Euthyphro Dilemma is found in plato's dialogue "Euthyphro".In montheism its simply asks "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
1.What is commanded by God is moral because its moral in/by itself.
This implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes just a messenger for morality.
2.That which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God
This is commonly known as the Divine command theory.Which says that an act is obligatory if and only if, and because, it is commanded by God.
There are several objections raised against the divine command theory(DCT).
a)It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon God's whim. Divine Command Theory, this objection runs, entails that if it is morally obligatory to do x then this is in virtue of God's commanding that we do x.
If God would have commanded us to rape,then it would have been moral good.
b)Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no real sense,rather God is just being consistent with his nature.
Most theist will say that this nis a false dilemma,and DCT is obvioiusly true.Now what about the objections ?
a)It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon God's whim. Divine Command Theory, this objection runs, entails that if it is morally obligatory to do x then this is in virtue of God's commanding that we do x.
If God would have commanded us to rape,then it would have been moral good.
1. Some theist agree with the point the critic is making but arguing that it is not a problem with the theory. God could have commanded us to commit murder, and then it would have been obligatory — but he didn't, so it isn't.But this is a potenital problem because it suggets that their is a possible world where God's commands on moral values are completely different.
2.A theist can say that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.This avoids the assertion that morality is arbtriray since morality can now be shown that its grounded in an objective moral standard which is God's very nature of goodness.
to be continued....
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Craig on Absurdity of Life Without God
Having finished listening to william Lanes Craig lecture on absurdity of Life without God,it made me see life and existence in a totally new light.
Watch Here
or HERE
For a moment what is the purpose of existence if there is no God?
If there is a God,then there is continuity of life through eternal existence with God at the end of this mortal existence.
But if God does not exist then why do humans live life as if it matters?
The earth's resources are diminishing,and environmental degradtion is killing our planet.
The sun is dying,in 3-5 billion years from now it will obliterate the earth and most if not all of the inner planets.Life will cease to exist on earth.
The universe itself as we know it is finite,a time will reach when the universe will be empty space.All stars having died and matter reduced to small quakes.
Morality
Whats the point of people being good or bad?if ultimately everyone will die and there will be no human race?
There is no ultimate difference between hitler and mother teresa.At one point in the future,no one will be there to account for their deeds.They were simply two organisms which acted differently and ceased to exist.
All the charity organizations,food programmes,hunger walks, and special programmes to help the needy and suffering in society are pointless in the long run.Everyone will die.
Our justice system is if no use,since the murderers,robbers and the good people all have the same fate.
Meaning of Life
Another question we can ask is,what is the ultimate significance of a persons life?If a person lives and ceases to exist,then that persons existence has no ultimate meaning.Ultimately,it would have made no difference if he lived or not.
But you might say,"he's or her life changed peoples lives,made a contribution while he was alive."
But thats only a relative significance.He's life was only meaningful for a certain period,and besides since everything that he ever influenced will also cease to exist,then this significance is still meaningless.Its like a death row convict advising a fellow death row convict not to commit suicide on the eve his execution.
The human race is really not special after all.Mosquitos and flies and roaches all have the same fate.Human beings do not ultimately have any special existence compared to bacteria or worms.all our fates are the same.
All our efforts of science,knowledge,medicine and technological advancements are all in vain.We build cities,towns,better drainage,try to create efficient systems,end poverty, but all this is of no use if they will all cease to exist.
Watch Here
or HERE
For a moment what is the purpose of existence if there is no God?
If there is a God,then there is continuity of life through eternal existence with God at the end of this mortal existence.
But if God does not exist then why do humans live life as if it matters?
The earth's resources are diminishing,and environmental degradtion is killing our planet.
The sun is dying,in 3-5 billion years from now it will obliterate the earth and most if not all of the inner planets.Life will cease to exist on earth.
The universe itself as we know it is finite,a time will reach when the universe will be empty space.All stars having died and matter reduced to small quakes.
Morality
Whats the point of people being good or bad?if ultimately everyone will die and there will be no human race?
There is no ultimate difference between hitler and mother teresa.At one point in the future,no one will be there to account for their deeds.They were simply two organisms which acted differently and ceased to exist.
All the charity organizations,food programmes,hunger walks, and special programmes to help the needy and suffering in society are pointless in the long run.Everyone will die.
Our justice system is if no use,since the murderers,robbers and the good people all have the same fate.
Meaning of Life
Another question we can ask is,what is the ultimate significance of a persons life?If a person lives and ceases to exist,then that persons existence has no ultimate meaning.Ultimately,it would have made no difference if he lived or not.
But you might say,"he's or her life changed peoples lives,made a contribution while he was alive."
But thats only a relative significance.He's life was only meaningful for a certain period,and besides since everything that he ever influenced will also cease to exist,then this significance is still meaningless.Its like a death row convict advising a fellow death row convict not to commit suicide on the eve his execution.
The human race is really not special after all.Mosquitos and flies and roaches all have the same fate.Human beings do not ultimately have any special existence compared to bacteria or worms.all our fates are the same.
All our efforts of science,knowledge,medicine and technological advancements are all in vain.We build cities,towns,better drainage,try to create efficient systems,end poverty, but all this is of no use if they will all cease to exist.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Two World Theodicy for the Problem of Evil
Theistic philosopher David Wood had a debate with Atheist John W Loftus last year on the Problem of Evil.
This debate was an exchange,rather than a formal debate type.It was on the infidel guy radio show
and here is the link to listen to it.
Listen:
I think David Wood's Two- World theodicy was very well thought out.
What kind of world should we expect an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being to create? Wood handles the question by suggesting that a world in which human pleasure is maximized and human pain is minimized is not what would be expected of this type of Creator.
He posits a two-world theodicy in which ‘good’ is maximized: this world with its goods, eg Courage,Compassion,endurance etc, and the next world (heaven) with its goods.lack of suffering,and the full presence of God—the latter being the ultimate good.
Neither world can contain all of the goods (since some of them are mutually exclusive).Eg You can't have Courage in heaven since there is there are no threats that would compell an act of courageousness.
And therefore the best possible situation is one with both worlds, in which the world of greater goods is eternal and the world of lesser goods is a limited world.
Loftus asks why didnt God then just put us into heaven,if the ultimate goal is for humans to go to heaven.Wood says in order to maximize good, this world could not be by-passed, for there are goods in this world that cannot be achieved in the heavenly world in God’s full presence.Wood gives several examples of the goods of this world, including the choice of whether or not we will follow God, morality, and virtues such as courage and compassion.
Full review here
very intresting debate.
This debate was an exchange,rather than a formal debate type.It was on the infidel guy radio show
and here is the link to listen to it.
Listen:
I think David Wood's Two- World theodicy was very well thought out.
What kind of world should we expect an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being to create? Wood handles the question by suggesting that a world in which human pleasure is maximized and human pain is minimized is not what would be expected of this type of Creator.
He posits a two-world theodicy in which ‘good’ is maximized: this world with its goods, eg Courage,Compassion,endurance etc, and the next world (heaven) with its goods.lack of suffering,and the full presence of God—the latter being the ultimate good.
Neither world can contain all of the goods (since some of them are mutually exclusive).Eg You can't have Courage in heaven since there is there are no threats that would compell an act of courageousness.
And therefore the best possible situation is one with both worlds, in which the world of greater goods is eternal and the world of lesser goods is a limited world.
Loftus asks why didnt God then just put us into heaven,if the ultimate goal is for humans to go to heaven.Wood says in order to maximize good, this world could not be by-passed, for there are goods in this world that cannot be achieved in the heavenly world in God’s full presence.Wood gives several examples of the goods of this world, including the choice of whether or not we will follow God, morality, and virtues such as courage and compassion.
Full review here
very intresting debate.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
William Lane Craig's Critic of Dawkins
Well known Christian Apologist and Philosopher William Lane Craig took a swipe at Dawkins reasoning in the God delusion book.
He addresses the "who designed the designer" question.
WATCH
Richard Dawkins was criticizing the design argument for God.He asked if the universe is designed,then who designed the designer(GOD).But Craig shows that in no-way does the question make the argument fail.Its simply a question out of the blues.Consider the premises of the argument below:
Craig says that we do not need to have an explanation for the explanation.If X is the best explanation for Y,we don't need an explanation for X.
The lack of an explanation for X does not negate the fact that X is still the best explanation for Y.
A good example would be,if you found a book on the beach and you exclaimed"this book must have been written by a writer".then your friend quips in and says," that cannot be,then who created/designed the writer?".
The origins of the writer are a non-issue as regarding the best explanations for the source of the book.As long as you agree that the book was written by a writer,then the lack of explanation of where the writer originated from does not negate the fact that the book was written by a writer.
In short if we needed to have an explanation for the explanation of everything in the universe,then we would never be able to explain anything.
He addresses the "who designed the designer" question.
WATCH
Richard Dawkins was criticizing the design argument for God.He asked if the universe is designed,then who designed the designer(GOD).But Craig shows that in no-way does the question make the argument fail.Its simply a question out of the blues.Consider the premises of the argument below:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- Therefore, it is due to design.
Craig says that we do not need to have an explanation for the explanation.If X is the best explanation for Y,we don't need an explanation for X.
The lack of an explanation for X does not negate the fact that X is still the best explanation for Y.
A good example would be,if you found a book on the beach and you exclaimed"this book must have been written by a writer".then your friend quips in and says," that cannot be,then who created/designed the writer?".
The origins of the writer are a non-issue as regarding the best explanations for the source of the book.As long as you agree that the book was written by a writer,then the lack of explanation of where the writer originated from does not negate the fact that the book was written by a writer.
In short if we needed to have an explanation for the explanation of everything in the universe,then we would never be able to explain anything.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Witchraft is incompatible with Christianity.
Witchcraft/sorcery is an age-old practice in many African societies. And its still very rife in modern day Africa.
What is amazing is that many African Christians believe in the powers of sorcery and vodoo.
What is even more amazing is that educated pastors will preach that witchcraft is compatible with the teachings of Christianity.
Witchcraft/sorcery is the believe that a person(witch) possesses magical powers which can influence other peoples behaviors or bring good fortunes to people. Despite the lack of concrete evidence for the claims of sorcerers,people will still be ready to grant that witchcraft works.
The problem with witchcraft is the lack of concrete evidence. Mostly hearsay and circumstantial situations. Epilepsy or schizophrenia are automatically labeled as proof of bewitching.
Christianity preaches that demons do exist. Matthew 8:28-34 records an instance where Jesus casts out demons and sends them to the pigs.
People normally do not know the difference between evil spirits/demons and the ability of a person to control someones else's life through magic. Is it possible then that someone can "send" bad spirits to someone else so as to be possessed?
There is no teaching in the bible which records such an instance. The bible records demon possession,but not the possibility of someone being jinxed.
If witchcraft is true,then it rubbishes most of Jesus's teachings.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."
If someone has the power to control someones behaviors eg drive someone mad,then what happens to Free-will?what do we make of the teachings that God gave man the ability to chose his destiny through his works,whether to go to heaven or hell?
whats the point of judgment day?how will God judge those who were "possessed"?
If witchcraft is true,then Christianity is inherently false. Salvation through Jesus Christ is a myth.
What about ghosts?Ghosts are believed to be dead people who have come back in the form of spirits .The possibility of ghosts directly contradicts the teachings of God. The bible teaches of every human having only two places to go after death,Heaven or Hell. But it seems then Earth is a third choice!ghosts hang around haunted houses and buildings. Isn't there judgment for them?Can i become a ghost after i die so as to avoid going to hell or heaven?
The above are believes which do not hold any water in Christian theodicy. They bring up contradictions within the teachings of Christianity. And so either witchcraft is true or Christianity is true,but not both.
Dead sea Scrolls to be displayed in Jerusalem Museum
One of the most important biblical archaeological find in the 20th century will be on display in Jerusalem this week as Israel celebrates its 60 years of independence.The dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the qumran caves in 1the 1960's.
The scrolls contained almost all of the Old testament books found in the Bible.And even contained a complete book of Isaiah.The Dead Sea scrolls were dated to the year 150 BC.
The significance of the scrolls was that it confirmed that the modern day Hebrew bible had never been altered or changed as many critics claimed.
For example the book of Isaiah on the scrolls is completely similar to the book of Isaiah on the modern day Hebrew bible.
The scrolls also play a significant role for Israel as it celebrates its 60th anniversary.They show that Israel as a nation existed for many thousands of years in the disputed land.Ruled by many Kings and eventually the Romans.
The scrolls contained almost all of the Old testament books found in the Bible.And even contained a complete book of Isaiah.The Dead Sea scrolls were dated to the year 150 BC.
The significance of the scrolls was that it confirmed that the modern day Hebrew bible had never been altered or changed as many critics claimed.
For example the book of Isaiah on the scrolls is completely similar to the book of Isaiah on the modern day Hebrew bible.
The scrolls also play a significant role for Israel as it celebrates its 60th anniversary.They show that Israel as a nation existed for many thousands of years in the disputed land.Ruled by many Kings and eventually the Romans.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Dinesh D'souza VS Peter Singer Debate
Dinesh D'Souza debates Peter Singer at Biola University. They will address the topic of God’s existence and it’s meaning for human flourishing.
WATCH
A debate between well known Christian Apologists Dinesh D'souza and atheist Peter singer on a wide range of topics touching on God's existence problem of evil and suffering etc.
I must say i was very disappointed by dinesh's performance on this debate.Peter singer's arguments were nothing new.The classical arguments against God's existence.mainly focusing on the problem of evil.
Dinesh seemed not to have a proper grasp on the counter arguments of the problem of evil,and he did miserably in defending his position on the matter.
Dinesh did not even use the free will defense by alvin plantinga to properly argue against the problem of evil.Even at one time saying that he did not know why there is evil and suffering.
Peter singer in my own view,was ok.In fact he's a very "mild" atheist. But dinesh did not capitalize on the opportunity.Instead he opened his speech on a totally unrelated topic about the problems of atheism,the injustices of former atheists,and the dangers of eliminating religion from society.I agree with some of his points,but that was not the topic of discussion.The topic was on God's existence and he should have started off with arguments in support of this position first.
When the question time from the audience reached,D'souza answered well,but at times strayed off the topic of the questions asked.He sometimes had very long answers to the questions.
Peter singer,well,there is really nothing much i can say about him,he wasn't exceptional,he was not the crowd's favorite.Compared to very loud Christopher Hitchens,the vial spitting Richard dawkins and other prominent atheists,Peter singer was rather dull.
In conclusion,Peter Singer was more on point than Dinesh.Peter failed to account for the source of moraliy in an atheistic worldview.Dinesh failed to substatially mount good arguments for God's existence.
WATCH
A debate between well known Christian Apologists Dinesh D'souza and atheist Peter singer on a wide range of topics touching on God's existence problem of evil and suffering etc.
I must say i was very disappointed by dinesh's performance on this debate.Peter singer's arguments were nothing new.The classical arguments against God's existence.mainly focusing on the problem of evil.
Dinesh seemed not to have a proper grasp on the counter arguments of the problem of evil,and he did miserably in defending his position on the matter.
Dinesh did not even use the free will defense by alvin plantinga to properly argue against the problem of evil.Even at one time saying that he did not know why there is evil and suffering.
Peter singer in my own view,was ok.In fact he's a very "mild" atheist. But dinesh did not capitalize on the opportunity.Instead he opened his speech on a totally unrelated topic about the problems of atheism,the injustices of former atheists,and the dangers of eliminating religion from society.I agree with some of his points,but that was not the topic of discussion.The topic was on God's existence and he should have started off with arguments in support of this position first.
When the question time from the audience reached,D'souza answered well,but at times strayed off the topic of the questions asked.He sometimes had very long answers to the questions.
Peter singer,well,there is really nothing much i can say about him,he wasn't exceptional,he was not the crowd's favorite.Compared to very loud Christopher Hitchens,the vial spitting Richard dawkins and other prominent atheists,Peter singer was rather dull.
In conclusion,Peter Singer was more on point than Dinesh.Peter failed to account for the source of moraliy in an atheistic worldview.Dinesh failed to substatially mount good arguments for God's existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)