Atheists: What do you you think of this question and answer from a former Atheist?

Question

Any thoughts? does this follow your line of thinking at all?

IS LOGIC HIGHER THAN GOD?
Dear Professor Theophilus:

I am a Christian, a junior at Brown, and I've been debating with an atheist friend. I'd written to him that God can't do the logically impossible, like make something true and false in the same sense at the same time. He wrote back, "What does it mean that there are logical rules in our universe that not even God can violate? Did He create them? If He did, why would a perfect being cripple Himself by limiting His power like that? If He didn't create them, who did, and why are they the way they are?" As a former atheist yourself, do you have any insight into his questions?


Reply:

Your friend's questions are variations on the famous Euthyphro Dilemma (so called because it originated in a question that Socrates once posed to his friend Euthyphro).

In its original form, the dilemma is about morality, and runs something like this: Does God command the moral law because it is good, or is it good because He commands it? If He commands the moral law because it is good, then it seems that there is something — call it Good or Goodness — which is higher than God. On the other hand, if it is good because He commands it, then it seems that morality is arbitrary. For example, God could have commanded us to hate Him, and then that would be good.

Your friend is posing a version of the same dilemma, but in terms of logical rather than moral laws. Does God ordain the laws of logic because they accord with reason, or are they reasonable because He ordains them? If He ordains the laws of logic because they accord with reason, then it seems that there is something — call it Reason or Reasonableness — which is higher than God. On the other hand, if the laws of logic are reasonable because God ordains them, then it seems that logic is arbitrary. For example, He could have ordained that a statement could be true and false in the same sense at the same time, and then that would be reasonable.

The classical Christian answer to the moral form of the Euthyphro problem is that both of the alternatives are wrong. Have you noticed that the problem is posed incorrectly? The flaw in the way it is posed is that it takes God and Goodness to be different things, so that either God is greater than Goodness, or Goodness is greater than God. But God and Goodness are not different things. The solution is a third alternative: God Himself is the supreme Good. The reason He commands the moral law — which is rooted in His Goodness — is neither because Goodness is higher than He is nor because He is higher than Goodness is, but because He does not contradict His own nature.

A similar solution takes care of your friend's logical variation on the Euthyphro problem. God and Reason are not different things any more than God and Goodness are. Just as He is the supreme Good, so He is the supreme Truth or Reason — as the Gospel of John puts it, the Logos, "the Word." His creation makes logical sense neither because Reason is higher than He is nor because He is higher than Reason is, but — as before — because He does not contradict His own nature.

Remember, though, that philosophical apologetics has limits. Often, atheists like your friend ask questions not because they really want to know the truth, but because they want to hide from it. You see, if an atheist can keep you busy solving logical problems, which can be multiplied endlessly, then, he thinks, He can keep God on the blackboard; he never has to deal with Him in all his personal reality. For this reason you must always try to penetrate your friend's evasions, to go beyond the questions he asks to the real questions he is trying to avoid. For example, I sometimes ask fellows like your friend a question of my own, which runs like this. "You pose a lot of riddles. Suppose we had all the time in the world, and after many weeks of nonstop conversation, I solved every one of them to your complete intellectual satisfaction. Then would you give yourself to Jesus Christ?" You'd be surprised how many people who hear this question get a strange look on their faces, pause for a moment, then answer "No." That allows me to say, "In that case, the riddles aren't your real reason for rejecting Him. Since the real reason is something else, why are we wasting time going down all these rabbit holes? What do you think your real reason is? Do you know?"

I realize this is long but this former Atheist is admitting that the line of thinking for some atheists truly is long and complicated. Which is fine I"m not against intelligence and neither is he!
And by the way, neither is God.

He is not threatened by anyone's line of reasoning.

Answer 1

Long, yes. Worth reading, yes. Logical and reasonable (repetitious), yes.

I believe Isaac Asimov had it right when he said (paraphrased) that agnosticism is the only choice driven by logic. Both religious beliefs and atheism are emotional choices which cannot be argued for or against with logic.

That is the point of your commentary and it is accurate.

Answer 2

The reply you got wants to avoid the concept of faith (an emotion) and deal with reason only, as it was tried by Socrates. Except that Socrates, honestly, kept Goodness and God separate because they are two words with two different meanings. Why have two words for the same concept?

Equivocation is the logical fallacy that wants you to believe that one concept can be incorporated with another and that only by doing so the concept is true, while if it stands alone it is false. We can do this with a bunch of equivocal concepts such as Love is God; Truth is God; Reality is God; Goodness is God; Logic is God; Reason is God, and so on. We also can say the opposite equivocal and contradictory concepts, which I suppose someone would have to enumerate like this: Hate is Satan; Falseness is Satan; the Unreal is Satan; the Illogical is Satan; the Irrational is Satan, and so on. All we are really doing is anthropomorphize abstract concepts.

Often a religious person wishes to use reason to support faith, not because he wants to know the truth, but because he wants to hide from it. You see, if a religious person can keep you busy with equivocations, allegories, and poetical devices, which can be endless, then, he thinks, he can keep Logic and Faith in the same basket as if they meant the same thing and never have to face the fact that one leads to understanding the other leads to fantasy.

Answer 3

You said: "Suppose we had all the time in the world, and after many weeks of nonstop conversation, I solved every one of them to your complete intellectual satisfaction."

If I've ever heard a reason fro why fundies don't take the time to think things through, this sums it up... People apparently aren't worth a Christians time...

And I'm sorry, but the assumption that god cannot be separated from good and reason? Then I suppose god really didn't create everything, did he? If they ARE god, then god didn't create good, didn't create reason, but it DOESN'T negate the position originally supposed...

To sum up for you the entire premise more concisely, :

George H. Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God, writes on page 85:

. . . by what standard does the Christian claim that God is good? What criterion is the Christian using? If man cannot pass correct moral judgments, he cannot validly praise or condemn anything--including the Christian God. To exclude God from the judgment of evil is to exclude him from the judgment of good as well.

And:

We can ask, is God good because to be good just is to be whatever God is; or is God good because God has all the properties of goodness?

If we choose the former answer we again find that goodness is arbitrary, since it would be whatever God happened to be, even if God were a sadist. So we must choose the second option: God is good because he has all the properties of goodness.

But this means the properties of goodness can be specified independently of God, and so the idea of goodness does not in any way depend upon the existence of God. Hence there is no reason why a denial of God’s existence would necessarily entail a denial of the existence of goodness.

—Julian Baggini

I hope you've learned something here...

Answer 4

Although well written, I have to point out that the answerer presumes the "personal reality" of god. That is not an objective point of view, it's a personal opinion- & just one more reason why these arguments for god fail in the end.
Kudos to answerer for excellent composition & spelling!
Also, if the answerer needs all the time in the world to answer every question satisfactorily, that would be a moot point!

Answer 5

I got over being angry at my parents for the whole church thing growing up...then I was humbled a few times enough to feel that there was a lot out there that is bigger and more important than me....then I read the bible again, hung out with a minister with some amazing knowledge of history and politics - he shed some new light on some of my notions of biblical contradictions.....then I found a whole bunch of peace in solitude and reflection in nature - and just felt where it all came from.. Suddenly, everything made sense and I felt I have some answers for myself.

Answer 6

I think it may be time for you to consider posting your own thoughts and opinions, rather than repeating this copy & paste job over and over? It's entirely up to you, of course.

Answer 7

I am a former atheist and I still believe in atheists , I don't believe in any current religion but I do believe In God

Answer 8

Wow, finally post-modernist blather from a Christian perspective. I've been waiting.

Answer 9

ah, yes, the old "they know the [Christian] 'truth' and hide from it."
very convenient. Dishonest, but convenient.

in other words, if you can't win the argument, try to undermine the foundation assumptions. It still rings false.

Answer 10

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea2.asp