Divine Command

On page 36 of the book Colin Brown brings up an interesting subject. If something is right, is it right because the gods commanded it, or did they command it because it is right? This is one version of what is called the Euthyphro dilemma, named for Plato's dialogue in which it first appeared. The subject is interesting because theologians and philosophers still debate the issue, and it overlaps to some degree with the 'problem of evil,' which is commonly asserted by atheists as proving that God does not exist. Different theories to explain this paradox, or dilemma, can broadly be called 'Divine Command' theories.

The issue is basically this: If something is right because God commands it absolute morality becomes trivialized and is even tainted by a bit of relativism, but if God commands it because it is right that means there is some other ruler besides God that determines what right. In the former case moral wrongs such as murder, stealing, lying, adultery, and even idolatry lose some of their authority because they were just arbitray decisions by God and he could have made things another way. Adultery could be ok if only God had made the decision to allow it in the beginning. In the latter case right and wrong are determined by some system of criteria above God. God is then no longer infinite or omnipotent, and doesn't even really have the attributes of God.

These ideas are worth thinking about, because athiest philosophers are using these ideas, believing they have disproven God, and they are influencing people all the time. These ideas really are not new or ingenious, but have been around for a long, long time. I'll tell you what I think the solution to the so called 'dilemma' is, but first there is something about these arguments that I think is important to remember. To have a really strong case, you have to be able to argue both the negative and positive aspects of your position. You have to explain why your case is a good one, and also why your opponents solution is a bad one. In the case of the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil, the atheists position is only negative. He can attack the Christian and say that a good God could not possibly allow evil, or he isn't really good or not omnipotent (ie, not God). Thus, since there is evil, there is no God. But then the atheist has given up any chance of making a positive argument that there is no God, because he has to admit to the existence of evil to make his point. Some people are content at that point to say that neither good nor evil exist; things we think are right or wrong are just social constructs and opionions. But it is at this point that every once in a while someone starts down the path to belief in God. Everyone knows that some things are wrong. When a little girl is raped, tortured, and murdered, no one can really believe there is no evil in the world without really trying to suppress the truth. Where does this moral truth come from?

So the 'dilemma' is that saying that God commands things because they are right, or that things are right because God commands it are both insufficient. There are several answers that have been proposed, but 2 I'll mention here. The first is that it is ok to live with the fact that things are right because God commands it, and that's it. There is some Biblical support for this in Romans. Paul questions how a pot can question the potter, "why did you make me like this?" God can create some vessels for noble use and some for ignoble, that's His prerogative. And he can make some acts good and some evil, that's His prerogative. He happens to think adultery and killing little girls is bad, and that's the way it is.

Now, I think there is some merit to that argument, but I think there is a better one. God could not have decided adultery is ok, but it is not because he is not powerful enough or underneath some other authority. The answer that Thomas Aquinas gave was to the effect that moral laws are things that flow from God's character. He makes the law that adultery is wrong because it is consistent with His character, with who he is. Some would counter that this doesn't solve the dilemma but only restates it. For now you have to ask the question, "Is adultery opposed to God's character because adultery is not good, or is adultery opposed to God's character because God is good?"

But we can give an explanation by way of analogy which is perhaps better. Most everyone agrees, whether they like classical music or not, that Mozart was a musical genious and his music is beautiful. I heard a man once explain that he wasn't an expert in classical music, but he could pick out Mozart's music, even if it was a piece he had never heard before, and it is always beautiful. You could even say that Mozart never composed anything that wasn't beautiful music. So, did Mozart composed a piece of music because it was beautiful, or was the music beautiful because he composed it? The answer is, both.

Of course, that leaves a little bit of mystery. That doesn't bother me at all. It answers a lot more than any other solution, and it is consistent with other experiences in life. If you are uncomfortable with mystery it seems to me you'll never find any satisfactory solutions to anything. It is just a matter of finding the appropriate place for the mystery.

BTW, that's why I like Paul's poem on the previous post.