Euthyphro Dilemma and Atheist Credulity

Occasionally the Euthyphro Dilemma is hauled out as a purported philosophical death blow to all gods of all religions. Massimo has now claimed this, and that all philosophers since Plato, who wrote the dialog between Socrates and Euthyphro, have rejected all gods based on this dilemma. As usual, Massimo gives no evidence for this claim (or for a number of other statements of absolutes that he claims as fact). If a poll were taken, my guess is that “Who made God” is really the first objection, and the “Problem of Evil/Pain” would be a close second. Euthyphro would likely not rank high at all.

Nonetheless, the argument does warrant a response. It is enlightening to read the argument through in order to appreciate the logical legerdemain, the sleight of hand with premises, that is presented here.

Vox Day has made a surgical critique of Euthphro in his book, The Irrational Atheist, pages 291 – 300 (Appendix B). He also includes a dialog that illustrates how the same sort of logical license can produce the opposite conclusion.

I tend to take a more macro view of the logic involved, and I will reproduce that here. The argument in the dialog is reduced via redefinition of terms several times in the dialog. The version that modern Atheists like to use goes like this:

Soc.[rates]. “We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.”

or,

Is morality valid because God says it is, or does God say morality is valid because it already is valid?

These two premises which we will call a) and b) comprise the Euthyphro dilemma that is important to Atheism.

Let’s set up some logical frames within which to think about this dilemma, first defining some terms:

If God = G,
And if
M = morality, absolute,

Then,
a) Either all of M is part of G;
or,
b) All of G is part of M;

Stated as a premise,
a) Either morality, M is a subset of God, G;
or,
b) God, G, is a subset of Morality, M.

If a) is valid, then God conceivably created morality, and thus morality is arbitrary. If morality is arbitrary, then it has no real value and we should disregard it.

If b) is valid, then God is subject to a morality that is greater than himself, and thus God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then there is no reason to think that he exists.

Atheist Conclusion: Either way, monotheism cannot produce absolute morality.

This potent sounding conclusion has some errors:

First, if a) is valid, then the presumption that the creating entity is omnipotent but arbitrary might apply. However, presuming that omnipotent arbitrariness produces a set of non-valid rules is not a necessary conclusion. In fact, the universe itself might be an arbitrary fabrication, and the rules of behavior designed for compatibility to that arbitrary universe, and are therefore non-arbitrary. So a) cannot be declared a valid proposition.

Second, this argument ignores the science and the logical conclusion concerning the limits of space-time. The creation of the universe logically took place outside of space-time, and without any mass-energy; this conclusion is congruent with current science hypotheses and evidence. The creating entity existed, then, outside of time (timeless), and therefore also outside the domain of action-consequence and cause-effect, which are time dependent. So morality, being purely a concept of action-consequence, is a valid concept only within our universe. Therefore, it is not logical to presume that morality exists outside or above the creating entity in any manner. So premise b) is not valid.

So neither horn of the dilemma is valid. How can this be possible?

As with most dilemma / trilemma propositions, this one is a fallacy, a False Dilemma. Here’s why:

There is another possibility not considered in the two choices above. That is that G and M are totally congruent, logically speaking. In other words,

c) All of G is all of M. (i.e. G = M)

Existing completely outside of space-time and mass-energy, places the creating entity well outside our capability of comprehension. There is no reason to declare that choice c) is not the valid answer, and that the dilemma itself is false due to not recognizing the valid answer c) as a possible choice. This answer is coherent. In fact, the Abrahamic religions recognize this answer: the deity is truth and morality, and vice versa.

There is even one further choice that is not recognized,

d) none of G is M; none of M is G.

While not logically defensible, this is the one that is chosen by Materialists by fiat, not by empirical testing nor by logical derivation. Choice d) is non-coherent, in the sense that absolutes are required to exist without an omnipotent source capable of creating them. This is resolved by redefining M as non-absolute.

A close relative is that G = 0; and that M = 0 and that both are fabrications of the human mind… once again without empirical or logical substantiation. This choice is based on the a priori position that Material existence is all that exists, a scientistic dogma not based on empirical fact.

But back to Euthyphro. By preselecting only the two false choices, the dilemma is unfairly biased toward Atheist conclusions. But the dilemma itself is logically trivial, having no valid answer. When it is expanded to include all the logical possibilities, it is no longer trivial, but serves as a logical case for absolutes deriving from an omnipotent creator.

This is the type of logical foul play that Atheists claim as Critical Thinking. Leaving out the correct answer from a “dilemma” is irrational, illogical and intellectually dishonest.