"Is God the source of Morality?"

[Dr.Physics]

"Is an action good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?" this is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

so what does this show us? lets take a look: (to see conclusion of the argument, go to end of post)

Explanation of the dilemma

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right) goes under a variety of names: intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and/or objectivism. Roughly, it is the view that there are independent moral standards: some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands.

Problems
This horn of the dilemma faces several problems:

Sovereignty: If there are moral standards independent of God's will, then "[t]here is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Moreover, God depends for his goodness on the extent to which he conforms to an independent moral standard. Thus, God is not absolutely independent." 18th-century philosopher Richard Price, who takes the first horn and thus sees morality as "necessary and immutable", sets out the objection as follows: "It may seem that this is setting up something distinct from God, which is independent of him, and equally eternal and necessary."
Omnipotence: These moral standards would limit God's power: not even God could oppose them by commanding what is evil and thereby making it good. As Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn "seems to place a restriction on God's power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory... [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong." This point was very influential in Islamic theology: "In relation to God, objective values appeared as a limiting factor to His power to do as He wills... Ash'ari got rid of the whole embarrassing problem by denying the existence of objective values which might act as a standard for God’s action." Similar concerns drove the medieval voluntarists Scotus and Ockham.
Freedom of the will: Moreover, these moral standards would limit God's freedom of will: God could not command anything opposed to them, and perhaps would have no choice but to command in accordance with them. As Mark Murphy puts the point, "if moral requirements existed prior to God's willing them, requirements that an impeccable God could not violate, God's liberty would be compromised."
Morality without God: If there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. This conclusion was explicitly (and notoriously) drawn by early modern political theorist Hugo Grotius: "What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him" On such a view, God is no longer a "law-giver" but at most a "law-transmitter" who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality. Nontheists have capitalized on this point, largely as a way of disarming moral arguments for God's existence: if morality does not depend on God in the first place, such arguments stumble at the starting gate.

The second horn
The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is right because it is commanded by God) is sometimes known as divine command theory or voluntarism. Roughly, it is the view that there are no moral standards other than God's will: without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong.

Problems
This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems:

No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: "if theological voluntarism is true, then God's commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary... [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another." And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective."
No reasons for God: This arbitrariness would also jeopardize God's status as a wise and rational being, one who always acts on good reasons only. As Leibniz writes: "Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act."
Anything goes: This arbitrariness would also mean that anything could become good, and anything could become bad, merely upon God's command. Thus if God commanded us "to gratuitously inflict pain on each other" or to engage in "cruelty for its own sake" or to hold an "annual sacrifice of randomly selected ten-year-olds in a particularly gruesome ritual that involves excruciating and prolonged suffering for its victims", then we would be morally obligated to do so. As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous."
Moral contingency: If morality depends on the perfectly free will of God, morality would lose its necessity: "If nothing prevents God from loving things that are different from what God actually loves, then goodness can change from world to world or time to time. This is obviously objectionable to those who believe that claims about morality are, if true, necessarily true."In other words, no action has its moral status necessarily: any right action could have easily been wrong, if God had so decided, and an action which is right today could easily become wrong tomorrow, if God so decides. Indeed, some have argued that divine command theory is incompatible with ordinary conceptions of moral supervenience.
Why do God's commands obligate?: Mere commands do not create obligations unless the commander has some commanding authority. But this commanding authority cannot itself be based on those very commands (i.e., a command to obey one's own commands), otherwise a vicious circle results. So, in order for God's commands to obligate us, he must derive commanding authority from some source other than his own will. As Cudworth put it: "For it was never heard of, that any one founded all his authority of commanding others, and others (sic) obligation or duty to obey his commands, in a law of his own making, that men should be required, obliged, or bound to obey him. Wherefore since the thing willed in all laws is not that men should be bound or obliged to obey; this thing cannot be the product of the meer (sic) will of the commander, but it must proceed from something else; namely, the right or authority of the commander". To avoid the circle, one might say our obligation comes from gratitude to God for creating us. But this presupposes some sort of independent moral standard obligating us to be grateful to our benefactors. As 18th-century philosopher Francis Hutcheson writes: "Is the Reason exciting to concur with the Deity this, 'The Deity is our Benefactor?' Then what Reason excites to concur with Benefactors?"Or finally, one might resort to Hobbes's view: "The right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them (as if he required obedience, as of gratitude for his benefits), but from his irresistible power."In other words, might makes right.
God's goodness: If all goodness is a matter of God's will, then what shall become of God's goodness? Thus William P. Alston writes, "since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands... that God practises what he preaches, whatever that might be", and Hutcheson deems such a view "an insignificant Tautology, amounting to no more than this, 'That God wills what he wills.'"Alternatively, as Leibniz puts it, divine command theorists "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?". A related point is raised by C. S. Lewis: "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'"Or again Leibniz: "this opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil."That is, since divine command theory trivializes God's goodness, it is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all-powerful demon.
The is-ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy: According to David Hume, it is hard to see how moral propositions featuring the relation ought could ever be deduced from ordinary is propositions, such as "the being of a God".Divine command theory is thus guilty of deducing moral oughts from ordinary ises about God's commands.In a similar vein, G. E. Moore argued (with his open question argument) that the notion good is indefinable, and any attempts to analyze it in naturalistic or metaphysical terms are guilty of the so-called "naturalistic fallacy".This would block any theory which analyzes morality in terms of God's will: and indeed, in a later discussion of divine command theory, Moore concluded that "when we assert any action to be right or wrong, we are not merely making an assertion about the attitude of mind towards it of any being or set of beings whatever".
No morality without God: If all morality is a matter of God's will, then if God does not exist, there is no morality. This is the thought captured in the slogan (often attributed to Dostoevsky) "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." Divine command theorists disagree over whether this is a problem for their view or a virtue of their view. Many would argue that morality does indeed require God's existence, and that this is in fact a problem for atheism. But divine command theorist Robert Merrihew Adams contends that this idea ("that no actions would be ethically wrong if there were not a loving God") is one that "will seem (at least initially) implausible to many", and that his theory must "dispel [an] air of paradox."

conclusion: god can not be the originator of morality, in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Dr.Physics]

Trying to read the Bible literally leads to all sorts of intellectual backflips and absurdities

like believing conscious beings that transcend nature created the universe and take interest in your personal (including sexual) life.

Yeah, that's one of them. But what I had in mind was rejecting known scientific facts and accepting logical nonsense.

Tell me, did you ever get around to reading those posts? I've linked to them twice now, three times for the one linked above. I'd like to know if you see a problem with reading the Bible as what it actually and indisputably is - a collection of ancient documents written by humans that constitute the literature of a people. One can take that approach as either a believer or a skeptic; seems intellectually sound to me.

the problem is when you see a passage that says "slaves are allowed" you say that is just historical ancient societal belief, so its not true. when the bible says that the earth was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th), you say its just a nice story, but not scientifically true.. its not actually true...

well then what makes you think differently when the bible says "there is a god which will judge you", or more broadly "there is a god which ____" ? why do you think this is true? dietys, or gods were common ancient bronze age myths in all different cultures... zues, aphrodite, YWHW, ect ect... you dismiss zues, why? you dismiss thousands of other gods, but what makes you believe in "your" god? or what makes you think there is any god at all, even if you cant define it.

[cnorman18]

Trying to read the Bible literally leads to all sorts of intellectual backflips and absurdities

like believing conscious beings that transcend nature created the universe and take interest in your personal (including sexual) life.

Yeah, that's one of them. But what I had in mind was rejecting known scientific facts and accepting logical nonsense.

Tell me, did you ever get around to reading those posts? I've linked to them twice now, three times for the one linked above. I'd like to know if you see a problem with reading the Bible as what it actually and indisputably is - a collection of ancient documents written by humans that constitute the literature of a people. One can take that approach as either a believer or a skeptic; seems intellectually sound to me.

the problem is when you see a passage that says "slaves are allowed" you say that is just historical ancient societal belief, so its not true. when the bible says that the earth was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th), you say its just a nice story, but not scientifically true.. its not actually true...

well then what makes you think differently when the bible says "there is a god which will judge you", or more broadly "there is a god which ____" ? why do you think this is true?

You're still assuming that there are statements in the Bible which I regard as true because they're in the Bible. I don't think you're listening, and you certainly haven't bothered to read any of the posts I recommended. If you really aren't interested in what I have to say, why do you keep asking questions?

Are you really interesting in the exchange of ideas here, or do you just want to score points? I have no interest at all in debate as a board game.

dietys, or gods were common ancient bronze age myths in all different cultures... zues, aphrodite, YWHW, ect ect... you dismiss zues, why? you dismiss thousands of other gods, but what makes you believe in "your" god? or what makes you think there is any god at all, even if you cant define it.

Read a bit and then get back to me. I don't feel like retyping things because you can't be bothered to read the posts to which I've already referred you.


EDITED TO ADD:

I decided to drop this in here too. It might be helpful. I've posted it many times, not often to much response.

---


To say, "I believe in God" is not necessarily quite the same as to say "I believe that God objectively exists." There are those who question that assertion, but it is true; and I am not the first or only person to take that approach. Here is an essay on that subject and others related to it from MyJewishLearning.com.

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

Before we go to "But why bother with..."

Of COURSE one could pursue the good and the noble without reference to any God, to any pseudohistorical narratives, without referring to anything at all but the abstract ideals themselves; but that seems to be the province of philosophers. The rest of us - common humanity - have always found such ideas more comprehensible and accessible, not to say inspiring, when expressed in a STORY. If that story is linked with an ancient and honorable tradition and one's personal heritage, being about about one's own ancestors, so much the more.

Whether or not the story is literally or historically true has rather rarely been the point.

One more note: I am not here alluding or referring to any beliefs about a life after death. Belief in God, of the nature described above, and belief in an Afterlife of whatever kind are not necessarily either related to nor relevant to each other.

---

It would still be helpful if you'd read the posts to which I linked this thread earlier.

[Dr.Physics]

Trying to read the Bible literally leads to all sorts of intellectual backflips and absurdities

like believing conscious beings that transcend nature created the universe and take interest in your personal (including sexual) life.

Yeah, that's one of them. But what I had in mind was rejecting known scientific facts and accepting logical nonsense.

Tell me, did you ever get around to reading those posts? I've linked to them twice now, three times for the one linked above. I'd like to know if you see a problem with reading the Bible as what it actually and indisputably is - a collection of ancient documents written by humans that constitute the literature of a people. One can take that approach as either a believer or a skeptic; seems intellectually sound to me.

the problem is when you see a passage that says "slaves are allowed" you say that is just historical ancient societal belief, so its not true. when the bible says that the earth was created in 6 days (god rested on the 7th), you say its just a nice story, but not scientifically true.. its not actually true...

well then what makes you think differently when the bible says "there is a god which will judge you", or more broadly "there is a god which ____" ? why do you think this is true?

You're still assuming that there are statements in the Bible which I regard as true because they're in the Bible. I don't think you're listening, and you certainly haven't bothered to read any of the posts I recommended. If you really aren't interested in what I have to say, why do you keep asking questions?

Are you really interesting in the exchange of ideas here, or do you just want to score points? I have no interest at all in debate as a board game.

dietys, or gods were common ancient bronze age myths in all different cultures... zues, aphrodite, YWHW, ect ect... you dismiss zues, why? you dismiss thousands of other gods, but what makes you believe in "your" god? or what makes you think there is any god at all, even if you cant define it.

Read a bit and then get back to me. I don't feel like retyping things because you can't be bothered to read the posts to which I've already referred you.


EDITED TO ADD:

I decided to drop this in here too. It might be helpful. I've posted it many times, not often to much response.

---


To say, "I believe in God" is not necessarily quite the same as to say "I believe that God objectively exists." There are those who question that assertion, but it is true; and I am not the first or only person to take that approach. Here is an essay on that subject and others related to it from MyJewishLearning.com.

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

Before we go to "But why bother with..."

Of COURSE one could pursue the good and the noble without reference to any God, to any pseudohistorical narratives, without referring to anything at all but the abstract ideals themselves; but that seems to be the province of philosophers. The rest of us - common humanity - have always found such ideas more comprehensible and accessible, not to say inspiring, when expressed in a STORY. If that story is linked with an ancient and honorable tradition and one's personal heritage, being about about one's own ancestors, so much the more.

Whether or not the story is literally or historically true has rather rarely been the point.

One more note: I am not here alluding or referring to any beliefs about a life after death. Belief in God, of the nature described above, and belief in an Afterlife of whatever kind are not necessarily either related to nor relevant to each other.

---

It would still be helpful if you'd read the posts to which I linked this thread earlier.

the reason i didnt read the threads you pointed me to is because even if they were right in saying it is ok to believe in a god which cant be defined, it therefor cant have evidence or proof for its existance because you cant prove things that arent defined... so there is absolutely no argument to have with you, and i still dont understand how you can say somthing without a definition is something.. maybe im just stupid i dont know.. anyone else want to jump in?

[cnorman18]

the reason i didnt read the threads you pointed me to is because even if they were right in saying it is ok to believe in a god which cant be defined, it therefor cant have evidence or proof for its existance because you cant prove things that arent defined... so there is absolutely no argument to have with you, and i still dont understand how you can say somthing without a definition is something.. maybe im just stupid i dont know.. anyone else want to jump in?

So you are willing to argue against something you haven't bothered to read, and you're still convinced that I'm trying to "prove" something to you?

Okay. I think you're right; you're done.

Have a nice day.

[Slopeshoulder]

---


To say, "I believe in God" is not necessarily quite the same as to say "I believe that God objectively exists." There are those who question that assertion, but it is true; and I am not the first or only person to take that approach. Here is an essay on that subject and others related to it from MyJewishLearning.com.

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

Before we go to "But why bother with..."

Of COURSE one could pursue the good and the noble without reference to any God, to any pseudohistorical narratives, without referring to anything at all but the abstract ideals themselves; but that seems to be the province of philosophers. The rest of us - common humanity - have always found such ideas more comprehensible and accessible, not to say inspiring, when expressed in a STORY. If that story is linked with an ancient and honorable tradition and one's personal heritage, being about about one's own ancestors, so much the more.

Whether or not the story is literally or historically true has rather rarely been the point.

One more note: I am not here alluding or referring to any beliefs about a life after death. Belief in God, of the nature described above, and belief in an Afterlife of whatever kind are not necessarily either related to nor relevant to each other.

---

FWIW I strongly agree with this and consider it very well expressed. This is a religion, a belief, a faith, a commitment and a life that I share. If it frames our thoughts, enforms our passions and drives our decisions, as opposed to being a mere armchair opinion, it is very real for us. For me, I find the tradition and culture of god-talk or spirituality to be the most life giving. It's a great home, a great window.
I find it alternately amusing and maddening when unsophisticated anti-religionists (theism/atheism isn't relevant here) set up an unsophisticated idea of God and then attack it, and refuse to understand that there are alternatives. As if we're all fundies. although these days I can hardly blame them. But isn't it tiresome to watch the arrogant and ignorant on both sides go at eachother (no names please), let alone be sucked in?

[cnorman18]

---


To say, "I believe in God" is not necessarily quite the same as to say "I believe that God objectively exists." There are those who question that assertion, but it is true; and I am not the first or only person to take that approach. Here is an essay on that subject and others related to it from MyJewishLearning.com.

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

Before we go to "But why bother with..."

Of COURSE one could pursue the good and the noble without reference to any God, to any pseudohistorical narratives, without referring to anything at all but the abstract ideals themselves; but that seems to be the province of philosophers. The rest of us - common humanity - have always found such ideas more comprehensible and accessible, not to say inspiring, when expressed in a STORY. If that story is linked with an ancient and honorable tradition and one's personal heritage, being about about one's own ancestors, so much the more.

Whether or not the story is literally or historically true has rather rarely been the point.

One more note: I am not here alluding or referring to any beliefs about a life after death. Belief in God, of the nature described above, and belief in an Afterlife of whatever kind are not necessarily either related to nor relevant to each other.

---

FWIW I strongly agree with this and consider it very well expressed. This is a religion, a belief, a faith, a commitment and a life that I share. If it frames our thoughts, enforms our passions and drives our decisions, as opposed to being a mere armchair opinion, it is very real for us. For me, I find the tradition and culture of god-talk or spirituality to be the most life giving. It's a great home, a great window.
I find it alternately amusing and maddening when unsophisticated anti-religionists (theism/atheism isn't relevant here) set up an unsophisticated idea of God and then attack it, and refuse to understand that there are alternatives. As if we're all fundies. although these days I can hardly blame them. But isn't it tiresome to watch the arrogant and ignorant on both sides go at eachother (no names please), let alone be sucked in?

"Tiresome" is PRECISELY the word. And thanks.