Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro
Euthyphro's dilemma
Is it that what god wishes is good OR is it that god wishes what is good?
If what god wishes is good then if good wishes rape & murder, rape & murder are good. Unacceptable.
If god wishes what is good then god is not the authority on ethics. Unacceptable.
Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) opts to remain tightlipped about God, neither affirming nor negating god's existence, but then he went on to, in a sense, extract the essence of God (ethics + system that tracks our moral trajectory, records sins & virtuous acts for later accounting purposes, karma). Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God.
[quote=Pierre-Simon Laplace/Siddhartha Gautama]Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis).[/quote]
What sayest thou?
Is it that what god wishes is good OR is it that god wishes what is good?
If what god wishes is good then if good wishes rape & murder, rape & murder are good. Unacceptable.
If god wishes what is good then god is not the authority on ethics. Unacceptable.
Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) opts to remain tightlipped about God, neither affirming nor negating god's existence, but then he went on to, in a sense, extract the essence of God (ethics + system that tracks our moral trajectory, records sins & virtuous acts for later accounting purposes, karma). Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God.
[quote=Pierre-Simon Laplace/Siddhartha Gautama]Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis).[/quote]
What sayest thou?
Comments (41)
Christians have often responded that there is a third option. Objective morality exists but this standard is not outside of god - morality is grounded in the nature of god himself, who is the perfection of the good. Commands are not based on caprice but are founded on his very being. In this way, god could not command us to do evil things as his nature and goodness are identical. Apologist William Lane Craig has an entire routine based upon this kind of argument which I have hastily summarised from memory.
If God likes a thing because it is good, this is tantamount to saying that the criterion of goodness is independent of God's will; consequently, God is irrelevant to the definition of moral goodness. On the other hand, if a thing is good because God likes it, then there is no fixed criterion of goodness, since God has the power to change His mind at any time; and so the criterion of goodness may change from day to day. If the good is what God likes, and God decides to "like" the massacre of infidels, then the Talibaan will become the guardians of goodness, and we should all live by their rule.
Yet, if God were a being and goodness is an idea (with practical consequences of course), we could offload the responsibility onto a machine; after all morality boils down to a calculus with two variables, vice & virtue. The actual calculations will obviously be extremely complex, but still, doable i.e. computable. I've heard of AI scientists developing a virtual doctor - one has to input one's signs & symptoms, lab & imaging reports, and out pops a diagnosis with, wonder of wonders, a treatment plan. Can we build an AI judge to preside over legal cases? That would be our first step towards an automating God. Sic parvis magna (greatness from small beginning).
Muchas gracias for explaination. Your post makes it crystal clear what Euthyphro's dilemma is.
To All
What do you do with a book that you've read, after you've grokked the book? Some keep it in a library, others lend it to friends, etc. but the point is you don't need the book anymore, at the very least not as much as you needed it before you read it.
Usually, I keep it. I still think about books that I did not keep. I miss some books from fifty years ago and I can still feel their heft and the scent of the paper, ink and glue. Well, you asked. But even I think I'm extreme...
P. S. I couldn't come up with a better example. Wait, one springs to mind - disposable syringes (after the drug has been delivered, the syringe can be disposed of).
Because I now know that I will miss it in the way described if I dispose of it. It's a harmless vice. I don't keep used syringes, love letters or anything else that might be a danger to health and well-being.
I have some books I have read many times over the years. I still have not "grokked" them. In some cases, I am losing ground.
I see that you got really involved with dilemmas! :smile:
Now, this could be a dilemma, only that "God" is a concept with characteristics that we humans have created. It reminds of the "God omnipotence" paradox. These are what I like to call "paradoxes", and this is also a "dilemma" --the quotes indicating of course "supposed-to-be".
Your (Euthyphro's) question has a meaning only if we describe God as knowing what good is --actually, the "Absolute Good"-- and that he wishes that for us, right? But then, in order to formulate such a description, we must have previously formulated a concept of "good", isn't that so?
Therefore, on a first level, the answer to the question is "What God wishes is good, because in our [description of him, we want him to wish that."
Then, on a second level, if we also assume that God is omnipotent --which is usually the case-- he wouldn't need to wish anything, would he? It's only us who wish.
Thus, this is indeed a "dilemma", or better, there's no dilemma at all! :smile:
Right. Yet, don't forget this very important fact: It's we who have created the concept and characteristics of God. So, whether he is an "authority on ethics" on ethics or not, depends on our description of him.
Quoting Agent Smith
That's why I like Buddhism! :smile:
Quoting Agent Smith
I can question the "essence of God", but this would be outside the point.
And also, I can't see how karma can replace the concept of God.
Anyway, since the title of the topic is "Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro", I can say that what these two subjects have in common as it appears from your description, is that both God and Karma are concepts created by us, so there is no meaning to pose questions about what they really are, their characteristics, etc. We can only make comparisons between them. And, our definition/description of Karma has nothing in common with our definition/description of God. In the Christian world, karma is connected to "fate" & "destiny", paradise & hell, doomsday (Last Judgment) and similar things.
Re: "The Euthyphro" God is irrelevant (vide Epicuus). :fire:
If it's a profoundly good or funny book, then I'll need to read it again ... and again ... and again ....
:up:
Quoting Paine
Interesting to say the least.
Well, this isn't about us to tell you the truth. It concerns God & ethics, whether the former is necessary/desirable.
When, a few years ago, I heard for the first time the well known question "Has God created Man or has Man created God?" I found it cute, even if the answer was obvious to me. But I now find this question just silly. You see, well some established ideas take a long time to be faced openly and the truth about them --i.e. their nature-- get revealed.
In most cultures, questioning --and even worse, the denial-- of the existence of God --as he is described by different religions and cultures-- was always and still is considered immoral or a sign of immorality. This view and belief was so strong in the past, that people were condemned to death if people manifested such a behavior.
The good news though are that eventually logic and truth prevails, and these tabbos and prejudices eventually fall down or apart. And the truth in our case is that "God is a concept created by us". And "it is about us to tell". And it concerns us and our ethics (also a concept that we have created), not God or ethics (as something outside us).
***
Important note: When we talk about the existence of God, we must always have in mind that we are talking about the God as he is described in a certain culture and religion. Because descriptions and beliefs about a "God" differ between cultures and religions. In our case, we refer of course to the Judeo-Christian God. And, if I say that "I don't believe in God", I mean specifically that God. Because I may well believe in the existence of some other Supreme Being or Supreme Power, which is very far from the humanized, anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian God, the concept of whom is based on human form, desires and needs.
Right.
Quoting Agent Smith
I'm not sure if I get that right. Do you mean that Euthyphro is wrong --and hence there's no dilemma-- because God is neither a necessity nor desirable?
Because "ethics is independent of God" and "ethics is God's whim &fancy" are contradictory or conflicting statements? (Since the second has no sense if the first is true.)
1. Ethics is dependent on Him
2. God's desirable (we want Him to exist)
Euthyphro's dilemma, what it does, is inform us that neither is acceptable, based on ethics and ethics alone.
When I say ethics is independent of God (God is unnecessary) , I also imply false that ethics is/can be God's whim and fancy (God is undesirable). No contradiction.
Take the plunge... atheism. Gets rid of a lot of prefab thoughts that force you into illogical thoughts. Not only liberating, but pleasant, pleasurable.
I am quite ignorant when it comes to Buddhism. But would it not be the Buddha who had founded Buddhism? After all, it was Christ who founded Christianity, Marx who founded Marxism, and Terror who founded Terrorism.
OK, I can certainly accept "should".
Quoting Agent Smith
Where is this based on? Isn't it true that it is us who we have established both concepts (God & ethics)?
I could only aceept "Ethics should be dependent on Him", as a condition in our description of God. This will be in accordance with "God should exist".
Where I stumble on, as you see, is switching from "is" to "should be" and vice versa.
Quoting Agent Smith
Right. It is us who want Him to exist. But there are a lot of things that are desirable to us: a Superman, who can save people in danger, and all sort of superheroes fighting crime and administer or restore justice. And we have indeed created such heroes. But we know that they exist only in our imagination. Some small children prey to their heroes to help them and do this and that. They also prey to God, of course. But both entities are in their mind, as they have been described to them by their parents or as images of entities the have created themselves from books and movies. The difference between the two kinds is that God is described a having much more power and different powers --in fact he can do anything (omnipotent)-- whereas the superheroes have only special, limited powers. So the attraction on feels about God is much greated in proportion.
BTW, here's a question and idea "of the moment": Where does the need for superheroes come from? And not only superheroes, but war heroes and simple, everyday "heroes" who defend and protect people in various ways and even save lives? If people felt secure and had enough protection from God, would all these "heroes" be needed? Or is it thet God has nothing to do with the protection of life in general? In which case, what benevolence are we talking about and what is its meaning?
Just think about it. (Although most probably you have already thought about it! :smile:)
Quoting Agent Smith
OK.
Quoting Agent Smith
OK.
There is nothing better than settling philosophical arguments by the fireside, with Cuban cigars and a fine Port, agreeing to disagree, or to lull oneself into a state of pleasantness in which agreement is more important than triumphing by using nothing but the tools and daresay weapons of logic alone.
I' got plenty of logic, pleasurable thoughts and practical stuff (applications in life, etc.) from Buddhism! And I'm certainly the only one and I have not practiced on a regular basis as millions of people have!
As for atheism, I don't have to "take a plunge". I consider myself already an "atheist", since I don't believe in God, esp. the God that is created by Judeo-Christians-- or any supreme being in particular. But this does not mean that I exclude the existence of some Supreme Being or Supreme Power, in general.
Same here. The possibility exists that god exists. Despite all probabilities that arise from what we (as a species) know.
No, Buddhism is not created by Buddha. You might find some who say so, but it's inaccurate. Buddhism is founded --we don't know by whom- based on the treachings of Buddha.
No, it is not Christ who founded Christianity. The Christian religion was founded by his disciples and other followers based on his teachings.
No, it is not Marx who founded Marxism. Marxism is based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
:up:
Right.
I have to agree with you on those although a bit reluctantly. But I can't raise an intelligent argument against it, so I accept your position.
Well, I'm not alone in being partial to mutual agreement. We all want to get along with each other - in fact it seems to be #1 on our wish list - and one condition for that is purportedly agreement on pragmata. However, some have gone a step further and are perfectly fine with what is expressed in the phrase "agree to disagree". In my estimation there's more to beliefs than justification alone - there are, for instance, psychological "reasons" that decide what we consider worthy/unworthy of belief. Euthyphro's dilemma manages to address both aspects of belief adoption - on the one hand we have justified belief (God isn't logically necessary for ethics) and other hand we have a psychological impetus (God isn't desirable).
Does 1+1 equal 2 because God created the rules of math, or does God proclaim that 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2?
Is there a third option? That God IS the rules of math?
What is the basis for axioms. Philosophy and science, any knowledge endeavor, relies upon axioms. Where do axioms get their authority from? What are axioms? Physical, mental, or something else?
Axioms don't strike me as physical. Therefor I am inclined to think they rest upon some absolute "mind" sort of reality.
Are axioms true because God says so, or does God proclaim the axioms because they are true, or is God the apex axiom?
That's a wise desision! :grin:
Magnifique! A new angle to the problem.
[quote=Mario Livio]Is God a mathematician?[/quote]
Are you implying that God could be an AI?
You know, if God is, lets say, an imaginary friend. Aren't imaginary friends technically AI?
I'm trying to see if there's a pattern by phasing out a being from the equation. God [math]\to[/math] AI [math]\to[/math] the laws of nature. Automation.
So nature as AI?
Self-organizing entities, I believe it's one of the items on AI engineer's wish list.
1. God is necessary for ethics
[quote=Pierre-Simon Laplace]Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis).[/quote]
God is unnecessary because God commands what is good (ethics is independent of God)
2. God is desirable for ethics
[quote=Mikhail Bakunin]if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him..[/quote]
God is undesirable because good is what God commands (ethics is arbitrary and good is but a whim and fancy of God)
Siddhartha Gautama's Buddhism makes no mention of gods and if it does only so in not-so-endearing terms, demoting them to lesser beings still subject to the rules/laws/conditions of samsara which is to say even gods experience dukkha.
Was Buddha a pandeist?
[quote=Karl]Can you make me one with everything?[/quote]
Probably you are interested in reading this: THE BASIC TEACHINGS OF BUDDHISM
[i]Because there is no substance or duration in Buddhism, the Buddhist view of karma is different from that in Hinduism or Jainism. Karma is only causation, without the mediation of any substance (apûrva, causal body, etc.). Reincarnation thus consists in our being caused by something in the past, and our karma is simply the effect now of past actions.
In the history of Buddhist philosophy, these doctrines created some difficulties. If there is no self, then what is it that attains enlightenment or Nirvâ?a? It is not me, for I am already gone in an instant; and if it is not me, then why bother? Also, if there is no enduring self, then the rewards and punishments of karma are visited on different beings than those who merited them. Why do I, instead of someone else, deserve the karma of some past existence? The Buddha himself probably would have been irritated with the doctrines that created these difficulties, since he rejected theorizing (it did not "tend to edification"), and he would have expected no less than that such theories would lead to tangled and merely theoretical disputes.[/i]
Nirvana must then be the realization of anatta, that there is no self, but then there's metempyschosis. The best response I can muster is the madhyamaka (reject both nihilists & eternalists). Generalizing, all pragmata are anepikrita (undecidable) due to the fact that they're adiaphora (logically undifferentiated). If you go the whole nine yards, even that which I said is of doubtful veracity. Enter pragmatism. The rest, as they say, is history.
Exactly. It is very complex to get into Nirvana and Buddhism because it is a very deep content. Understand the history of India is pretty important too though.
I have learned in the past months that there are even different schools about Buddhism. So I imagine how complex is to have a clear vision inside Buddhism.
I concur and looks like [s]nobody[/s] most of us don't know how deep the leporidaen hole goes. It must be obvious to you then that this is the heart of skepticism; in fact as per skepticism, every epistemological projects is a dead end (we can't even get to the hole let alone plumb its depths).