The Chapel

[Two Man]

Sorry if this still doesn't make it clear. It's one of the most difficult segments of Socrates that I've had to wrestle with so there is a possibility that my analysis is wrong. I'm sure Socrates would poke all kinds of holes in it.

It is quite clear but in order to answer it one must first subscribe to the notion that morality is indeed derived from the divine.

[Heraclius]

Sorry if this still doesn't make it clear. It's one of the most difficult segments of Socrates that I've had to wrestle with so there is a possibility that my analysis is wrong. I'm sure Socrates would poke all kinds of holes in it.

It is quite clear but in order to answer it one must first subscribe to the notion that morality is indeed derived from the divine.

I thought the argument that this was centered on was whether or not being a theist was "harder work" than being an atheist. Obviously in order to consider the dilemma one needs to fulfill the prerequisite mental conditions. The point of talking about the dilemma was to address the fact that theists do work as hard as atheists in addressing concerns about higher ideals.

[Haumana]

Any Alan Watts, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ram Das or Jed McKenna fans?

[Two Man]

I thought the argument that this was centered on was whether or not being a theist was "harder work" than being an atheist. Obviously in order to consider the dilemma one needs to fulfill the prerequisite mental conditions. The point of talking about the dilemma was to address the fact that theists do work as hard as atheists in addressing concerns about higher ideals.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. The original statement was made mostly in jest. I will conceded that if theists must wrestle with the dilemma you described, it might drive one insane. I can't speak for theists but my guess is they (who are attached to one of the Abrahamic religions) would most likely pick door number 2 - that morality does not exist outside of the actions of God.
Atheists, on the other hand, are able to create their own moral code but must wrestle with finding meaning in a seemingly meaningless life which could arguably be "harder work" than anything a theist must grapple with.

[nickle7]

And if you take that approach to the dilemma, that god and morality are the same, then that means the actions of God are arbitrary. If the actions of God are arbitrary, he cannot be a wise and rational being.

Just for clarification, are you saying that God's actions would be considered arbitrary in this case because moral standards have changed?

I guess I've always thought of morality as god. Something is deemed moral because god commands it at the same time that he commands it because it's moral. Neither god nor morality are beholden to or constrained by one another because they're both the same. I see your point about how this line of thinking would dictate that gods actions are arbitrary but they'd only be arbitrary from our limited perspective. The definition of god includes a rationality beyond individual human understanding. So classifying actions of god as arbitrary seem rather narrow-sighted.

But basic moral standards have remained constant throughout history (don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, etc). This consistency seems to eliminate the possibility of gods actions being arbitrary.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Is there a separate pew for Atheists who appreciate all the art, architecture, music, and culture that religion provides?

That's every pew, unless you are a robot.

You're not a robot, right?

Of course! Now, fellow human, how would you like to go get some biofood we both need, as humans, to survive.

No robots here...

[Heraclius]

And if you take that approach to the dilemma, that god and morality are the same, then that means the actions of God are arbitrary. If the actions of God are arbitrary, he cannot be a wise and rational being.

Just for clarification, are you saying that God's actions would be considered arbitrary in this case because moral standards have changed?

I guess I've always thought of morality as god. Something is deemed moral because god commands it at the same time that he commands it because it's moral. Neither god nor morality are beholden to or constrained by one another because they're both the same. I see your point about how this line of thinking would dictate that gods actions are arbitrary but they'd only be arbitrary from our limited perspective. The definition of god includes a rationality beyond individual human understanding. So classifying actions of god as arbitrary seem rather narrow-sighted.

But basic moral standards have remained constant throughout history (don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, etc). This consistency seems to eliminate the possibility of gods actions being arbitrary.

God's actions would be arbitrary because of the fact he is not basing them off of any principles. If you accept there is no moral compass outside of the actions of God, that means the actions of God cannot be based on any principles of "good" or "just" or "wise." It isn't because the moral standards change, it's because there are no moral standards before action 0 (God's action). action 1 is defined by action 0, but action 0 cannot be defined simply due to the fact it is the first action.

There are a lot of interesting dilemmas like this for theists to take into account. There is no actual right answer, but the answer you choose often shows a lot about the worldview one has.

[DrYouth]

Got a pew for new age pagans?
I've smoked a chillum sat on the altar stone at Stonehenge on the winter solstice.
If not I'll sit with the agnostics.

New age spirituality, neopaganism...
Left side behind the agnostics.

[Montegriffo]

Got a pew for new age pagans?
I've smoked a chillum sat on the altar stone at Stonehenge on the winter solstice.
If not I'll sit with the agnostics.

New age spirituality, neopaganism...
Left side behind the agnostics.

I expect I'll be sitting on my own but I'm getting used to that feeling around here....
That Stonehenge trip back in '86 was the nearest thing to a spiritual experience I've ever had. Really clear night sky and a sense of several thousand years of history nearly turned me into a Hippy.

[DrYouth]

Socrates is in effect asking whether what is "good" is willed by God because of the precise fact it is "good." Thus, this would imply that God knew what was good prior to these actions, which in turn implies a moral compass that exists outside of the control of God. If that does not exist, then the second statement is true, which implies that actions are good because they are willed to be good by God. This means morality does not exist outside of the actions of god.

What strikes me about this dilemma is that it doesn't allow the possibility that the divine IS the good. That God IS the action of the moral principle... That there is a divine order of cooperation and coexistence that allows beauty, peace and prosperity to exist. In this case we have no dilemma. If we trust in these principles and allow them to guide us we are saved. The prophets have been gradually attempting to reveal these principles through their encounters with the divine.

Doesn't that way of thinking transcend this dilemma?