Euthyphro

[Dante]

One of Plato's dialogues deals with this character, and he sets forth a very interesting argument (which you will probably have heard before but nevertheless..).

There are things which are commonly assumed to be morally 'bad' and there and those assumed to be morally 'good.' (Though I could contest the truth of these assumptions this is not the time nor the place for it).

Now assuming the existance of God, are these actions 'good' or 'bad' because God says they are? And if so, why should be bow to the will of a dictator, however beneign?

But if these actions are morally 'good' or 'bad' and used by God because they are, then is there any need for God at all?

Personally my own opinion lies outside the scope of this argument, suffice to say that I believe in neither God nor objective morals. But I'm interested to see what others will say.

[TMA_1]

Generally morals are different with different cultures. YOu have the basic standards that never change.

I tell you that earthly morality has nothing to do with deity. Deity is removed from human thoughts and ideals because it is transcendant.

Can deity enter into the human standard though? Can it become something personal while still being transcendant? There are many questions needed to be answered before you can ask if morals have anything to do with a God.

Like what is your definition of Deity

What is your definition of morality.

what is your definition of the linking of God with morality.

what is your definition of humanity harmonizing with infinity and eternity/deity.

[EWS]

I really love this problem.  It really does call into doubt what good having a God is.

As Dust Scout put it;

Are acts "good" or "bad" because God says so or does God say they are "good" and "bad" because they actually are

Personally, like DS, I don't believe in a God and believe in the system that I live in.  I like the idea that we live Britain is a subjective/objective moral country.  This post isn't really going anywhere so I am going to end it, it's late and I feel ill!

[nemafakei]

Ah, this is my favourite piece of thinking!

(I'll use the Penguin's terms, seeing as that is the most likely translation to be common)

I'm of the view that the gods love what is pious because of what is inherent in that which is pious, and something is pious not because it is loved by the gods, but because of what is inherently good about it.

All on the assumption of the existence of one or more gods, of course.

And what is it that makes something pious (independant of gods)? Well, what is 'pious' is the most logical choice to create maximum benefit for human society as a whole.

[Edric O]

My personal opinion is as follows:

In the absence of God(s), there is a near-infinite number of different human moral standards. In other words, morals are relative because each person has his/her own set of morals.

But if God(s) exists, then one particular moral standard becomes the objectively correct one. However, that doesn't mean that the only reason to follow that particular moral standard is because "God says so". There are people who would follow it anyway, with or without God. For these people, the purpose of God is to confer objectivity to their moral standard.

In other words, we don't need God to have a moral standard. But we do need God to make our particular moral standard objectively true (and thus superior to all others).

[Wolf]

People do not simply need to live, they need something to live for. All religions began with an attempt at setting down the moral law; thou shalt not cheat, steal or kill. Over time, most religions succumbed to the same dark pressures that they wanted to avoid. People abused the moral authority of the church to become de facto emperors, and to possess power.

That does not mean, however, that religion in and of itself was wrong. It is not an argument against religion, it is an argument against human nature.

Religion, at its inception, has always been a means through which we achieve a state of societal peace, safety, and compassion for each other. This has always been the goal of religion; a moral code that allows the people to live harmoniously. Religions that do not accomplish this do not last very long.

Buddhism, perhaps the most sccuessful of these religions, advocates that the individual find a peaceful and harmonious path to inner fulfillment and enlightenment. Chill.

Christianity, which has had its ups and downs, has advocated, at its core to love all of humanity, now, to be perfectly honest with everyone here, that comes pretty damn close to the core tenet of communism. To love all. To harm none. To forgive all.

These two examples, however, do not have to deal with the philosophical correctness of either religion. Personally, the moral correctness of any religion -- including atheism -- cannot be universally determined. All religions are the product of the faith of the individual believing in them. All individuals are individuals because they are different from one another. These differences create differences in emotion and interpretation. Therefore, all religious views, whether of belief or disbelief, are relative. There is no way to correctly guage universal moral righteousness. This does not mean that absolute, universal moral truth does not exist. Rather, it just means there is no way to either prove it or disprove it.

The same goes for God. Scientifically, no evidence exists to disprove his existence. Scientifically, no evidence exists to prove his exists. Different people may argue either of those points, but, to me, those arguments are somewhat unconvincing. God is of the metaphysical, and metaphysical features cannot be tested in this universe -- by their very nature. A.J. Ayer, a 20th century philosopher, asserted that all metaphysical statements are meaningless, because they are untestable. Therefore, the believer who states that God exists for reasons A, B, and C is just as effective in his argument as the atheist who states that God does not exist for reasons A, B, and C. Neither individual has made any argument at all -- both statements are just noise, they hold no meaning. Therefore, since no evidence exists either way, the possibility of God's existence is not ruled out in the least, while at the same time, the possibility of his nonexistence is not ruled out, either.

However, the religious side has a heads up on the atheist side. I am quite serious. Soren Kierkegaard asserted that, as a believer, to attempt to prove God's existence should be a heresy. God, religion, and belief itself, is centered around the core tenet of faith. To truly believe in God, one must believe when there is no evidence to encourage one to believe. In fact, belief is best even when that belief is challenged. For, if you can have faith in a God who has given no sign of his existence, that faith is true, and it is of the most valuable kind. It cannot be shaken by any logical argument, because it is faith that existed on the foundation of flying in the face of logical argument.

How does this give those crazy believers a heads-up? Because, this assertion -- that true faith comes when no evidence whatsoever exists -- is the same situation we find ourselves in right now. As things stand, there is no proof or disproof of religion either way. True religion, on the other hand, by its very nature, is designed to be believed in only when there is no logical evidence that forces your rational mind to commit. Believing in God because God appears and orders you to is not faith. Believing in God because God exists and he is, after all, a universal emperor is not faith. Believing in God for no good reason is true faith, because it is your faith and your faith alone that fuels the belief. Since atheism exists on the core tenet of logic, and reason, everything the atheist believes in must then be proved or corroberated by fact, evidence, statistics, and testimony. The atheist, by his own nature, cannot disprove that God exists. Because no evidence exists to support that, since God, by God's nature, is metaphysical, and the metaphysical world cannot be tested. The religious, on the other hand, believe without reason, and through that unreasonable belief, they find deliverence. Read Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy, he asserts much the same philosophical journey through the character of Lenin.

Now, I don't know about you, but that's one damn good argument.

[Dante]

Generally morals are different with different cultures. YOu have the basic standards that never change.

I tell you that earthly morality has nothing to do with deity. Deity is removed from human thoughts and ideals because it is transcendant.

Can deity enter into the human standard though? Can it become something personal while still being transcendant? There are many questions needed to be answered before you can ask if morals have anything to do with a God.

Like what is your definition of Deity

What is your definition of morality.

what is your definition of the linking of God with morality.

what is your definition of humanity harmonizing with infinity and eternity/deity.

Give your definitions and thus your argument. :) However I focus on

I tell you that earthly morality has nothing to do with deity. Deity is removed from human thoughts and ideals because it is transcendant.

Does that mean that we do not need a deity for our moral standards? And if we do not need one, why bother having one at all?

EWS, "subjective/objective moral country" ? That's a little bit oxymoronic, don't you think?

Ah, this is my favourite piece of thinking!

(I'll use the Penguin's terms, seeing as that is the most likely translation to be common)

I'm of the view that the gods love what is pious because of what is inherent in that which is pious, and something is pious not because it is loved by the gods, but because of what is inherently good about it.

All on the assumption of the existence of one or more gods, of course.

And what is it that makes something pious (independant of gods)? Well, what is 'pious' is the most logical choice to create maximum benefit for human society as a whole.

That last part makes it sound utilitarian. But in any case importantly there is the statement that

the gods love what is pious because of what is inherent in that which is pious, and something is pious not because it is loved by the gods,

This (I think) shows the second part of Euryphro's problem, that morals exist independantly of Gods and thus the need for Gods is undermined. Why bother with them?

My personal opinion is as follows:

In the absence of God(s), there is a near-infinite number of different human moral standards. In other words, morals are relative because each person has his/her own set of morals.

But if God(s) exists, then one particular moral standard becomes the objectively correct one. However, that doesn't mean that the only reason to follow that particular moral standard is because "God says so". There are people who would follow it anyway, with or without God. For these people, the purpose of God is to confer objectivity to their moral standard.

In other words, we don't need God to have a moral standard. But we do need God to make our particular moral standard objectively true (and thus superior to all others).

In Euryphro's terms then again God is not necessary for the existance of morals. But you've taken the debate somewhat further and stated that a deity is necessary for the 'correct' morals (If I understand correctly). In which case why follow the deity? If they dictate an objective 'correct' moral code why should we bow to it?

As you say there will of course be some people who follow this code anyway but given the vast number of subjective moral codes they will be in the minority and it hardly seems fair for a benign entity to create a set of morals that only the minority will not have to work hard to conform to.

Wolfwiz: A damn good argument it may be but it also seems somewhat self-decieving and more than a little sad. If I can get to the core of what you are saying however (it's a long argument after all) I think you are stating that as religions are made up of individuals even their moral codes are relative and subjective. Thus codes which are supposed to be objective are not and there is then no need for Euryphro as there are no objective morals.

[Wolf]

You're probably right, but the core of what I am saying as that the religious are going to end up being more happy than the atheists, because both religious and atheists need a certain amount of irrationality to justify their beliefs. However, the core tenet of atheism is reason, while the core tenet of religion is faith. Bottom line, its easier to be religious.