he spent his life inquiring about them, trying to determine what is best and avoid doing what is unjust. — Fooloso4

However, according to Plato, the source of all goodness and all morality is the Good, i.e., a higher, divine source.

So, it looks like you are contradicting yourself and undermining your own theory.

Socrates knows he does not know. — Fooloso4

I think you're growing more and more irrational. If "Socrates doesn't know", how can you use Socrates' statements to prove anything?

Socrates focus remains on the human things. — Fooloso4

And that "proves" what exactly?

piety is not a sufficient guide to doing what is right. And so piety does not equal what is loved by God. — Fooloso4

Nonsense. There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.

Plus,

1. "Not sufficient" can mean "partly sufficient".

2. If you are saying "piety does not equal what is loved by God", you are implying that God hates piety, which is absurd.

The pious often expects a reward for his piety. — Olivier5

People are different and are pious for different motives. This is precisely why @Fooloso4 has failed to prove his point and will never succeed even in a million years.

1. Some humans are pious because they follow the divine sense of goodness and justice within themselves.

2. Some are pious because they follow the command of God as communicated through laws, customs, etc. which they recognize as being good and just.

3. And others are pious to escape punishment in Hades and to reap the rewards of a pious life in paradise (Phaedo 114e - 115a).

Very simple, really.

Or perhaps vice versa, given that "god" seems to function in this thread as a place-holder for our "best self" ....

Another point: I've been confused with the use of "pious" as meaning "beloved of God" in this thread. This is not the case in French or Italian, — Olivier5

I think you're confusing yourself because you aren't following the thread and you don't understand that the discussion is about Ancient Greece, not France or Italy.

It is Euthyphro himself who equates “pious” (ὅσιον) with “loved by Gods” (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν):

“Socrates:
Now what do you say about that which is pious (ὅσιον hosion), it is loved by the gods (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν phileitai hypo theon), is it not, according to what you said? (10c – d).
Euthyphro:
Yes”
(10c – d).

Plato refers to “the Maker and Father of the universe (Poietes kai Pateras tou pantos)” and states that “this Cosmos is beautiful and its Constructor good”, etc. (Timaeus 28a – 29a).

What we find here is that pious obedience must be tempered to avoid injustice. — Fooloso4

Everything must be tempered. That's why humans have a reasoning faculty and an innate, divine sense of what is right and what is wrong. And that means that by being pious, i.e., good and just, one follows a divine impulse.

I see no need to look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is simply anachronistic to do that. And you do it because your theory doesn't hold water when taken in an Ancient Greek context as I already explained:

"In reality, if, for example, justice is a manifestation of the divine principle of Justice (the Goddess Dike or Justitia), then the Gods love the pious because it is divine, i.e., a manifestation of their own innate goodness and justice.

Similarly, when humans assess what is right and what is wrong, they do so according to the divine sense of justice present in their souls.

As clearly stated by Plato, justice is not something external, it is an innate virtue of the soul which is essentially divine.

The world (cosmos) itself was created by God and arranged in such a way as to produce a vast array of good effects (Timaeus 28a).

So, when humans perform good and just actions they do nothing else than obeying the divine principle of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne)."

This was not always so. There was no written of God until after the Hebrews/Jews (?) were taken into captivity by Babylon. — Athena

What I meant was that the practice of writing down laws said to have been given by God goes back to Hammurabi (1792 - 1750 BC ) and before:

“Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice.”

Hammurabi – Wikipedia

The Judeans were taken into Babylonian captivity in 597 -581 BC, i.e., many centuries after the Code of Hammurabi.

But I agree that the idea of a loving God in the modern sense is a recent reinterpretation. The original idea was that God is to us like a father. He creates us, supports and protects us, feeds us, and expects "love" i.e., obedience in return.

God was like the pater familias in Greek and Roman society hence he was referred to as "Father" (Zeus Pateras) in the same way children out of respect always addressed their parent as "father", not by his proper name.

Do you understand that the Hebrew laws about rape weren't about piety? — frank

He neither understands nor does he want to because he's got another agenda which is to use Socrates to ridicule religion in general and Abrahamic religion in particular.

The fact is that Socrates is not talking about Hebrew laws.

It is clear that you have not read the dialogue or the OP. It is not something I was forced to admit, it is the premise of the dialogue. — Fooloso4

It is clear that, as usual, you are not reading your own statements. You wrote:

the equation beloved of God = pious is insufficient without the possession of knowledge of God. — Fooloso4

Your statement does not dispute the validity of the equation. It only says that the equation is "insufficient".

Therefore, you admit that "pious" = "loved by the Gods".

God's character as the most virtuous person implies, as of necessity, that his commands are good, right? — TheMadFool

As you correctly pointed out and as @Fooloso4 was forced to admit, "pious" = "loved by the Gods".

So, let's have another look at the so-called problem:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον to hosion) loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?"

The first problem with this question or puzzle is that it seems to imply that only two answers are possible which is not the case.

The second problem is that it depends on our perspective of the concepts involved.

ὅσιος hósios means both pious in the sense of sanctioned by the Gods and pious in the sense of devout or observant of what is commanded by the Gods.

Thus the pious (to hosion) is in any case something that is sanctioned (loved) by the Gods.

Now, we could ask, if we had nothing better to do, why do the Gods love the pious?

Some may answer that the Gods love the pious because it is good and just in itself. This may lead to the erroneous conclusion that there are moral standards that are independent of the Gods - which is what the materialists, the anti-theists and the neo-Marxists are trying to demonstrate, without much success however.

In reality, if, for example, justice is a manifestation of the divine principle of Justice (the Goddess Dike or Justitia), then the Gods love the pious because it is divine, i.e., a manifestation of their own innate goodness and justice.

Similarly, when humans assess what is right and what is wrong, they do so according to the divine sense of justice present in their souls.

As clearly stated by Plato, justice is not something external, it is an innate virtue of the soul which is essentially divine.

The world (cosmos) itself was created by God and arranged in such a way as to produce a vast array of good effects (Timaeus 28a).

So, when humans perform good and just actions they do nothing else than obeying the divine principle of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne).

In mythological terms, Justice (Dike) was created/fathered by God (Zeus) and placed on earth to uphold justice (Theogony I. 901) which is another way of saying that justice is a divine principle.

So how can nature be this complex? — Thinking

Nature is not only amazingly complex but also amazingly well ordered. This implies purpose and design which suggests an intelligent designer.

The alternative would be blind chance which to me seems less probable, though not entirely impossible.

So, on the balance of probabilities, I would say intelligent creator. What kind of intelligent creator and how it created the universe is another question.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that the materialists will come up with new questions, arguments and "contradictions", given that this is their purpose of the discussion:

To answer the question that engendered this post, belief in god is not necessary for being good. — Fooloso4

They've already decided on the answer.

the dilemma dissolves once we realize the fact that, beloved of God = pious. So, the question, "is something pious because it is beloved by God or is it beloved of God because it is pious?" becomes " is something pious because it is pious or is it pious because it is pious?" This boils down to, "is it pious because it is pious?" which is the circular argument, "it is pious because it is pious" in question form. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately, the materialists will claim that the Gods love the pious man because he is pious which in their view demonstrates that you can be pious without following a divine command.

But good point, anyway.

we've all come to play a game, but some have brought soccer balls, others hockey pucks, others footballs, baseballs, basketballs shuttlecocks, tennis balls, epees, lacrosse sticks, dice, cards, and so forth. — tim wood

And some may have no interest in playing when they perceive the agenda behind the game.

At any rate, if we take "justice" to mean treating people as they deserve, then we need to know what is right and what is wrong and we learn this from society or some other source that is higher than us and has more authority than the individual. That's why Justice has been conceived of as a higher power or principle that we all must obey and has usually been associated with a supernatural entity to highlight this fact.

If you say so.

I'm still conceiving of intelligence as one thing, and reality as another. Has my mind conceptually divided in to two that which is actually really one? — Foghorn

The mind sees both unity and diversity, subject and object, in order to rationally analyze reality, in the same way it sees changelessness in order to see change, etc.

But unity itself is part of the subject which is one, whereas diversity pertains to the objective world.

In everyday life we tend to emphasize diversity and pay less attention to unity. But when we focus more on unity, our perspective and experience change accordingly. Ultimately, subject and object must be one or consisting of the same stuff, which is intelligence.

Is piety simply a matter of doing what we are told a god or gods want from us, or is it part of the larger question of the just, noble, and good? — Fooloso4

If Justice is taken to be a Goddess (Dike), then in following justice we are doing what is commanded by Justice.

Likewise, if the Good is taken to be a higher, quasi-divine entity (to Agathon), then in following good we are doing what is commanded by the Good.

We can't escape the fact that we are following a higher principle that is above us. All we can do is claim that that principle is not a personal God, and others may disagree resulting in a never-ending and pretty pointless debate.

In the final analysis it is a matter of personal choice as to which way we want to look at it. It simply can't be settled through logic or philosophy.

It's rather difficult to see the unity of all things (should that exist) using a human mind machine which operates by a process of division. — Foghorn

Not that difficult. The way I see it, the same human mind machine operating by a process of division also has the capacity to see unity in diversity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to grasp concepts like universals. It was for this very reason that Plato and his followers introduced the theory of forms and other concepts in order to assist the mind in seeing the unity underlying all reality. Try to imagine or think in your head that everything you see is made of luminous energy or intelligent light. After a while, you'll begin to understand. The flip side to that is that it won't help much in analyzing things scientifically or in a way acceptable to science.

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable. — praxis

If God is taken to be omnipotent, then he would probably find ways of making himself known to mankind.

It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that gets people into trouble. — Athena

Correct. Some passages or concepts may be taken literally, whilst others are to be interpreted allegorically. Jesus himself spoke in parables for this very reason, and he explained how words, symbolized by seeds, have a different effect according to the type of soil (or mind) on which they fall.

The NT characterizes just society as a society ruled by "righteousness, peace, and joy" and the same is found in Platonic and other philosophical texts.

If we start with righteousness which includes right conduct and right thought then misunderstandings and problems are usually avoidable. It is only when reason is suspended and replaced with unreason that problems start.

Religious texts were originally held in the possession of priests who interpreted them for the lay community. Scriptural interpretation was probably later influenced by politics and even the otherwise good bits ended up being distorted. This is why mankind have devised new religious systems every now and then when the old ones no longer served the intended purpose. But political systems can be just as bad or even worse, as can be seen in the case of communism.

I seem to be exploring the "reality as single thing" notion. — Foghorn

In that case, it wouldn't be bad to start with a definition of "reality" or "reality as single thing" and then look into how it relates to intelligence. Presumably, we can only talk about reality if there is an intelligence there that enables us to be aware of it and analyze it rationally.

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to use terms like "God" or else we run the risk of the thread being taken over by the materialists/anti-theists and not getting very far.

Then we are starting to bend the word "intelligence" way beyond it's normal meaning. We may need another word to describe a um, uh, universal intelligence? — Foghorn

I can only see two options, either (1) we use a redefined term to include the meaning we want it to have, or (2) we coin a new word.

By the way, you're saying that "nobody can own intelligence just as nobody owns the laws of physics". However, the laws of physics may not be "owned" by the objects to which they apply in the normal sense of the word, but the objects may still share in those laws by virtue of being part of the physical world. And the same may apply to intelligence. In other words, a form of shared or collective ownership. And that still leaves open the possibility of something or somebody owning or controlling the totality of intelligence, or intelligence owning or controlling itself. And this would presuppose some kind of self-awareness.

The extreme partisans have, to date, come nowhere close to having legislative majorities to get much done policy wise. — Count Timothy von Icarus

True. But lack of success by democratic means may lead to greater radicalization and authoritarianism.
The Left may use right-wing authoritarianism to push their own version and the other way around, and the situation can quickly spiral in the direction of authoritarianism.

Also, as the demographic situation changes, so does political culture. Hispanic influence, for example, may well lead to a more authoritarian climate in the future. This process may be accelerated if there is economic decline, economic and military conflict with other powers, etc.

I would ask "authoritarian" in what sense? More in the direction of a benevolent dictatorship or communism/fascism?

I'm struggling with words like "intelligence" in this thread. — Foghorn

I don't see any problem with the word "intelligence" as long as it is adequately defined.

It may be said that intelligence is the power to grasp or be aware of information. However, as every act of awareness implies self-awareness and self-awareness is the background on which all conscious experience takes place, it wouldn't be wrong to speak of self-aware intelligence.

This would classify reality into entities that are increasingly aware of themselves and of their essential identity with one another toward the top, and entities that are increasingly non-self-aware and differentiated toward the bottom. More or less as envisaged by Plotinus and others.

The basic idea is that God is omnipotent from where it may be inferred that he is omniscient. However, God doesn't need to be omnibenevolent.

The concept of “omnipotent” (παντοκράτωρ pantokrator or παντοδύναμος pantodynamos) was certainly in use in antiquity. "Jupiter omnipotens" is used by Virgil and "omnipotent God" occurs both in the OT and NT texts:

"When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, Pantokrator was used both for YHWH Sabaoth "Lord of Hosts"[2] and for El Shaddai "God Almighty".[3] In the New Testament, Pantokrator is used once by Paul (2 Cor 6:18) and nine times in the Book of Revelation: 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 16:14, 19:6, 19:15, and 21:22. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Pantocrator

"Omnibenevolence" is often misconstrued and used by atheists or anti-theists to demonstrate alleged "contradictions" in the concept of God. It is conveniently forgotten that there are many different definitions of "God" - and of "omnibenevolence".

God is good in himself. But that doesn't mean that he is under obligation to be good to people in exactly the way or ways people want him to be, as that would be absurd.

Please refrain from the gratuitous ad hominem commentary. — Valentinus

Maybe you can tell me where the "ad hominem" is, because I don't see any?

Fooloso4 started it at the instigation of Banno. So maybe he knows

Perhaps it's helpful to observe that while the laws of physics are very real, they don't exist in the sense of having mass, weight, shape or form, location etc. Intelligence might be like that? — Foghorn

And that would mean that the universe is intelligent and consists of various forms and degrees of intelligence. As proposed by Platonism and other monistic systems.

I don't know what the question is but I'm sure Karl Marx has all the answers. Or so they say ....

You do not have to know that it is God who is issuing them. — Bartricks

That seems to be a reasonable statement. Lots of things happen to us without our being aware of the causes. What if God tells us what is right and wrong without letting us know that he does so?

What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances? — Foghorn

I don't see why this can't be the case. Possibly difficult to prove but perfectly conceivable.

By the way, how many phenomena are there in bouncing a ball?

I didn't say that there are no people who at least claim to have been told things by God, just that I'm not one of them and neither are most people I know. — khaled

Fair enough. However, theoretically, at least, it is not entirely inconceivable that God has told some people what constitutes right conduct in the past and possibly still does.

Edit. Your statement "and neither are most people I know" suggests that some people you know do.

“Witnessed by others”? Who? Who here claimed that God came down and told them “be reasonable”? Just Bart — khaled

There are many historical examples of people claiming to have been told by God what to do. Prophet Mohammad was one of them. But it goes back to Hammurabi (1792 - 1750 BC) and many others:

“Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice.”

Hammurabi – Wikipedia

It wasn’t clear from your post who you were referring to. I thought it was a general statement, hence I wanted to clarify that.

He's a wind-bag - yes. — Banno

That's what I meant. You won't stop him just like you can't stop the wind ....

He is an inspired fellow. You know what "Anand" and "Haqq" means, don't you?

I don’t remember God telling me that one though. I think I’d remember if God commanded me to do something. — khaled

So, you are using your personal lack of remembrance as an argument for the non-occurence of an event witnessed by others?

If it is the case that all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God, and being good requires following moral norms and prescriptions, then God is necessary for being good. — creativesoul

Have you demonstrated that this is not the case? I don't think you have.

I remember the time when I really, really liked this girl (seems I'm a heterosexual) but the logistics was a nightmare. — TheMadFool

Maybe that’s the job of really, really likable girls, to create nightmares for (seemingly heterosexual) guys.

Consciousness seems to present a similar problem for the mind. As long as we run after it, it is not ours and not us. Only when we stop chasing and the mind becomes tranquil and simply observes (hence meditation techniques), that we begin to see a higher intelligence in us and us in it. That is when knowing ceases to be possessing something and becomes being it. So, yes, I think Plotinus may help.