Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma shows that the Divine Command Theory has several problems. If something is good simply because God commands it, then God arbitrary – He could have given different commands just as easily. According to Leibniz, this would be destroying all of God’s love and glory – “for why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” On the other hand, if God commands something because it is good, then that would mean good is independent of God. Therefore, we should not follow a God who is arbitrary, but rather, think about it separately. James Rachels states that we should be autonomous, and think about what is right and wrong for ourselves.
Divine Command Theory Divine Command Theory can be described as what are right are whatever God commands, and whatever God forbids is wrong. Being truthful is what some believe that God says is right, but being truthful is the moral think to do (Rachel’s and 50-53). Not, because God says so but, because society says that people must be truthful to be successful and the reach their goals. The advantages to this Theory is that it gives motive to people to be moral which means people are listening to the sayings of God. God faring people accept the teachings of God and the best way to live.
So when we say ’God is good’, we need to know that we are using ’good’ in that sentence. In univocal terms this would be claiming that God is good in some way that humans are, Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because of this, imperfect humans can’t be good in the same way that God is. In equivocal terms, this would mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans, Aquinas rejected that too. He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn’t apply to God.
Against this statement is that God did not create so many rules to stop us using our free will but to influence and set standards to use our free will for the morally good. A good God would not make so many rules and regulations, for if he had created a world as perfect as it has said to be, and then there would be no need for rules and regulations, unless the world was created imperfectly. If this were the case, then there would be a need for rules and regulations and a bridge for God to interact with the world and his creations. For the world was created imperfectly this allows God to justify what is right and wrong by setting down rules in the world. A good god would not punish his people God gives us rules and regulations as an act of love and concern for humanity as he wants to guide us to live our lives in a good way.
This raises problems for Boethius' argument, however he addresses this and creates a counter assertment. As argued above free will is needed for just rewards/punishments, some people say this because it would be unfair to punish people who could not choose to do otherwise. Others such as Augustine believe that free will is necessary because without free will there should be no evil in the world as there is no choice to create evil where as evil does exist, without free will this must have been created by God, contradicting God's omnibenevolence. Irenaeus' view is simelar to Augustine however he adds that human beings could not be perfect, God is all that is perfect so we were given an imperfect world and free will, so that we would be a reflection of God but not perfect. Hick's approach to the necessity of free will grows from the idea that God wants humans to genuinly love him and show faith, without free will we could not make a decision as to whether or not we had faith, belief or even love for God, we would merely be robots designed to love him.
Dewey vs. Jesus Anthony Mayson EDUC 305 Dewey vs. Jesus Contrast the ideas of Dewey to the teaching of Christ. John Dewey was a great philosopher and was also a pioneer for education. He stated that value was a function neither of whim nor purely of social construction, but a quality situated in events. When it came to religious views Dewey honored the important functions that religious institutions and practices played in human life, but he rejected belief in any static ideal, such as a personal God. Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably increase human good.
He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect. McCloskey touches on faith in his article. It is defined by Tillich: as the state of being ultimately concerned as claiming truth for concern, and is involving commitment, courage, and the taking of risk. Theists have faith in God, and treat Him as the most important person in their lives. To have faith in someone on past knowledge, according to McCloskey, is reasonable however; it is unreasonable to have faith in God as we have no past knowledge of God.
This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good. The postulate of immortality is very much interwoven with the postulate of God. Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope.
Faith without reason is impossible but with knowledge faith can be possible and know God and what all he has done. With faith you have to use your mind. “Conversely, Christian faith needs reason in order to communicate its beliefs clearly, to arrange those beliefs in a more systematic form, to guard it from straying into fanaticism, or error, and to provide answering to reasonable objections to those beliefs” (Albl 1). To understand faith you have to be able to reason with your beliefs. “Rationalism and materialism understand faith as, at best, a harmless opinion about matters that are not real” (Albl 30).
He believes reason and faith are the two paths to access the truths of God’s existence. Faith is a trusted belief in God through scripture; it does not rest with logic and is beyond reason. But reason is a logical way of making sense of something that is not tangible. St. Thomas realized many people doubt the existence of God because there is no logic to explain God’s existence. For St. Thomas his mission in life was to prove the existence of God through reason.