I see you mention Rene Descartes. He believed in the existence of souls, and, taking that hypothesis seriously, he concluded there has to be a way for the soul to send signals to the body. He went looking for an organ that might fulfil this purpose, and concluded that it is the pineal gland.
This conclusion is false, the true function of the pineal gland is known today, but it illustrates a point : the old theistic scientists tended to take religion seriously, they viewed it as a valid scientific hypothesis whose implications in the real world could be studied. In that sense, they were wholly unlike modern-day theists who all too often seek refuge in unfalsifyability.
You are right :) I was amused when I first heard about his theories regarding the soul. We have to remember though, that he was philosopher and not a real doctor or a scientist in the modern meaning. Besides, not all old theistic scientists based their science on religious premises.
My point here is not that their conclusions were wrong, but that their attitude towards religion was a scientific one, an attitude rarely seen in today’s theists.
I don´t fully agree though. There many scientists today whom are also theists. What do you base that last sentence on? As for Newton trying to extract information from the bible, as far as I remember this was in his senior years when he started with numerology. He kept this obscure hobby quite secret and separated from his scientific work as far as I know.
obscure hobby quite secret and separated from his scientific work
To someone who truly takes a certain religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis, attempting to extract non-obvious information from that religion’s holy book is scientific work! The book was supposedly written by, or inspired by, an omnipotent being. How could they not expect to find important clues in there?
What do you base that last sentence on?
The complete and utter lack of modern theistic scientists looking for a soul-body communication organ, to name just one example.
There many scientists today whom are also theists.
He was agnostic most part of his life. But you are right that at one point in his life he openly declared himself an atheist. I remembered wrong. Heisenberg at the other hand was openly a theist. If you can only think of Francis Collins, maybe you shouldn´t base all your beliefs on just one person?
Wikipedia on Schrödinger:
Despite being raised in a religious household, he called himself an atheist. However, he had strong interests in Eastern religions, pantheism and used religious symbolism in his works. He also believed his scientific work was an approach to the godhead, albeit in a metaphorical sense.
I did say the only relatively well-known one, not the only one. Would you prefer if I used as an example Frank Tipler or Immanuel Velikovsky, both of whom make up exceedingly implausible hypotheses to fit their religious worldview, and are widely considered pseudoscientist because of that? Or Marcus Ross, who misrepresented his views on the age of the earth in order to get a paleontology phd?
No, today’s good theistic scientists, to the extent that they still exist, are precisely those who have stopped to take religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
he had strong interests in Eastern religions
Being interested in religion does not a theist make. Nor does merely acknowledging the possibility of an unspecified creator entity, the simulation hypothesis is not theism.
No, today’s good theistic scientists, to the extent that they still exist, are precisely those who have stopped to take religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
That is extremely obvious and something of the first thing I said in this article is that you mustn´t make a religious belief into a premise for science. Of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion.
you mustn´t make a religious belief into a premise for science
I strongly disagree. If religion were true, that would be exactely what you should do.
Of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion.
Why?
That statement is widely accepted today, but it is only widely accepted because virtually all attempts to do so have failed.
What happened is the following: people did try to base science on religion, they did make interesting predictions based on religious hypotheses. By elementary Bayesian reasoning, if an observation would be evidence for a religion, not observing it is evidence (though possibly weak evidence) against that religion. That is hard to accept for religious people, thus they took the only remaining option : they started pretending that religion and science are somehow independent things.
Imagine—just imagine! - that Decartes did find a soul receiver in the pineal gland. Imagine that Newton did manage to find great alchemical secrets in the bible. Imagine! If that would have happened, do you think anyone would claim that “of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion” ?
That kind of religion is quite alien to me so I can´t say. I think we would have speratae systems today if such discoveries had been made. A couple of centuries ago people explained different phenomena with different systems. Some phenomena used Aristotle´s teachings, some used mechanichs (as taught by Archimedes) and some used magic as a model.
I view religion as dealing with what is currently, at least partly, beyond the realms of experimental science. For example, concepts like love, goodness and evil are concepts that religions offer to explain. Science don´t have many theories concerning these concepts that are widely spread and accepted. We could use religious beliefs as premises, but since we can´t prove these premises yet, we can´t use them.
On the contrary, the neuroscience of ethics is a big thing nowadays.
And “widely spread and accepted” is not the criterion; it should rather be “consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions.”
Well I meant accepted by scientists :) I am familiar with the scientific method. Which is not odd since natural science is my all-time favorite subject. As a side note, as far as I know, neuroscience has not produced any answer to why there is evil yet.
Very true! Because it isn´t. Let me underline this so I don´t diminish the efforts of reductionists who have worked hard on these kinds of problems.
Let us split up the concept “evil” into something more concrete. Serial killing. Murder. To enjoy killing. To enjoy torture. Pyromancy. Assault. These are some typically “evil” phenomena that the neuroscience of ethics has to work with. It is no small task. And still this “evil” is easier to understand than “goodness” and altruism. Why risk you life for a stranger? Why sacriface your life for the one you love, even though that person is sterile and you have no common responsibilities?
And this is just asking why, not what to do with the information. We can say that our chosen “utility function” is what drives us but just what is that? How should we live and why? How can we avoid serial killing, how can we wipe out homicidal behaviour, is it even possible? We have to explain words like “choice” and “free will” and maybe “randomness” if we approach this scientifically.
Some scientists do indeed work on these questions, for which I am very thankful. But for many people their results and slow progress just isn´t enough. And for some it isn´t even necessary, since their religions offers guidelines and answers that are relatively easy to understand.
Many theists don´t se any conflict between science and theism, their evidence for a god could be the love they hold for others or some holy scripture, confirmed by people long since dead. People have claimed to witness miracles. If someone didn´t experience that particular miracle themselves though, there is no evidence except the weak evidence of the witness. It all comes down to what your basic premises are. We update our beliefs of course, we have to in order to survive, but someone convinced he has witnessed a miracle won´t easily change his mind. (Escpecially if it can´t be explained rationally in his lifetime. Indeed.)
You can believe that the scientific method can provide answers to everything. But then THAT is your basic premise. Until every unknown mystery has been resolved, and every question of reality has been answered, that theory is unproven.
And finally… There was no neuroscience 200 years ago. How could they coop then? Is it only through nodern science we can find answers? Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by? You see, you can´t start with rocks and nature and develop neuroscience in one lifetime.
Me: Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by?
You:
YES, exactly that. It’s a shameful idea to consider when you’re human, but at least we are equipped to know better now.
With second thought this deserves a special note. I mean I see what you mean, that people found COMFORT in lies. Superstition. But I mean that we have to think about what they based their laws on, and how they organized their societies aswell. If lies and lies only for thousands of years could uphold working societies that actually led to what we have today, why don´t we embrace these lies? Seems much easier to live by them than some advanced science.
Rejecting the old structures is what led to what we have today. If you look at the mortality rate of superstitious civilizations (in particular from preventable diseases), you can hardly describe them as “working.”
“Easy to understand” is irrelevant. Once again, it should be “consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions.”
Thank you for telling me what the scientific method is once more, since I clearly asked you that question over and over. (That was irony btw.) I did not mean that I perosnally find it relevant, but let me just say that I can understand why some believers do find this relevant.
So far, the assumption that the scientific method can deal with anything is undefeated.
Is it now really? Perhaps. Let us say it is. Well, so far I haven´t died yet, I guess that means I should believe that I am immortal. It´s not like that the thought that I will live on is just a useful (basic) premise in my everyday life.
That’s not what people commonly mean when they talk about their religion. But it’s a common argument to evade the actual issue.
I gave an example of what some theists consider evidence. Not how they describe their religion. The “actual issue” sounds cool. Wonder what THAT is ;)
Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by?
YES, exactly that. It’s a shameful idea to consider when you’re human, but at least we are equipped to know better now.]
Thank you for that answer, I learned something from that response. Please give more comments like that, you don´t need to repeat stuff over and over, I heard you first time.
so far I haven´t died yet, I guess that means I should believe that I am immortal
No, you have seen other humans die.
What I meant by “the actual issue” is that faith is terrible epistemology, and excuses to hold on to faith have become more and more lamentable with the passing of time and the growth of human knowledge. That is why, for example, people are less willing to describe their god as a bearded all-seeing man in the sky (which is easy to disprove), and more as a shapeless, impersonal cloud of goodness (which is so vague that nobody bothers to argue against).
people are less willing to describe their god as a bearded all-seeing man in the sky (which is easy to disprove), and more as a shapeless, impersonal cloud of goodness (which is so vague that nobody bothers to argue against).
That is true. For the sake of it, I will give you a definition you can criticize! I believe that a god, a sometimes shapeless, (sometimes, in lack of better description), personal “force” of goodness exists and can alter space-time and create consciousnesses, resurrect dead humans, wipe out all of humanity instantly and create worlds where the concept of linear time seems stupid. This god can do alot more cool stuff too!
I am not sure I want to DISCUSS all of it, but I do feel comfortable reading your comments regarding evidence for and against! Feel free to give me the very best criticism you can come up with! I guess that you are against my crude definition. However, discussing the existense of any deity wasn´t my intention, but since the original post is deleted, I will allow it.
I often meet religious people who don´t feel comfortable discussing their definitions, and even though I try to be very gentle on them, sometimes I hurt them since they don´t want to let go of their mysterious answers. If you asked this out of sincere politeness, my image of you just improved slightly.
The omnipotence paradox:
If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that’s possible according to his nature.
~Wikipedia, see your own link.
Since God is the highest power, he is omnipotent in the meaning that nothing else could be more powerful.
God can limit his actions by choice just like a human can. He can also revoke this limitation, just like a human can.
Note: God is not the only part of the universe. Since he has allowed fee will to other beings, things that he did not plan can happen and then he might “update”.
“It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things.”
~Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz version, according to Wikipedia
Intro:
I admit I don´t know where to start here. Hm… Compare it to an old dark art that works as follows: You ask a legit question but you only present two possible answers and make them seem like they are the only possibilities. But both are false, since there is in reality a third (or more) option aswell. Hence, if you try to answer the question using only the first two options, you see a paradox. (And this is only if you think that the question is legit. In our case, note for instance that “justice”, “goodness” and so on are vague concepts.)
The answer section:
I will not write an essay about this, but perhaps if you feel that it is necessary, we can discuss my answer more later on. My answer is that God´s actions in this world is what is good and just.
Notes:
1) Good AND just. Think about it in terms of modal logic. And I adress God´s “actions”, not his “will” (see note 3).
2) Now if we discard terms like “good” and “just” or replace them (try reducing the concept of justice to begin with), do we still have this problem?
3) Note again that we also talk about God´s will. Since God is a god, his “will” is a somewhat problematic concept, probably alot more problematic than will in general! I haven´t made a serious effort to analyze this though.
As Peter Singer said, if God defines goodness, then when you say God is good you’re just saying God approves of God. That leaves goodness (and God) undefined.
Let me start by saying that the following comversation may very well be considered non-rational in some respects, and this conversation is about BELIEFS, not facts that can be proven or disproven. I discuss this because you wanted it. So I will make you a favor and expose my current beliefs. To all who came across this, see more comments above for more info.
I will start with the Epicurean riddle:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ’the Epicurean paradox
God allows evil so that we can grow. In order to grow we need to be able to face evil and make choices on our own. We can´t come up with own conclusions if we already know all the right answers. (This was the statement. There are no easy answers to all questions and part of the growing process is to form your own belief. So note that the following are my own ideas.)
Yes, God wants humans to grow, in many ways. We humans have many flaws if compared to, for instance, angels, if we believe in such creatures. Perhaps God wants us to become angels. My personal hypotheses is that God was omnipotent but gave up that power in the meaning that he gave up his freedom to prevent all evil, so that we can grow. There are many worlds, or dimensions, and God is paying attention to everyone. Our world is a world with an unusual amount of evil, perhaps the only world to even contain evil, but it is necessary for God´s plans. We have to have remember that God loves us, and that whatever happens is tolerable. We would know this if we had God´s perspective. Note that we are not bound to this world forever. There is a heaven aswell.
Yes, a legit question. Here is my answer: Yes, but since my beliefs may differ from yours since we may observe different things and also interpret them differently, I try to separate personal beliefs from science. My observations are my own. If I have dreamt, I can´t prove this to anyone except by telling them that I dreamt. If I have met God, will you believe me if I say so? I can`t figure out an experiment that will prove to you what I dreamt a year ago.
Human minds being what they are, not even you can be sure what you dreamt a year ago.
we may observe different things and also interpret them differently
If we are located in the same place and have healthy and similar sense organs, we must observe the same environment and the same events. The only possible difference is what we call them and what they mean to each of us.
If I have met God, will you believe me if I say so?
I will believe that you had a subjective experience, but without real-time brain imaging (plus someone who knows how to interpret it) I won’t know what to call it.
I think you mean “pyromania”, or just “arson”. Pyromancy is divination by looking into flames or hot coals; compare chiromancy, an old word for palm-reading.
Probably because they have been dead for forty for fifty years.
The best example still living might be Robert Aumann, though his science is less central (economics) than anyone on your list. Find a well known modern scientist who is doing impressive work and believes in any reasonably traditional sense of God! It’s not interesting to show a bunch of people who believed in God when >99% of the rest of their society did.
I see you mention Rene Descartes. He believed in the existence of souls, and, taking that hypothesis seriously, he concluded there has to be a way for the soul to send signals to the body. He went looking for an organ that might fulfil this purpose, and concluded that it is the pineal gland.
This conclusion is false, the true function of the pineal gland is known today, but it illustrates a point : the old theistic scientists tended to take religion seriously, they viewed it as a valid scientific hypothesis whose implications in the real world could be studied. In that sense, they were wholly unlike modern-day theists who all too often seek refuge in unfalsifyability.
You are right :) I was amused when I first heard about his theories regarding the soul. We have to remember though, that he was philosopher and not a real doctor or a scientist in the modern meaning. Besides, not all old theistic scientists based their science on religious premises.
Very true. They would hardly have made much progress if they did!
Many tried to do it though. Another example is Isaac Newton, who tried to extract scientific information from the bible.
My point here is not that their conclusions were wrong, but that their attitude towards religion was a scientific one, an attitude rarely seen in today’s theists.
I don´t fully agree though. There many scientists today whom are also theists. What do you base that last sentence on? As for Newton trying to extract information from the bible, as far as I remember this was in his senior years when he started with numerology. He kept this obscure hobby quite secret and separated from his scientific work as far as I know.
To someone who truly takes a certain religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis, attempting to extract non-obvious information from that religion’s holy book is scientific work! The book was supposedly written by, or inspired by, an omnipotent being. How could they not expect to find important clues in there?
The complete and utter lack of modern theistic scientists looking for a soul-body communication organ, to name just one example.
People such as Francis Collins, who claimed to have converted to christianity after seeing a three-part frozen waterfall, which he interpreted as a sign of the holy trinity? Even though 3 is a significant number in more religions than I can be bothered to count ? No, such people are not worth mentioning in a serious discussion of this subject.
Why did you mention him then? Why not mention Erwin Schrödinger or Heisenberg for example?
He is the only well-known example of a modern theistic scientist that I can think of.
Both are dead, and I am not familiar with their thoughts on religion.
I looked up Schrödinger on wikipedia, and there it is : “Despite being raised in a religious household, he called himself an atheist.”.
He was agnostic most part of his life. But you are right that at one point in his life he openly declared himself an atheist. I remembered wrong. Heisenberg at the other hand was openly a theist. If you can only think of Francis Collins, maybe you shouldn´t base all your beliefs on just one person?
Wikipedia on Schrödinger:
I did say the only relatively well-known one, not the only one. Would you prefer if I used as an example Frank Tipler or Immanuel Velikovsky, both of whom make up exceedingly implausible hypotheses to fit their religious worldview, and are widely considered pseudoscientist because of that? Or Marcus Ross, who misrepresented his views on the age of the earth in order to get a paleontology phd?
No, today’s good theistic scientists, to the extent that they still exist, are precisely those who have stopped to take religion seriously as a scientific hypothesis.
Being interested in religion does not a theist make. Nor does merely acknowledging the possibility of an unspecified creator entity, the simulation hypothesis is not theism.
That is extremely obvious and something of the first thing I said in this article is that you mustn´t make a religious belief into a premise for science. Of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion.
I strongly disagree. If religion were true, that would be exactely what you should do.
Why?
That statement is widely accepted today, but it is only widely accepted because virtually all attempts to do so have failed.
What happened is the following: people did try to base science on religion, they did make interesting predictions based on religious hypotheses. By elementary Bayesian reasoning, if an observation would be evidence for a religion, not observing it is evidence (though possibly weak evidence) against that religion. That is hard to accept for religious people, thus they took the only remaining option : they started pretending that religion and science are somehow independent things.
Imagine—just imagine! - that Decartes did find a soul receiver in the pineal gland. Imagine that Newton did manage to find great alchemical secrets in the bible. Imagine! If that would have happened, do you think anyone would claim that “of course you can´t mix up scientific work with religion” ?
That kind of religion is quite alien to me so I can´t say. I think we would have speratae systems today if such discoveries had been made. A couple of centuries ago people explained different phenomena with different systems. Some phenomena used Aristotle´s teachings, some used mechanichs (as taught by Archimedes) and some used magic as a model.
I view religion as dealing with what is currently, at least partly, beyond the realms of experimental science. For example, concepts like love, goodness and evil are concepts that religions offer to explain. Science don´t have many theories concerning these concepts that are widely spread and accepted. We could use religious beliefs as premises, but since we can´t prove these premises yet, we can´t use them.
On the contrary, the neuroscience of ethics is a big thing nowadays.
And “widely spread and accepted” is not the criterion; it should rather be “consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions.”
Well I meant accepted by scientists :) I am familiar with the scientific method. Which is not odd since natural science is my all-time favorite subject. As a side note, as far as I know, neuroscience has not produced any answer to why there is evil yet.
“Evil” doesn’t seem like a workable category in a reductionistic framework.
Very true! Because it isn´t. Let me underline this so I don´t diminish the efforts of reductionists who have worked hard on these kinds of problems.
Let us split up the concept “evil” into something more concrete. Serial killing. Murder. To enjoy killing. To enjoy torture. Pyromancy. Assault. These are some typically “evil” phenomena that the neuroscience of ethics has to work with. It is no small task. And still this “evil” is easier to understand than “goodness” and altruism. Why risk you life for a stranger? Why sacriface your life for the one you love, even though that person is sterile and you have no common responsibilities?
And this is just asking why, not what to do with the information. We can say that our chosen “utility function” is what drives us but just what is that? How should we live and why? How can we avoid serial killing, how can we wipe out homicidal behaviour, is it even possible? We have to explain words like “choice” and “free will” and maybe “randomness” if we approach this scientifically.
Some scientists do indeed work on these questions, for which I am very thankful. But for many people their results and slow progress just isn´t enough. And for some it isn´t even necessary, since their religions offers guidelines and answers that are relatively easy to understand.
Many theists don´t se any conflict between science and theism, their evidence for a god could be the love they hold for others or some holy scripture, confirmed by people long since dead. People have claimed to witness miracles. If someone didn´t experience that particular miracle themselves though, there is no evidence except the weak evidence of the witness. It all comes down to what your basic premises are. We update our beliefs of course, we have to in order to survive, but someone convinced he has witnessed a miracle won´t easily change his mind. (Escpecially if it can´t be explained rationally in his lifetime. Indeed.)
You can believe that the scientific method can provide answers to everything. But then THAT is your basic premise. Until every unknown mystery has been resolved, and every question of reality has been answered, that theory is unproven.
And finally… There was no neuroscience 200 years ago. How could they coop then? Is it only through nodern science we can find answers? Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by? You see, you can´t start with rocks and nature and develop neuroscience in one lifetime.
I guess you meant pyromania, unless mutant powers are evil in some religion I haven’t heard of.
“Easy to understand” is irrelevant. Once again, it should be “consistent with observations, repeatable, and useful to make testable predictions.”
That’s not what people commonly mean when they talk about their religion. But it’s a common argument to evade the actual issue.
Your priors can and should change in response to new evidence. So far, the assumption that the scientific method can deal with anything is undefeated.
YES, exactly that. It’s a shameful idea to consider when you’re human, but at least we are equipped to know better now.
Me: Does that then imply that for thousands of years, people had to invent lies just to get by?
You:
With second thought this deserves a special note. I mean I see what you mean, that people found COMFORT in lies. Superstition. But I mean that we have to think about what they based their laws on, and how they organized their societies aswell. If lies and lies only for thousands of years could uphold working societies that actually led to what we have today, why don´t we embrace these lies? Seems much easier to live by them than some advanced science.
Rejecting the old structures is what led to what we have today. If you look at the mortality rate of superstitious civilizations (in particular from preventable diseases), you can hardly describe them as “working.”
Thank you for telling me what the scientific method is once more, since I clearly asked you that question over and over. (That was irony btw.) I did not mean that I perosnally find it relevant, but let me just say that I can understand why some believers do find this relevant.
Is it now really? Perhaps. Let us say it is. Well, so far I haven´t died yet, I guess that means I should believe that I am immortal. It´s not like that the thought that I will live on is just a useful (basic) premise in my everyday life.
I gave an example of what some theists consider evidence. Not how they describe their religion. The “actual issue” sounds cool. Wonder what THAT is ;)
Thank you for that answer, I learned something from that response. Please give more comments like that, you don´t need to repeat stuff over and over, I heard you first time.
No, you have seen other humans die.
What I meant by “the actual issue” is that faith is terrible epistemology, and excuses to hold on to faith have become more and more lamentable with the passing of time and the growth of human knowledge. That is why, for example, people are less willing to describe their god as a bearded all-seeing man in the sky (which is easy to disprove), and more as a shapeless, impersonal cloud of goodness (which is so vague that nobody bothers to argue against).
That is true. For the sake of it, I will give you a definition you can criticize! I believe that a god, a sometimes shapeless, (sometimes, in lack of better description), personal “force” of goodness exists and can alter space-time and create consciousnesses, resurrect dead humans, wipe out all of humanity instantly and create worlds where the concept of linear time seems stupid. This god can do alot more cool stuff too!
Do you feel comfortable discussing the evidence for and against that definition of a deity?
I am not sure I want to DISCUSS all of it, but I do feel comfortable reading your comments regarding evidence for and against! Feel free to give me the very best criticism you can come up with! I guess that you are against my crude definition. However, discussing the existense of any deity wasn´t my intention, but since the original post is deleted, I will allow it.
I often meet religious people who don´t feel comfortable discussing their definitions, and even though I try to be very gentle on them, sometimes I hurt them since they don´t want to let go of their mysterious answers. If you asked this out of sincere politeness, my image of you just improved slightly.
Your deity is a shapeless, personal force of goodness that can do a lot of cool stuff. I’m going to need a clearer definition.
How does your concept of a deity address these problems?
The Epicurean riddle.
The Euthyphro dilemma.
The omnipotence paradox.
The omnipotence paradox: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
~Wikipedia, see your own link.
Since God is the highest power, he is omnipotent in the meaning that nothing else could be more powerful. God can limit his actions by choice just like a human can. He can also revoke this limitation, just like a human can.
Note: God is not the only part of the universe. Since he has allowed fee will to other beings, things that he did not plan can happen and then he might “update”.
The Euthyphro dilemma is interesting.
~Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz version, according to Wikipedia
Intro:
I admit I don´t know where to start here. Hm… Compare it to an old dark art that works as follows: You ask a legit question but you only present two possible answers and make them seem like they are the only possibilities. But both are false, since there is in reality a third (or more) option aswell. Hence, if you try to answer the question using only the first two options, you see a paradox. (And this is only if you think that the question is legit. In our case, note for instance that “justice”, “goodness” and so on are vague concepts.)
The answer section:
I will not write an essay about this, but perhaps if you feel that it is necessary, we can discuss my answer more later on. My answer is that God´s actions in this world is what is good and just.
Notes: 1) Good AND just. Think about it in terms of modal logic. And I adress God´s “actions”, not his “will” (see note 3). 2) Now if we discard terms like “good” and “just” or replace them (try reducing the concept of justice to begin with), do we still have this problem? 3) Note again that we also talk about God´s will. Since God is a god, his “will” is a somewhat problematic concept, probably alot more problematic than will in general! I haven´t made a serious effort to analyze this though.
As Peter Singer said, if God defines goodness, then when you say God is good you’re just saying God approves of God. That leaves goodness (and God) undefined.
Defining god wasn´t what you asked for here. You wanted to adress The Euthyphro dilemma.
Let me start by saying that the following comversation may very well be considered non-rational in some respects, and this conversation is about BELIEFS, not facts that can be proven or disproven. I discuss this because you wanted it. So I will make you a favor and expose my current beliefs. To all who came across this, see more comments above for more info.
I will start with the Epicurean riddle:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ’the Epicurean paradox
God allows evil so that we can grow. In order to grow we need to be able to face evil and make choices on our own. We can´t come up with own conclusions if we already know all the right answers. (This was the statement. There are no easy answers to all questions and part of the growing process is to form your own belief. So note that the following are my own ideas.)
Yes, God wants humans to grow, in many ways. We humans have many flaws if compared to, for instance, angels, if we believe in such creatures. Perhaps God wants us to become angels. My personal hypotheses is that God was omnipotent but gave up that power in the meaning that he gave up his freedom to prevent all evil, so that we can grow. There are many worlds, or dimensions, and God is paying attention to everyone. Our world is a world with an unusual amount of evil, perhaps the only world to even contain evil, but it is necessary for God´s plans. We have to have remember that God loves us, and that whatever happens is tolerable. We would know this if we had God´s perspective. Note that we are not bound to this world forever. There is a heaven aswell.
EDIT: The premise here is that we have souls.
Why do you disconnect beliefs from facts? Shouldn’t beliefs be caused by observable facts?
Yes, a legit question. Here is my answer: Yes, but since my beliefs may differ from yours since we may observe different things and also interpret them differently, I try to separate personal beliefs from science. My observations are my own. If I have dreamt, I can´t prove this to anyone except by telling them that I dreamt. If I have met God, will you believe me if I say so? I can`t figure out an experiment that will prove to you what I dreamt a year ago.
Human minds being what they are, not even you can be sure what you dreamt a year ago.
If we are located in the same place and have healthy and similar sense organs, we must observe the same environment and the same events. The only possible difference is what we call them and what they mean to each of us.
I will believe that you had a subjective experience, but without real-time brain imaging (plus someone who knows how to interpret it) I won’t know what to call it.
Then you see my point I take it.
I think you mean “pyromania”, or just “arson”. Pyromancy is divination by looking into flames or hot coals; compare chiromancy, an old word for palm-reading.
Thank you, my swedish vocabulary took over again.
In swedish it is pyromani.
Probably because they have been dead for forty for fifty years.
The best example still living might be Robert Aumann, though his science is less central (economics) than anyone on your list. Find a well known modern scientist who is doing impressive work and believes in any reasonably traditional sense of God! It’s not interesting to show a bunch of people who believed in God when >99% of the rest of their society did.