundamental problem is that you’ve attributed to magic/the supernatural that which has resulted from both evolution (increased brain size, upright stature meaning babies are less developed when born and need to be cared for for longer) and enculturation (how we’re socialised). I think that’s important – that it’s clear it’s a combination of evolution and enculturation.
Your claim however that violence in the world undermines evolutions argument is a little pointless. If we were innately good because we were created by a moral god then surely there wouldn’t be violence and evil in the world either. I’ts not all biology – culture has a strong influence over behaviour, but you also have to take into account mental illness etc too of course. Anyway violence and terrible behaviour isn’t the domain of atheists. Priests, who surely should know gods laws, have committed terrible crimes – one of the worst being child molestation.
Free will – I would have to say of course there is free will. To assume there isn’t would – to my mind – assume there is a planner who has made our choices for us. And that would go against atheism wouldn’t it? I always though of the idea there was no free will being quite an outdated theory. It’s nice christian theism includes some rational thinking. (Sorry, was that a bit cheeky?).
This is slightly off topic – but I’m raising it here because I’m really starting to think about all this – a big issue for me with Christianity is that it’s based on the Bible. The Bible was written by men (inherently flawed), about 70 years after Jesus was said to be alive and talking about god. So second hand knowledge being recorded over 70 years later with some discrepancies… given how hard it is for some people to recall the events of the past year accurately, I think 70 years is a stretch…
This is slightly off topic – but I’m raising it here because I’m really starting to think about all this – a big issue for me with Christianity is that it’s based on the Bible. The Bible was written by men (inherently flawed), about 70 years after Jesus was said to be alive and talking about god. So second hand knowledge being recorded over 70 years later with some discrepancies… given how hard it is for some people to recall the events of the past year accurately, I think 70 years is a stretch..
Well this comment is both question begging and clearly based on false premises. Its question begging because it assumes that the Bible was merely written by men, Christians however deny this they believe the primary author is God, you can of course contend that Christians are mistaken of course, but you shouldn’t use the assumption that Christianity is mistaken as a premise in an argument designed to show that Christianity is mistaken.
Its based on false premises because your claim “ The Bible was written by men (inherently flawed), about 70 years after Jesus was said to be alive and talking about god” is false. There are 66 books in the bible, most (the old testament) were written hundreds of years and even over a thousand years before the time of Christ.
If one limits what you say to the New Testament its still false. Christ was crucified in 30 AD. 70 years would date the books of the New Testament at 100 AD. But very few scholars would date the books this late. Paul and Peter died in the Neroian persecution of the 60’s and so there writings cannot be dated latter than the 60’s. Few scholars would date the synoptic at 100, the majority place Mark in 65 Matthew in 70 and Luke in the 80’s. Revelation is dated usually in the 90’s or 70’s and so on, very few books are dated latter than 100 and even when they are it’s a matter of significant dispute. John A T Robinson for example dated the entire NT before 70 AD. Acts appears to not know of Paul or Peters death or the fall of Jerusalem and it was written after Luke.
Finally you seem to think that if a biography is written 70 years after the events its worthless as a source of information. The problem is that historians do not typically take this line with Arrain or Plutarch who wrote biographies of Alexander the Great hundreds of years after his life or (in Plutarchs case) who wrote of Ceaser nearly 100 years latter. Similar things could be said about the historical sources we have for most historical people. In fact I wonder if you would dismiss any books written about world war II which are published today ( some 70 years after the events), my next door neighbor was a POW, who recently wrote his memoirs, would you dismiss this as crap? Should I dismiss any biographies written about Churchill or Hitler or Martin Luther King in the last five years as wholly unreliable?
.-= My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night =-.
Well this comment is both question begging and clearly based on false premises. Its question begging because it assumes that the Bible was merely written by men, Christians however deny this they believe the primary author is God
NOTE: actually many Christians acknowledge this issue and wrestle with the problem of how traditions have changed as they were passed on from the original witnesses. To say that “Christians deny this” is true of a particular stream of Christianity – but is certainly not a majority view.
You can of course contend that Christians are mistaken of course, but you shouldn’t use the assumption that Christianity is mistaken as a premise in an argument designed to show that Christianity is mistaken.
NOTE: This premise is one justified by an examination of the early church history, an examination of the earliest texts, and one agreed upon by the majority of NT scholars. It is not an assumption pulled out of the air – and as such is not question begging.
Its based on false premises because your claim “ The Bible was written by men (inherently flawed), about 70 years after Jesus was said to be alive and talking about god” is false. There are 66 books in the bible, most (the old testament) were written hundreds of years and even over a thousand years before the time of Christ.
NOTE: Clearly, by context, the above comment was reffering specifically to the NT texts. Although the earliest Pauline works were probably more like 20 years after Jesus’ death, and the earliest Gospel may have been only 30-40 years later. Well within an eyewitnesses lifetime.
Similar things could be said about the historical sources we have for most historical people. In fact I wonder if you would dismiss any books written about world war II which are published today ( some 70 years after the events), my next door neighbor was a POW, who recently wrote his memoirs, would you dismiss this as crap? Should I dismiss any biographies written about Churchill or Hitler or Martin Luther King in the last five years as wholly unreliable?
NOTE: We live in a very different society, so such comparisons are of limited value. The number of written records from the 20th century are vast, whereas there are very few documents giving an account of Jesus’ life – even fewer which do not come from the Christian communities themselves. We even have recordings (both audio and visual) from WW2, and recordings of the speeches of the three men you mention, meaning that any eyewitness testimony can be compared a much firmer foundation than in the 1st century. To counteract this there was a much stronger oral tradition in the 1st century than exists today, so traditions would have been more likely to be handed on in a pure form. In conclusion the concern above is neither question begging nor based on false premises but is one which a responsible Christian should ask, and one which most biblical scholars address in a variety of ways.
ALSO:
I am not sure that he does “use the assumption that Christianity is mistaken”
.. he merely points out that there are issues with finding out the authentic message of Jesus, or finding authentic facts about the life of Jesus. This does not mean Christianity is mistaken.
ALSO:
He no where CONCLUDES that Christianity is mistaken either.
[…] POSTS: Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and […]
“… It is true that God may not be under any obligation to love others or to tell the truth or what have you, but that does not mean that He cannot love others or tell the truth. God does not have to have a duty to do something in order to do it.”
On the narrow issue of God’s truthfulness … were God to lie, would not all things, including God himself, cease to be? For, as God is “the ground of all being,” as God is Being itself, does it not logically follow that if God even *could* lie, then being/existence would be self-contradictory, would cancel itself out?
Jason: “… If we examine the beliefs of pagan thinkers, we often find a disconnect between what we regard as moral and what they do.”
I think that’s chiefly because Christianity continues the trajectory established in the OT to broaden the scope of those to whom one owes, and from whom one expects, the fulfillment of moral obligations.
Morality in interpersonal and relational —
1) only persons have moral obligations and expectations;
2) the moral obligations and expectations between persons follows from the relationship between them.
Biblical religion changes the calculus on point 2 by establishing that we all are equally creations of God, and so there is *always* some sort of relationship between any two human persons, because God is always involved.
Thanks for sharing.I agree the issue is too often glossed over by secular teachers in a busy timetable.
Matt said,
1 Samuel 15:2-3 says,
To me, the commanding of others to slaughter men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys is a ‘paradigm of conduct that no morally good person could ever entertain or endorse’.
I suspect that if the Bible contained a verse where God commanded people to ‘torture others as much as possible’ someone would find some way to justify it (as they do with the above passage).
Damian, two things:
1.even if I grant your reading of this passage, its hard to see how it undercuts my point. The first option states that an action is wrong if and only if and because God defined prohibits the action. Where God is defined as a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and is morally perfect.
Sam 15 2-3 is a counter example to position only if it is both the case that (a) an all knowing, all powerful, and is morally perfect. perfectly good person commanded this action and (b) the action is wrong. The problem is I cannot think of anyone who would accept both (a) and (b). People who deny (b) typically infer from this that either God did not command the action in question ( and challenge biblical inerrancy) or they argue God is not morally good. Moreover, people who accept (a) as you say typically deny (b) . I can’t think of any sensible case where a person maintained both that what God ( as defined above) commanded was wrong and God actually commanded it.
2. I am not convinced your reading of the passage is actually correct, I spelt out my reasons in my two posts http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/01/sunday-study-joshua-and-the-genocide-of-the-canaanites-part-i.html and http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/01/sunday-study-joshua-and-the-genocide-of-the-canaanites-part-ii.html. I mentioned the Amalekite case specifically in the comments. Basically the language in Sam 15:1-2 uses language which is typical of ancient near eastern hyperbole, it was common in ANE histories to describe a victory in hyperbolic terms of total anihiliation, killing everyone etc, moreover if you read on in the same chapter its evident that the Amalekites were not literally wiped out despite the fact that the command is Sam 15 is said to have been carried out. So its unclear that this text says what you contend that it does.
Matt,
1. If you grant my reading of that passage it completely undermines your point because, if you agree that “slaughtering men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys is a paradigm of conduct that no morally good person could ever entertain or endorse” (in a similar league to the action of torturing people) then it contradicts the point you make when you say that “The situation the critic envisages [torture] then is a situation which is impossible”. We have an example from the Bible of God commanding people to perform an atrocity. i.e. not impossible.
2. I’m aware you are not convinced that my reading (where it says in black and white that God commands the genocide) is accurate. Which is why I made the point that “if the Bible contained a verse where God commanded people to ‘torture others as much as possible’ someone would find some way to justify it”.
For readers unfamiliar with the story, Saul is told by God to kill “men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys”. Matt interprets this as the kind of bragging language they used in that era. The problem is that the story goes on to say,
In other words, God command Saul to commit an extreme form of genocide, Saul does so but spares the king along with some prize livestock and God is upset because Saul didn’t go the whole hog (excuse the pun).
It’s pretty black and white and if you want to reinterpret this as bragging that crept its way into your holy scriptures you are going to have to rethink a *lot* of other scriptures if you are to maintain even a modicum of balance and integrity. Like, perhaps, were the various authors bragging about Noah living to 950 or about Moses leading the people out of Egypt or Balaam’s talking donkey or the uncorroborated darkness, tearing of the curtain and wandering of the zombies or even perhaps of Jesus coming back to life? That’s quite a can of worms.
Remember, for most Christians, the contents of the Bible are unlike, say, the contents of a C S Lewis book. To them they’re different in that they are endorsed by God Himself. Why would he let something like that be included? Surely it misrepresents what he would have said by a very long shot when he is claimed to have commanded genocide? Not just genocide of men, women and children but the utterly pointless killing of animals too. Surely this would be the very definition of blasphemy if it were contrary to what God really commanded? Why would he let it slide?
Either that, or perhaps if the Bible really is endorsed by the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe then perhaps it really *can* be morally right to commit genocide so long as God commands it?
But that would mean that even the action of “torturing others as much as possible” is well and truly back on the cards too if you would consider extreme genocide a ‘paradigm of conduct that no morally good person could ever entertain or endorse’.
Undermine? I think so.
Re 1. I disagree, if there are situations where its possible for a perfectly good all knowing rational person to endorse the “slaughtering men and women” then that action in those circumstances would not be an atrocity. Think about it, if its an atrocity and done knowingly then the person is not good. If its done unkowingly the person is not omniscient. But to suggest that an action can be endorsed by a good omniscient person and also be an atrocity is incoherent.
So it seems to me there is no counter example here, either God endorsed it in which case its not an atrocity or it is an atrocity and God did not endorse it. No other option is coherent.
2. Your objections to my comments on Sam 15 are unconvincing.
First, you state my position is that they were “bragging” but that’s not what I said I suggested it was hyperbole, thats not the same thing.
Second, you state “it says in black and white” that God commands genocide. But that does not show its not hyperbole, if my son messes up his room and I say “I am going to kill that kid” I have said in black and white that I will kill him. If the media say “the All blacks slaughtered the french, Dan Carter annihilated the french defenders” its stated in black and white that the all blacks kill french rugby players. yet no one would interpret these comments as not hyperbolic.
Third, you suggest that if a person grants hyperbole in one part of scripture then they will have to allow it in various others. This does not follow however, if I read the above statement about the all blacks in the Herald it does not follow that every other report I read is called into question, its common for language to seamlessly mix both literal and figurative language in the same text.
Turning to your last point you quote some of the passage and assert ” In other words, God command Saul to commit an extreme form of genocide, Saul does so but spares the king along with some prize livestock and God is upset because Saul didn’t go the whole hog ” this issue is nowhere near as clear as this.
First, when God gives the reason why he is not pleased with Saul in this passage he does not mentioned Genocide, what he says is “Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD ?” the issue God states then is that Saul took plunder.
This brings me to a second issue, what God commanded is “Now go, attack the Amalekites and put under the ban everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” there are two instructions here, an instruction to put everything that belongs to the Amalekites under the ban, the word is Harem and it means that one renounces the item so as not to take it as plunder. The second command is the so called Genocide one.
Third, there is evidence in the text that the second command the one to “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” is hyperbolic. For starters the OT scholar Hess has argued that the phrase “women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” is an idomatic way of saying “everyone” it does not actually imply that women and children are in the list. Its a bit like our English idiom everything including the kitchen sink, so what is said is kill everyone. Moreover, as I note in my post, phrases like this are common in Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian accounts of battles and when its used it is hyperbolic not literal. Finally, the text makes it clear that the command was not literally carried out, while you note that the text says all the Amalekites except the king were killed ( and the king is killed latter in the same passage) a few chapters latter such a Samuel 30, the Amalekites attack a city, raid it and David has to launch a counter attack to get the captives back, which suggests that they were not exterminated and not even close if they were capable of such an attack.it tells us that the Amalekites are alive and in sufficient numbers as to raid cities and capture. This kind of thing is common in ANE histories of the period, one hears battles described rhetorically and hyperbolically in totalistic terms, all the enemy killed etc and then a latter passage which mentions survivors.
So its not clear to me that this passage says what you assert at all, of course if you take everything totally literally, ignore what happens afterwards in the narrative, ignore the conventions literature like this was written with and so on, you can get the conclusion you state, but that does not prove that the reading you give is correct.
[…] Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and […]
You said you can think of 22 monographs and articles in the highest philosophical journals can you cite them I want to read them
Sure, this list is not exhaustive:
Alvin Plantinga, “Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience” Faith and Philosophy
Volume 27, Issue 3, July 2010.
Richard Joyce “Theistic ethics and the Euthyphro dilemma “Journal of Religious Ethics 30 (2002) 49-75
John Mackie, Ethics Inventing Right and Wrong, (1977), Viking Press
William Alston “What Euthyphro Should have said” In William Lane Craig (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide. Edinburgh University Press. 283-298 (2002) also “Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists” in Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy ed Michael Beaty (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990).
William Lane Craig “This most Gruesome of Guests” in Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism and Ethics eds Robert K Garcia and Nathan L King (Lanthan: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2009) 172; also Philosophical Foundations of a Christian World View (Downers Grover Il: Intervarsity Press, 2003) 529-532.
Philip L Quinn Divine Commands and Moral Requirements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); also “Divine Command Theory” in Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory ed Hugh Lafollette (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 2000) 53-73; “Theological Voluntarism” The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) 63-90.
Edward Weirenga The Nature of God: An Inquiry into the Divine Attributes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989) 215-27. See also, “Utilitarianism and the Divine Command Theory” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984) 311-318; and “A Defensible Divine Command Theory” Nous 17 (1983) 387-408.
William Wainwright Religion and Morality (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005).
C. Stephen Evans, God and Moral Obligation (Oxford University Press, 2013)
Thomas L. Carson “Divine will/divine command moral theories and the problem of arbitrariness” Religious Studies 48 (4):445
David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls God Good: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)
John Hare God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
Alexander R. Pruss, “Another Step in Divine Command Dialectics,” Faith and Philosophy 26(4), October 2009, 432-439.
Robert Adams “Divine Command Meta-Ethics Modified Again” Journal of Religious Ethics 7:1 (1979); Finite and Infinite Goods (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
J. Hanink & G. Mar. “What Euthyphro Couldn’t have Said” Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1987) 246
Thank you