"You don't believe in God?" the devout Christian asked the atheist. "I don't think I could trust someone who doesn't worry about heaven and hell."
"So you're only good because god has promised you a reward?" the atheist asked in return. "That doesn't sound like anything more than bribery."
"Of course not," spat back the devout Christian. "I'm good because it's pleasing to God."
"How do you know that it is?"
"Because the bible tells me so."
"Do you follow everything the bible tells you? Like slavery, and torturing infidels, and killing babies for revenge? Because if so, I should probably call the cops."
"No, not those parts," the Christian said in a huff. "The church has moved on from those bad ideas."
"So you listen to your community?" the Atheist asked with careful emphasis.
"Um, yeah."
"Well so do I."
This week's thought experiment came straight from Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma so I was inspired to write a little dialogue in honour of Plato's usual format. Let's look at the one written up in the thought experiment.
------------------------------------------------
And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God, and I am the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?"
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, "To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it, or do you command it because it is good?"
"Ur," said the Lord. "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer, surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?"
"Of course!" replieth the Lord. "I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?"
"You choose what is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don't need to study God to study the good."
"Even so," spake the Lord, "you've got to admit I've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject..."
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 22.
------------------------------------------------
This is quite clever. Using the Socratic method on God to make him wink right out of existence. Poof!
I've written plenty about the universal definition of good that arises from nature. I managed to turn this idea into a peer-reviewed academic paper and an essay for a popular website. And I've recently been told I'll have an article In the July/August issue of a major humanist magazine about this subject. So, rather than bore you with another recap of why the survival of life over the long-term of evolutionary timeframes is the best objective basis for morality that we have, I'm instead going to try to rouse my puppy from his musical dreams and go enjoy a nice Spring afternoon. You should do the same...even if god didn't tell you to.
"So you're only good because god has promised you a reward?" the atheist asked in return. "That doesn't sound like anything more than bribery."
"Of course not," spat back the devout Christian. "I'm good because it's pleasing to God."
"How do you know that it is?"
"Because the bible tells me so."
"Do you follow everything the bible tells you? Like slavery, and torturing infidels, and killing babies for revenge? Because if so, I should probably call the cops."
"No, not those parts," the Christian said in a huff. "The church has moved on from those bad ideas."
"So you listen to your community?" the Atheist asked with careful emphasis.
"Um, yeah."
"Well so do I."
This week's thought experiment came straight from Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma so I was inspired to write a little dialogue in honour of Plato's usual format. Let's look at the one written up in the thought experiment.
------------------------------------------------
And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, "I am the Lord thy God, and I am the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?"
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, "To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it, or do you command it because it is good?"
"Ur," said the Lord. "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer, surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?"
"Of course!" replieth the Lord. "I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?"
"You choose what is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don't need to study God to study the good."
"Even so," spake the Lord, "you've got to admit I've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject..."
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 22.
------------------------------------------------
This is quite clever. Using the Socratic method on God to make him wink right out of existence. Poof!
I've written plenty about the universal definition of good that arises from nature. I managed to turn this idea into a peer-reviewed academic paper and an essay for a popular website. And I've recently been told I'll have an article In the July/August issue of a major humanist magazine about this subject. So, rather than bore you with another recap of why the survival of life over the long-term of evolutionary timeframes is the best objective basis for morality that we have, I'm instead going to try to rouse my puppy from his musical dreams and go enjoy a nice Spring afternoon. You should do the same...even if god didn't tell you to.
RSS Feed
