The Euthyphro dilemma is an ancient criticism of polytheistic morality; Do we consider goodness to be good because the gods declare it, or do the gods declare it because it is good? If the former, then goodness can actually change at the whims of the gods. That is, it isn't a fixed thing, but an arbitrary one. If the latter, then goodness can be fixed, but it is fixed by something above the gods.
In the modern day, the Euthyphro dilemma is often resurrected and repurposed as a rescuing device for atheism. Christians often point out that by its very nature, atheism denies the existence of all viable moral legislators, and by doing so, it erases the existence of objective moral laws. Things like "good" and "evil" are reduced to the level of mere human opinion. What one man considers "good", another may consider "evil", and what one man considers "evil", another may consider "good". Thus, if there is no God, there can be no right or wrong answer to any moral question. Instead, the one who is "right" is the one with the biggest gun.
Atheists like to use the Euthyphro dilemma as a sort of rescuing device, suggesting God Himself falls prey to it. By their logic, the Euthyphro dilemma disqualifies God as a moral source because either there is a higher source to which even He must submit and be judged by, or there is no objective morality, only His whims, just like with the polytheistic gods against which the dilemma was originally proposed.
This fails for a number of reasons, starting with the "simple" fact that the Euthyphro dilemma can only apply to very specific kinds of gods. According to His own word, God is both internally and eternally consistent, which is an immediate distinction between Him and any god mankind has ever made up. There was never a time when God did not exist, a fact that is implied even from His very name. When He revealed Himself to Moses, we read "Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’" (Exodus 3:13-15).
Thus, we see that God is entirely and self-sufficiently eternal. There was never a time when He did not exist, nor will there come a time when He will not. In fact, time itself is a creation of God, who is "from everlasting to everlasting" (e.g. Psalm 90:2). A natural follow up from this is that God does not change. As He promises Israel in the book of Malachi, for example, "“For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Malachi 3:6). We read a similar, and actually stronger statement later on, in New Testament, where Paul tells Timothy "This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:11-13, emphasis added).
From this, and from so much more, we see that God is both internally and eternally consistent. He isn't like us. We change our minds, and so the gods we invent, likewise, could theoretically do so, especially as new generations pick them up and change them to suit their own will. Not so with God. He decrees in a manner that He, Himself, is bound to, purely by virtue of who He is. So, ultimately, the Euthyphro dilemma poses an "either or" that applies to our gods, but because of God's nature, it ends up being a "both and". Good is good because God says so, and God says so because it is good.
What we see here, then, is a particularly bad use of the Tu Quoque fallacy. We see that the Euthyphro dilemma cannot apply to God, but it wouldn't matter if it could, because the whole point is it can apply to us.
As I've already pointed out, if you deny the existence of all gods, you naturally erase their influence as moral legislators, but there is one god that not even an atheist can deny: Man. When we make moral statements, be it a law, a cultural norm, or even just a personal code of conduct we believe others should imitate, we become gods.
But much like the polytheistic gods against which the Euthyphro dilemma was first posed, we fight over morality a lot. We all internalise the belief that there is such a thing as objective morality, but we can't agree on exactly what that is. Probably because we can't agree on how. When an atheist says "this is good", on what basis are they declaring it? When an atheist says "that's wrong!", how have they decided? One might ask, is goodness good because man declares it, or does man declare it because it is good?
If the former, then first of all, morality is arbitrary. We're not eternally, or even internally consistent. We change our minds, but even when our minds are made up, we are quite hypocritical. Every single one of us. We don't even stick to our own moral codes after we finally decide what we think is right. On top of that, because there are so many of us, and we're all different, our views conflict. What one person thinks is right, another will think is wrong, and vice versa. With no higher standard, these opinions are as equal as ice cream preferences. No one's right, even if one person or group happens to be strong enough to enforce their will.
But it literally cannot be the latter. Atheism erases all moral legislators, and therefore there can be no real good or evil. In the atheistic Euthyphro dilemma, we are forced to take option one: "good" is good because each individual says so.
You see, then, how the denial of all gods makes man his own god. A walking idol, making his own fallible decrees based on the whims of his ever-changing mind. Now doesn't that sound familiar? As Isaiah records, "“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit." (Isaiah 14:12-15).
Just as the devil wanted to be like God (because there is nothing greater), we also desire this. We want the benefits of divinity, without submitting to the Divine Himself. The result is strife with all gods, real and imagined. We fight our fellow man because his ways are not our ways. We fight the devil because we still want what he wanted - our own way. He's just very good at convincing us his way is our way. And ultimately, we fight God Himself because we want His throne.
Ironically, we have the potential for a better outcome here. We can never be like the most high. That's not on the cards for anyone except the Lord Himself. However, while Satan's doom is sealed, we have an alternative. A path has been made for us. A narrow, but perfect path back to righteousness. That is, very much not our own path, nor even our own righteousness. Rather, the One who made the way has taken on our sin, so that we may take His righteousness.
2,000 years ago, just as God had promised in prior Scriptures, Jesus was born of a virgin. The fullness of Godhead dwelt bodily, just like you and I. But unlike you or I, He never sinned. He didn't murder. He didn't steal. He didn't so much as tell a "white lie", look with lust or covetousness, and especially, He never once blasphemed. He was blameless. So, when He died a sinner's death, receiving the full wrath of God on our behalf, He was representing us. We, therefore, can receive the reward He earned.
There is a criteria for this. It isn't a price - the reward has already been purchased. But it must be received in faith. That means we need to confess Jesus as the Lord He is, and believe in our hearts God raised Him from the dead. The result of this is that although we are not good, God will declare us good. That's certainly something you want to declare good, too.
AI usage:
No AI was used in the production of this article.
Comments