The Devastating Dilemma for Divine Command Theory...

[Megabyte]

Not that I really expect this sort of conversation on these boards (and would likely grow somewhat depressed if it became dominant here) but, just some food for thought.

Whether you reply to it, ignore it, forget it, whatever. This specifically targets Abrahamic religons (Christians, Jews, Muslims) but is equally applicable to eastern religons as well.

-------------------------
Suppose God commands us to do what is right (the 10 Commandments for instance). Then either a. the right actions are right because he commands them or; b. he commands such actions because they are right.

If we take option a, then God's commands are arbitrary, from a moral point of view. Also, it means the ideal of the goodness of God is meaningless.
If we take option b, then we will have aknowledged a standard of righ and wrong that is independent of God's will. In effect, giving up the conception (theologically) of right and wrong.

Therefore, we must either regard God's commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness (benevolence, whatever) of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and up the theological conception of right and wrong.

From most religous points of view, it is...impossible, to regard God's commands as arbitrary OR to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.
Therefore, even from a religous point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be adopted.

Neat little reference quote:
"In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praisworthy in doing the contrary?"
-G. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics (1686)

[TheBlazedAce]

Not that I really expect this sort of conversation on these boards (and would likely grow somewhat depressed if it became dominant here) but, just some food for thought.

Whether you reply to it, ignore it, forget it, whatever. This specifically targets Abrahamic religons (Christians, Jews, Muslims) but is equally applicable to eastern religons as well.

-------------------------
Suppose God commands us to do what is right (the 10 Commandments for instance). Then either a. the right actions are right because he commands them or; b. he commands such actions because they are right.

If we take option a, then God's commands are arbitrary, from a moral point of view. Also, it means the ideal of the goodness of God is meaningless.
If we take option b, then we will have aknowledged a standard of righ and wrong that is independent of God's will. In effect, giving up the conception (theologically) of right and wrong.

Therefore, we must either regard God's commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness (benevolence, whatever) of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and up the theological conception of right and wrong.

From most religous points of view, it is...impossible, to regard God's commands as arbitrary OR to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God.
Therefore, even from a religous point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be adopted.

Neat little reference quote:
"In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praisworthy in doing the contrary?"
-G. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics (1686)

If god commands what is right and wrong his goodness would be obvious. You believe first in God, and then you understand that what he says is good. (I don't believe in God, but I am trying to input what I would think would be the correct choice.)

[Megabyte]

If god commands what is right and wrong his goodness would be obvious. You believe first in God, and then you understand that what he says is good. (I don't believe in God, but I am trying to input what I would think would be the correct choice.)

I don't think this is an exact input of their ideals. I myself am more agnostic than religous. However, my father is a christian preacher of sorts, so I have a strong religous background in my history. I just don't see it as like that.

To take what God commands as right and wrong as the basis without thought is blind faith. We're not arguing the belief in God, simply why it is right or wrong.

Let me take a different quote. Maybe its clearer.
From Socrates: Do the Gods command what is right because it is right?
OR
Is it right because it is commanded by the Gods?

Its not whether we believe these things are right or wrong (whatever your religon is), but why they are right or wrong. Are they right because there is a clear moral level in the universe of right and wrong? Or is it right because God says so?

[Shiny Flors]

I think there is a standard of right and wrong outside of what God commands. So God commands it because it is right. I think this because there are lots of people who don't believe in God that can still differentiate between right and wrong. Your conscience for example. This only considers gross rights and gross wrongs but does not explain why God commands other things. you have to read what your god says about that in their teachings.

[TheBlazedAce]

I think there is a standard of right and wrong outside of what God commands. So God commands it because it is right. I think this because there are lots of people who don't believe in God that can still differentiate between right and wrong. Your conscience for example. This only considers gross rights and gross wrongs but does not explain why God commands other things. you have to read what your god says about that in their teachings.

I believe that for God to exist he must command what is right and what is wrong. I believe that if a God exists he gives people the proper judgement to understand what is right and what is wrong without having him as a reason for it all.

[Zeratul]

*uhhuhuhuhuhu lots of pretty words*
I think that god sets these rules as guidelines for us, as we choose to live our lifes we come to many situations which test our faith weather it be watching a horror flick on television or finding 5$ on the street what we choose before/after these situations both form/create the person we become/are. At the end of all things, these repercussions show us a true insight into ourselfs and make us double-think our standings on life.

[Megabyte]

I believe that for God to exist he must command what is right and what is wrong. I believe that if a God exists he gives people the proper judgement to understand what is right and what is wrong without having him as a reason for it all.


Ahh, but if he proviides these commands and judgments, then his judgments are arbitrary. Which means he's not a benevolent god, because whatever if he decided flamingo's are the new chosen life form and destroyed humanity, that'd be right (just using a obtuse and bizarre example to demonstrate).

Remember to take in the full argument.

Its not whether god exists, its not whether right or wrong exist, and its not whether we can tell the difference of right and wrong.

I know i'm harping, but many a time I've had this discussion it turns into a "god exists or not" argument, which isn't the intention.

Its just meant for you to consider why it is that you think of right and wrong as such.

I'd like to believe that there's a universal standard Shiny, but as I said above, I've had a heavy religous backgroung. Therefore, I can't be certain that my perception isn't merely an extension of that religous background and not of my own natural thoughts and logic. In fact, I can't think of a way a person could live on this world and not have some sort of religous influence, so the point is kinda moot.

Edit: Thats very similar to my father's argument Zeratul, nicely done :)
My only problem with the idea of God giving us a "choice" in how we behave is that if he really wanted to keep it open, why give us guidelines? Also, I hardly think the church would consider the commandmants "guidlines."

[TheBlazedAce]

Ahh, but if he proviides these commands and judgments, then his judgments are arbitrary. Which means he's not a benevolent god, because whatever if he decided flamingo's are the new chosen life form and destroyed humanity, that'd be right (just using a obtuse and bizarre example to demonstrate).

Remember to take in the full argument.

Its not whether god exists, its not whether right or wrong exist, and its not whether we can tell the difference of right and wrong.

I know i'm harping, but many a time I've had this discussion it turns into a "god exists or not" argument, which isn't the intention.

Its just meant for you to consider why it is that you think of right and wrong as such.

I'd like to believe that there's a universal standard Shiny, but as I said above, I've had a heavy religous backgroung. Therefore, I can't be certain that my perception isn't merely an extension of that religous background and not of my own natural thoughts and logic. In fact, I can't think of a way a person could live on this world and not have some sort of religous influence, so the point is kinda moot.

In my own opinion if you are to believe in God then you must agree with what you initially stated. That indeed if God decided flamingos were more holy then humans he could change everything if he wanted and he could make wrong ... right too. I do not believe this, but it's just what I think someone who believes in God needs to agree with.

[Northwind]

This is going to go against what a lot of theists believe, but I strongly think that right and wrong exist separately from the idea of God. I think that we (the collective, societal "we") have made God to explain life's unanswerable questions and the various scriptures are attempts at figuring out the best way to live. This is why religious writings generally agree on basic facets of morality - which, boiled down, tend to be some version of "treat others how you want to be treated." Of course, a lot of "us vs. them" stuff gets thrown into many religious writings as well, which corrupts the whole message.

Overall, I think that ideas about right and wrong preceeded the ideas about God (for any time a group is living communally, it is necessary to figure out how they shall work together in order to survive) and then the ideas about God were used to refine our ideas about right and wrong.

On an unrelated note, here is a random quote I came across yesterday that I thought was interesting:
"We know that we have created God in our image when God hates the same people we do." -- Anne Lamott
Please note that this is not a condemnation of all religion, but simply of using "God" to justify our own petty prejudices.

[Megabyte]

But that puts you back into the original dilemma blazed. If you refuse to take God's actions as arbitrary (sicking with the idea of the goodness of god, or that he IS right) you have to give up the idea of right and wrong universally, as your simply God's will.

The dilemma is that those of the religous mind can't do that. So, as a result, they're making an outside standard of right and wrong (outside of God's will that is) whether they realize it or not.

[TheBlazedAce]

This is going to go against what a lot of theists believe, but I strongly think that right and wrong exist separately from the idea of God. I think that we (the collective, societal "we") have made God to explain life's unanswerable questions and the various scriptures are attempts at figuring out the best way to live. This is why religious writings generally agree on basic facets of morality - which, boiled down, tend to be some version of "treat others how you want to be treated." Of course, a lot of "us vs. them" stuff gets thrown into many religious writings as well, which corrupts the whole message.

Overall, I think that ideas about right and wrong preceeded the ideas about God (for any time a group is living communally, it is necessary to figure out how they shall work together in order to survive) and then the ideas about God were used to refine our ideas about right and wrong.

On an unrelated note, here is a random quote I came across yesterday that I thought was interesting:
"We know that we have created God in our image when God hates the same people we do." -- Anne Lamott
Please note that this is not a condemnation of all religion, but simply of using "God" to justify our own petty prejudices.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Northwind again.


Northy you hit the nail right on the head yet again. I completely agree with that, but you definitly put it in the right words at the right time.

[TheBlazedAce]

But that puts you back into the original dilemma blazed. If you refuse to take God's actions as arbitrary (sicking with the idea of the goodness of god, or that he IS right) you have to give up the idea of right and wrong universally, as your simply God's will.

The dilemma is that those of the religous mind can't do that. So, as a result, they're making an outside standard of right and wrong (outside of God's will that is) whether they realize it or not.

Notice the whole time I said if you were to believe in god... I would just like to point out that this is another reason why I don't believe in god, because this, along with many things, are all contradictions. It is my rabi as well as most people who consider themselves close to "God" who would say that God dictates what is right and wrong, but just as you pointed out it seems to break apart so much. Another logical fallacy in the world of religion.

[Megabyte]

This is going to go against what a lot of theists believe, but I strongly think that right and wrong exist separately from the idea of God. I think that we (the collective, societal "we") have made God to explain life's unanswerable questions and the various scriptures are attempts at figuring out the best way to live. This is why religious writings generally agree on basic facets of morality - which, boiled down, tend to be some version of "treat others how you want to be treated." Of course, a lot of "us vs. them" stuff gets thrown into many religious writings as well, which corrupts the whole message.

Overall, I think that ideas about right and wrong preceeded the ideas about God (for any time a group is living communally, it is necessary to figure out how they shall work together in order to survive) and then the ideas about God were used to refine our ideas about right and wrong.




Thats generally where I come from North too. It makes us outside the dilemma thank goodness.

The inherant problem though is that religons define their god a "good." If they merely defined him as a God, then it would be less problematic.

They won't release the concept of their god being Good, but still create seperate concepts of right and wrong.

The original quote I think sums it up pretty well in my first post. Its not a universal problem. Simply a dilemma that religous ideals face.

[Dagashi]

Hi, all sorry I haven't been on recently (we're preparing for tests at school). I agree with those who believe right and wrong exist independently from God. As pointed out, if it is merely God's say so that makes something right or wrong, we are back to the idea of morals being arbitrary which many religious people (including myself) find distasteful. I think there is a quote by the Buddha along the lines of, "If God says something is good without reason, then God is being arbitrary. If God says something is good with reason, then it is that reason that makes it good, not the fact God said it." There is another sort of compromise position where good and evil might come from the Nature of God. This way, the ideas are dependent on God, but aren't arbitrary like our hair or eyecolor are not arbitrary (assuming no contacts or hair dye).

Of course this brings up another HUGE theological question: If God is deffinded so it is against His Nature to do evil, does this mean God does not have free-will as She is only bound only to do good?



ps. Realist I haven't been ignoring your questions on the Evolution Pet Peeves board, I've been doing research between the time I teach, eat, sleep and play D&D. Hopefully I'll be able to respond soon.