The Chapel

[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.

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.

I see what you're saying but I can also see how the dilemma would be eliminated once the paradox of the situation is aknowledged. The paradox being that god doesn't need principles to base any of his actions off because he is everything represented by our concept of what those principles are. God doesn't need to command or be commanded by principles because he is those principles.

I'll admit, this doesn't make sense to my (i like to think) logical mind or any logical mind. This brings to mind Kierkegaard's "leap of faith."

[K@th]

Well, I just heard a new one; our son is still claiming to be an Odinist, but he also believes that we were put here by aliens. Scientology, I asked?

Apparently, it's some sort of German Tull cult or something from post WWI era....

Anyway, not sure... I did say he keeps changing things up, but this one is way out there, even for him.

[DrYouth]

Going through his Nietzsche, Ubermensch phase from the sound of it...

Part of being an adolescent male for the most part...

Tired of the slave morality and all that.

Also probably baiting his mother.

I can see you aren't really taking the bait... that will confuse him.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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?

That just sounds like restating both sides of the dilemma at the same time with slightly different words.
It doesn't do to just redefine morality as God if you are trying to talk about the relationship between morality and divinity. I mean, you are free to, but it strikes me as a very ungratifying solution to the dillema.

[Haumana]

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?

I need some definitions. What is good? What is moral? And according to whom? I can think of more than a few instances where I find not good and immoral to actions perpetrated by those who consider themselves both moral and good. The subjective demands to be part of the accounting process.

[Heraclius]

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?

You can argue that if you assume God is omnipotent, which in itself is an argument onto itself, that he has the ability to both define an action as well as take an action at the same time. This goes beyond the ability of a human to understand as an action is good solely because it is defined as being good. In a vacuum with no judgement or morality, all actions would be presumed equal. Once you introduce those higher ideals, these actions begin to fit into different categories that humanity, a higher power, or whatever has decided those categories should be. If God has the ability to both do an action and create those categories at the same time, it has to be due to the fact that he has incomprehensible powers that go beyond the realm of reasoning humans are capable of understanding.

[Heraclius]

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.

I see what you're saying but I can also see how the dilemma would be eliminated once the paradox of the situation is aknowledged. The paradox being that god doesn't need principles to base any of his actions off because he is everything represented by our concept of what those principles are. God doesn't need to command or be commanded by principles because he is those principles.

I'll admit, this doesn't make sense to my (i like to think) logical mind or any logical mind. This brings to mind Kierkegaard's "leap of faith."

Yes but why would God represent those principles? Are you arguing that we are basing our morality off of the actions of God because of the fact that he ultimately represents justice? How do we know that the actions of God are justice? Is it because we have come to the independent conclusion that they are just, or did God himself tell us that these actions are just? If you take this approach to the dilemma you still don't answer how these actions are not arbitrary as it does not address how the understanding of moral codes comes into play. It requires a God to be able to work outside of the principles of logic which means that an attempt to analyze faith with any sort of reasoning turns into a fruitless endeavor.

[DrYouth]

I'm thinking of the capacity to cooperate in nature and among human kind as a divine principal...
Perhaps embodied in pagan societies as the Mother Goddess... and incorporated into Monotheistic religions as the "golden rule" among others.

Elucidating these principals has been the prophetic voice, God "speaking" to man.
These principals were embodied in the divine literature or storytelling tradition of each culture.

In this way we see the parallel of the divine agent or god / God and morality.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'm thinking of the capacity to cooperate in nature and among human kind as a divine principal...
Perhaps embodied in pagan societies as the Mother Goddess... and incorporated into Monotheistic religions as the "golden rule" among others.

Elucidating these principals has been the prophetic voice, God "speaking" to man.
These principals were embodied in the divine literature or storytelling tradition of each culture.

In this way we see the parallel of the divine agent or god / God and morality.

Sounds like you are coming down on the side of "God loves it because it is good" to me.

[DrYouth]

I'm just not really into God as an anthropomorphic entity that "loves/hates/decides/judges"

I see the divine as more immanent or transcendent... as the principle or set of principles that shape our experience and that when lived by or embodied bring grace and transcendence.