Aha! I found another one:
Jody,
Thank you for emailing. Before I forget, would you mind forwarding this email to Andy? I believe it will answer the question he put to me on the blog. (I would CC it to him, but I don’t have his email address.) Thanks!
Ok…I am familiar with Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the issue that you raise. You argue, along with Plato, that only two alternatives exist. Either Right is Right because God commands it, in which case He is simply making a decision on an arbitrary basis, OR a separate standard of Right exists and God merely recognizes that standard, in which case He is no longer sovereign.
However, many philosophers insist that this is a faulty dilemma—that there is a third possibility. This third alternative is that God neither commands “x” because “x” is good, nor is “x” good simply because God says so—rather, God’s own nature necessarily defines Right and Wrong. God is, by definition, the ultimate standard of Right and Wrong—if there was a standard to which He had to submit, He would no longer be God.
It would, however, take a great deal of words from me, and patience from you, for me to fully explain my stance—rather, I recently came across an excellent article that outlined exactly what I believe. I am including the link to that article for you. If I could put my position as clearly as the author of this article, I would do so, but I think he does a far better job explaining than I can do at the present time! Please read the article, then, and take it from there.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
Perhaps in a later email (it’s after midnight here…I don’t have time to address the issue tonight) you could explain what your basis for moral values is, and I’ll explain why I believe that the Greeks’ system of ethics is useless without a belief in God.
I hope this email answers both your objections and Andy’s—let me know what you think of the article.
Jamie
Jody,
Thank you for emailing. Before I forget, would you mind forwarding this email to Andy? I believe it will answer the question he put to me on the blog. (I would CC it to him, but I don’t have his email address.) Thanks!
Ok…I am familiar with Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the issue that you raise. You argue, along with Plato, that only two alternatives exist. Either Right is Right because God commands it, in which case He is simply making a decision on an arbitrary basis, OR a separate standard of Right exists and God merely recognizes that standard, in which case He is no longer sovereign.
However, many philosophers insist that this is a faulty dilemma—that there is a third possibility. This third alternative is that God neither commands “x” because “x” is good, nor is “x” good simply because God says so—rather, God’s own nature necessarily defines Right and Wrong. God is, by definition, the ultimate standard of Right and Wrong—if there was a standard to which He had to submit, He would no longer be God.
It would, however, take a great deal of words from me, and patience from you, for me to fully explain my stance—rather, I recently came across an excellent article that outlined exactly what I believe. I am including the link to that article for you. If I could put my position as clearly as the author of this article, I would do so, but I think he does a far better job explaining than I can do at the present time! Please read the article, then, and take it from there.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
Perhaps in a later email (it’s after midnight here…I don’t have time to address the issue tonight) you could explain what your basis for moral values is, and I’ll explain why I believe that the Greeks’ system of ethics is useless without a belief in God.
I hope this email answers both your objections and Andy’s—let me know what you think of the article.
Jamie
3 Comments:
J, I think at first blush it would seem that even God himself has to conform to an objective standard of right and wrong, but then He wouldn't truly be God--above everything else.
That's why (I think) almost all Christian philosophers have come to the conclusion that God IS the standard of right and wrong--it's the only other position that makes sense, without falling into the position that (a) God must obey Something as well, or (b) that God simply chooses what is right, which makes right an arbitrary concept.
Megan:
"I read a thought from the author Frank Peretti that really summed it up: if I make the statement that there is no right or wrong only my opinion, is that statement in itself right or wrong?
Therefore subjective morality cannot exist if someone believes in it, because they then believe in the firm existance of a universal right and wrong."
Actually...I've tried to catch subjectivists (or whatever you call 'em) on this before. They say that morality is a cultural concept--changing with each different culture--yet they themselves, as you said, have an absolute: that there is no absolute ;)
So...they're stuck, you're right. Only they won't adMIT it! Very frustrating...
J:
I know you addressed yourself to Megan, but...i figured you wouldn't mind my two cents worth either :)
You certainly have a point--and i'm not quite sure what I think yet. But one point that comes to mind is that IF God is subject to a standard, he isn't in fact sovereign, as I understand the term. Because God isn't subject to anything or anyone else, right?
He's above all standards--yet to say that he could be different and still be God would obviously not be true. I'm not sure how it could be described, except to say that God is Good. He can't be anything else, and everything good comes from God (that's scriptural, I believe)
So to say that there is a separate standard of Good...I'm not sure that's necessary. It's like saying that as well as God, there always existed a standard of Right and Wrong.
So what do I think? I don't know :)
How do you reconcile a standard of Right and Wrong separate from God with the idea that God is sovereign?
Thanks for explaining, J :) You certainly make me stop and think...it's very possible that you're right, and I've been wrong. I'll think some more about it :)
Post a Comment
<< Home