Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:56 PM
German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM
Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM
Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?

 (Read 3897 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     OP - June 17, 2013, 06:54 PM
    Let me outline the Euthyphro dilemma with recourse to two propositions:
    a) something is pious because the God's love it.
    B) Something is loved by the Gods, because it is pious.

    X is true if and only if G exists, where G is God and X is either (A) or (B).

    G = X (a) which entails amorality. Not immorality but amorality, as moral standards are determined by God with no intrinsic worth unto themselves. This would be acceptable if we reduce God to a being of no intellect, yet this is patently not the case within islamic discourse. All things considered, given that God is omniscient, omnipotent and exceptionally intelligent (not rational) we must capitulate to the hypothesis that if X is (a) morality cannot be said to exist as a paradigm of any worth. Certainly God can wax poetical about good and evil, but seen as existence is entirely causally determined, then these ideas become utterly absurd — in fact existence is intrinsically absurd.

    If X =(b) we encounter what I would call reified shirk. Reification is the process of considering an abstract concept to be real. AFAIK, no islamic theologian has delt with this modernist/frankfurt school critique of popular culture. Reification may serve to indict in the empirical world, but I don't think the delineation between abstract and real is that clear cut in Islam. Anyway, if (B) is X then muslims are committing a form of shirk as they are ascribing partners (moral values) with God, inasmuch as moral values are independent of God, hence G loves X because it is inherently good.

    This is either a simplistic and cunning argument against morality insofar as it can be said to exist in islam, or, it is an incredibly risible conclusion. Thoughts?
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #1 - June 18, 2013, 03:04 PM
    I don't understand. AFAIK you can only apply the word "pious" to a person

    The OED seems to agree with me: http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/the-oxford-english-dictionary

    " 1. a. Of an action, thought, resolve, etc.: characterized by, expressing, or resulting from true reverence and obedience to God; devout, religious.
     b. Of a person: having or showing reverence and obedience to God; faithful to religious duties and observances; devout, godly, religious.
     2. Faithful to, or according with, the duties and obligations owed to family, friends, or others; characterized by loyal affection, esp. to parents; dutiful, loyal. Now arch.
     3. Of a fraud or deception: practised for the supposed benefit of those deceived, or to further what is considered a virtuous aim; (in negative sense) intended to exploit religious credulity.
     4. Of a wish or hope: optimistic, well-intentioned; felt or expressed in order to maintain the appearance of optimism; (hence) sincere but unlikely to be fulfilled; unrealistic, extravagant.
     5. Hypocritically virtuous; self-righteous; sanctimonious."

    Do you mean to use the word "Holy"?
    But then, holiness and morality are not the same thing, so there must be a translation issue between GreeK and English.

    According to Wikipedia:
    "The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists, though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today."

    So what is my opinion?

    In my opinion philosophy is a steaming pile of dog shit and people should waste their time on real science instead.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJkO-EKRVd0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #2 - June 18, 2013, 03:53 PM
    Pious denoting something godly. Good is godly because God loves it.

    I also take issue with your assertion that philosophy is a steaming pile of horseshit. Was Aristotle not a scientist?
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #3 - June 18, 2013, 07:05 PM
    Yeah. Fair enough.

     Afro
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #4 - June 18, 2013, 09:25 PM
    :( I thought this would generate more debate. :(
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #5 - June 18, 2013, 10:11 PM
    I wouldn't worry about it. Most of my threads completely bomb.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #6 - June 18, 2013, 10:20 PM
    That's just because you're a hard act to follow, Ishina.  Afro
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #7 - June 18, 2013, 10:29 PM
    I tried. I guess some things grab people and others just... don't. Unpredictable us humans.

    For what its worth: piety or holiness demand a god. If there isn't one they don't exist.

    I don't think the way you make the other assertions really stacks up as an argument. God, if he existed, would make certain rules that we have to live by. The rules, applied in certain situations, may be perceived to be immoral but are still applied.

    Morality, or goodness (or the opposites) are qualities that exist outside of these rules, they must be or we wouldn't be able to make comparisons between God's rules and proper moral judgement Otherwise, are we suggesting that god created us as capable of making our own ethical judgements but decided, in some twist of contrariness to give us alternative rules so that we would chose to take actions that we know to be unethical. Rather than being an abstract concept, surely morality must be an intrinsic quality of human society; otherwise society simply would not function. Is it possible that society and culture have evolved in a survival of the fittest manner in the same way as organisms? Societies with rules (morality) most fit for survival at any given time will be better equipped to progress than those around them.

    Isn't it probable that, rather than morality coming from God, God come from morality as people tried to make their societies workable?
  • Re: Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #8 - June 18, 2013, 10:35 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on June 18, 2013, 10:20 PM
    That's just because you're a hard act to follow, Ishina.  Afro

    Thank you. Nice of you to say so.

    (I'll pay you the agreed amount later)
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #9 - June 18, 2013, 10:39 PM
    Quote from: Rob on June 18, 2013, 10:29 PM
    Isn't it probable that, rather than morality coming from God, God come from morality as people tried to make their societies workable?

    The Euthyphro Dilemma, from an atheist perspective, is entertaining the idea of God only hypothetically. Of course there are better explanations for the moral sense of high-functioning social mammals than God. The dilemma just illustrates a glaring flaw with theistic morality, that's all. Provisionally granting God's existence to facilitate the argument.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #10 - June 18, 2013, 10:43 PM
    It probably does but they have found a way to talk around it. Such is the way with philosophy. Meanwhile, for most people (me) this discussion is way overhead and irrelevant.
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #11 - June 18, 2013, 10:46 PM
    "For what its worth: piety or holiness demand a god. If there isn't one they don't exist."

    I concur.

    I don't think the way you make the other assertions really stacks up as an argument. God, if he existed, would make certain rules that we have to live by. The rules, applied in certain situations, may be perceived to be immoral but are still applied.

    No, I am talking about amorality, not immorality. If an omniscient deity exists, there is simply no morality, good or bad, by virtue of determinism. If you don't believe in determinism you are disobeying the dictates of the qu'ran.

    "Morality, or goodness (or the opposites) are qualities that exist outside of these rules, they must be or we wouldn't be able to make comparisons between God's rules and proper moral judgement."

    Shirk, innit?
  • Euthyphro Dilemma as reified shirk?
     Reply #12 - June 18, 2013, 10:49 PM
    Shirk inasmuch as concepts such as good and bad are platonic. Pretty sure islamic doctrine does not transcend this idea.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »