It seems there is a cheap, safe and proven treatment for Covid 19, a drug that has been around for 40 years, and yet, puzzlingly, the WHO is warning against its use. I wonder why that is? Could it have to do with the fact that if it was approved, the vaccine rollout would likely be halted and the pharmaceutical companies fail to make the unprecendented profit they stand to make from the vaccines?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

http://outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Perhaps indeed!

That made me laugh. — Banno

As soon as your "arguments" are cogently challenged you lose interest and resort to pomposity. That is so disingenuous!

It is the will of gods, not the will of God in the Euthyphro; and that's why the argument doesn't work in the monotheistic context. The argument relies on the possibility of disagreement amongst the gods, and their human-like fallibility.

And the reply was

The answer is both/ and not either/or. — Janus


Roughly speaking Janus seems to think that because what is beloved by god is what is good, because the two are extensionally equivalent, the dichotomy dissolves. But I think this a slight treatment of the dialogue. It wraps the discussion in comforting bandages of abstraction — Banno

Roughly speaking this objection is nebulous and unargued. Can't you do better than that?

In any case mine is not an objection to the argument in the Euthyphro, but to its incoherent co-option by modern anti-theists.

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

Janus: That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim. — Janus

It is logical to conclude that nothing (no material existence) is undetectable because nothing can't produce sound waves, reflect light, etc. Also, if it's not an empirically decidable claim then it is irrefutable. — praxis

isn't that is why God is an object of faith? Understanding always has a bedrock — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, Praxis, it is irrefutable, as is its negation. So that is why religious beliefs are a matter of faith, not of logic or empirical investigation.

It's not logically contradictory to say that ideas might have their own existence; independent of the material.I don't personally believe they do, but I can at least acknowledge that the question is not logically contradictory or empirically decidable, which has been my point all along.

It is not so simple. It is not a matter of ethical principles but of whether particular acts are just or unjust. In a healthy society it is not enough that a sufficient number, (what number?),do something in order for it to be permissible. If we agree that murder is wrong, are we then wrong or is it both right and wrong if some group shouts "death to the infidels" and starts killing people? They consider themselves to be pious followers doing the will of their god, for which they will be rewarded. — Fooloso4

That's a strawman argument; no religions today (except some radical, politically motivated sects, proclaim "death to the infidels" and almost all moderate people, both religious and non-religious, think that is wrong. It is in the name of nationalism (in the context of war or conflict between nations), not in the context of religion, that the most people would think murder is acceptable.

In all this talk about God and the powers that we have attributed to him, the problem of the Euthyphro has been lost. Whether it is one God, many gods, or no gods we remain human beings. What is at issue is what we do and why. Appeals to God or gods are problematic. — Fooloso4

What this misses is that some do what they do and are able to find their justification in that without any appeal to God or gods, and others are able to find their justification only by appealing to God or gods. It's called 'human diversity'; everyone does not have to agree with everyone else as to the justification of their ethical principles in order to have an acceptably healthy society, a sufficient number just have to agree (to a sufficient degree) as to what those principles are.

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

That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim.

To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. — counterpunch

Of course scientific knowledge is incomplete, that is a given and wasn't the point I was making at all. Science is an incomplete understanding of certain aspects of reality. Within its ambit it has no serious competitors. I wasn't suggesting that science doesn't know anything.

I am not supporting any ideological worldviews; quite the contrary, as you should know if you read my posts. The claim that science can (potentially) explain everything is an ideological worldview; realistically science can explain what it can explain and cannot explain what it cannot explain.

:up:

This is a logical contradiction since God is understood to be an immaterial being.

The answer is both/ and not either/or.

I'd like to see how this connection works. Can you fill in the gaps? — Banno

If God loves only the good, and God as creator and sustainer of all things determines what is good, then there is no contradiction that I can detect. Do you see a contradiction there?

I'm guessing the ideas were probably introduced when the Nicene Creed was instituted, but I haven't investigated that, so I could be wrong.

It is hard to square the notions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence with what God is reported in the Old Testament to have done, and with the sacrifice of his Son, but nonetheless the ideas are not logically contradictory.

So if I contrive some silly religion no one can rationally refute it? — praxis

It would depend on whether there could be empirical evidence that might be used to refute it, or whether it was logically contradictory.

OK, it's a long time since I read the text and I had forgotten that. But again the problem in the context of the Greek gods is not only that they may disagree, but that that very possibility means that cannot be omniscient. The equation of the good with what God loves is logically valid only on the assumption that God is omniscient (and omnibenevolent).

The theistic presumption is though, that there is just one God and that that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. On that presumption there seems to be no contradiction involved in saying that God loves the good because it is good, and that the good is good because God loves it.

Our use of science is the source of technology. We typically seek power to edit our environment, which usually requires knowledge. Science is good at developing new knowledge. The source of technology is our desire to edit our environment. — Foghorn

That's not exactly how I'd put it, but I don't disagree.

I disagree: science is the understanding of certain aspects of reality. Those understandings are not infallible and are always subject to the possibility of falsification.

Yes, my objection to the anachronistic use of the "Euthyphro problem" to attempt to refute theism remains unaddressed here, so I have re-posted it in the Euthyphro thread.

I agree with you that religious belief is a matter of choice, not something which can be rationally justified or refuted.Amazingly many theists (of which I am not one, incidentally) don't want to admit that religious belief is not rationally justifiable, just as many atheists (of which I am not one either) don't want to admit that religious belief is not rationally refutable.

No one has addressed this yet in the other thread, so I'll post it again (with slight alterations) here:

The "Euthyphro problem" for theism is commonly misrepresented; as its central question being "Is something pious because it is beloved by God or is it beloved by God because it is pious?" The actual question in the text is "Is something pious because it is beloved of the gods, or is it beloved of the gods because it is pious?".

What is forgotten is that the Greek gods were quite capable of disagreement, and that that is the problem with equating piety with what the gods love. That something should be pious because it is beloved of (a single omniscient) God and beloved of God because it is pious presents no contradiction, inconsistency or paradox as far as I can tell. I'm open to correction on this..

Governmental policy is all about what ought and/or ought not be done. Politics is all about government. All political positions on the role of government are inherently philosophical. Thus, whenever a politician openly degrades philosophy, they ought very well be taken to task. — creativesoul

The problem is that philosophy is not a monolith; so it might not be all that easy to decide who is "degrading" it. If philosophy is being degraded it is always according to some perspective or other. The right might accuse the left of degrading philosophy when they advocate social security and universal healthcare, for example, because such things do not accord with their philosophical vision of how society ought to be.

What can be done is provide the American public with an accurate timeline of events showing which policies resulted in unwanted consequences for Americans overall, and which politicians voted for those policies, as a means to produce a well informed electorate. — creativesoul

You would need to get consensus on what constitutes "unwanted consequences". You would already be assuming a particular vision in order to determine that.

My advocacy of individualism is only to the extent that the individual has the right to hold opinions and positions that may be very different to mine, with the caveat being that they should not be anti-social. I don't agree that the sovereignty of the individual extends to the point where he or she can be said to owe nothing to society, since that would be absurd, given that all individuals depend so much on society, if they don't choose to live in the wilderness.

Hence, the need for philosophical style approaches to the matter... — creativesoul

Sure, but you can't force philosophy on people. France has philosophy taught in school. I think that's a good idea, but do you think France is a better society for it? I'm not sure.

Of course, free and fair elections are totally dependent upon a well informed electorate, and that seems to be a major problem nowadays. — creativesoul

True.

I agree that such myths can become entrenched. The idea of "survival of the fittest" has been co-opted as an ad hoc justification for capitalistic thinking, for example. I also agree that they can be ameliorated.

It seems obvious that the best strategy for any healthy society is cooperation not competition, because the latter inevitably seems to cause conflict. But it also seem to be the case that some people are naturally more competitive than others. One of my dogs is more competitive than the other. I think that can just be down to natural diversity. The same goes for aggression and compassion. I don't believe human natures in all their differences and similarities are entirely socially constructed.

It is in light of that that either the individual ought care about those whose lives and/or livelihoods they effect/affect, or such an individual ought not have such power. — creativesoul

Sure, that's an idea, an ideal, but I don't think it reflects the reality, wherein people simply have whatever influence they have acquired via their social relations. If they are acting within the law, then who's going to take their power and influence, whatever it's level might be, away from them?

I agree that people are malleable, and that compassion can be cultivated, like any other capacity. But you cannot force people to cultivate compassion. It seems natural for people (although even in this, not all) to be able to viscerally care most about those closest to them; their family and friends, to a lesser extent about associates and acquaintances, and very little about those who are not personally known to them.

People generally seem to need some inducement, usually religious faith, to feel that they should care about those strangers who are less fortunate than themselves and to contribute charitably. It's true that the more educated may be induced by ethical reasoning to be motivated to concern about human, environmental and animal rights causes. But concern is one thing and action another.

It is common enough for people to be disturbed by seeing those they consider to be innocent, children and animals, being mistreated and suffering. There are already a plethora of agencies playing on those kinds of feelings, but the level of charitable contribution remains relatively low, even among the most affluent nations.

Sure, but even in that rejection you continue to assume that individuals have primacy in social processes. For you the ideology of individualism remains unchallenged. — Banno

You seem to reject the idea that there is and should be a range of views, opinions and responses to questions of social order. It is not ideology, but simply a recognition that people differ in their views and in their degrees of care. That diversity is what must be dealt with if it is not be quashed from above.

Now this is not to say that most or even many have informed opinions and compassionate responses. That people don't have informed opinions and compassionate responses is the general problem, which is not a malfunction like blocked pipes but a natural characteristic of human life, not something that can be fixed, but something that must be worked around as best as is possible.

How do you get people who don't care too much about these things, to think about the social contract or philosophy? For many, religion takes care of much of the philosophy or it serves as a placeholder so that they don't have to think about the issues. But honestly, I wish I could give good reasons for people to care about these things. What's sad is that there should be a need to do so in the first place, instead of it being obvious why such matters should be interesting "by themselves", as I think they are. — Manuel

I think the key point is that people must care enough to change what is unjust or cruel. If religion achieves the aim of inducing compassionate responses then it has served a purpose. I don't see much of philosophy doing that at all. Things will only change if the majority of individuals care enough to bring about change, or if they are not informed enough and/ or don't care enough to notice that change is being brought about.

Hence my puzzlement that Joshs thinks "We find something better and only then do we see the limits of the previous approach". Recognising the problem seems an essential first step. — Banno

I would not say we find something better as though it were already implemented. Instead I would say we see a better way, and then we fight to implement it. It is a matter of vision and compassion. How often are such changes brought about by philosophers?

The important task is pointing to the contradictions in the assumed certainties. — Banno

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". Emerson from Self Reliance

SO we have the strange bedfellows of Janus, @Joshs and @NOS4A2 insisting on individuality and the social contract, even if, as in Nos's case, it is to reject it. — Banno

I reject the idea of a social contract, as I have said, and as you have acknowledged, so I have no idea why you are now saying that I insist on it.

We have laws, as we must in a complex society, to protect what are deemed to be the rights of individuals. Within the framework of those laws we may contract with one another. The fact that contractual law and practices exist does not entail that there is a social contract in the sense of some overarching agreement that every individual signs up for in order to be part of society. Contractual laws and practices have not been designed and drawn up from scratch by any person or group of persons; they have evolved as needed, just like any other social practice. They do not constitute a "social contract", they are simply contractual laws and practices, and no one can reasonably deny that they exist, or deny the need for them.

The idea that there are precisely identifiable malfunctions of the social system that philosophers could fix, analogously to the way in which plumbers fix problems of water supply and drainage is simply ludicrous and an example of the overweening hubris that philosophers can be capable of. Humanity lives in a mess and always will. Life, all life, not just the human, is messy; it is not precisely systematizable; it is a complex system that evolves as it evolves, and not to a plan. Individuals, and not only philosophers, can have input to varying degrees; they can have their influences on the system, and they inevitably do, however small that influence might seem.

The question I would put to critics of individualism is 'what would you put in its place?'. Individualism is the keystone of democracy, so if you reject it, it seems to me that you must be proposing some form of totalitarianism.

Note: I'm not advocating extreme forms of individualism a la Ayn Rand, so hopefully you will be able to see beyond black and white thinking.

Increasingly we are hearing that science is the source (not solution) of all our problems, - climate change, pollution, technology and the loss of personal liberty. — Tom Storm

Yes, science is the source of climate change and pollution, int the sense that, without it they would not have existed. Science is the source of technology, which is the source of consumerism, pollution, global warming, environmental degradation, soil destruction tion, aquifer destruction, over-fishing of the oceans etc, etc.

Science is also the source of increasingly effective technologies that can be used to diminish personal liberty.

Not a bad deal, is it? — Wayfarer

It's not a bad deal only if it delivers, without simultaneously delivering a whole raft of negative outcomes.

The Euthyphro problem. — creativesoul

This Euthyphro is commonly misrepresented; as its central question being "Is something pious because it is beloved by God or is it beloved by God because it is pious?" The actual question is "Is something pious because it is beloved of the gods, or is it beloved of the gods because it is pious?". What is forgotten is that the Greek gods were quite capable of disagreement, and that is the problem. That something should be pious because it is beloved of (a single omniscient) God and beloved of God because it is pious presents no contradiction, inconsistency or paradox.

Rather the philosophical landscape is in a state of upheaval, while simultaneously fighting to justify itself in the face of it's own creation, economic utility. — Banno

For me this characterization of the situation is absurd; economic utility grows out of the complacency brought about by prosperity. When you are economically comfortable, then you can safely begin to think in terms of mere profit, Philosophy has nothing to do with it, except perhaps as a provider of ad hoc justifications, and these are only required by intellectual idiots; who think the way things are can or could be rightly justified or repudiated; the bulk of humanity couldn't care less.

The notion of a social contract was stillborn at birth. Social arrangements and widely held mores and beliefs evolve organically like everything else. The plumbing analogy is also a miscarried one; there is nothing determinable to be fixed, or eliminated, least of all the concept of individualism. A healthy society is one which accommodates a plurality of opinion and belief.

I agree, but the divide or conflict, if there is one, is between institutionalized religion and science.

Yes, I have no argument there!

I think he was referring to David, the painter.

I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me the philosophical groundwork was there in the cannon of Catholic doctrine - that could have bridged the apparent divide. — counterpunch

The significant divide begins when science begins to question, even repudiate, the more central articles of faith.

No one can know what God wants so morality is still dependent on argument. Theism does not offer any certainty over atheism. All positions come down to arguing a case for one particular moral view or another. — Tom Storm

You're ignoring the obvious fact that believers hold the scriptures to be revelatory of what God wants and my be certain in their faith. Certainty is nothing more than a state of mind.