Please remember, if your daughter isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she is to be stonned to death on her father's porch. I've always considered this especially pious advice. — Tom Storm

Right. I quoted a passage along with a couple of others from Deuteronomy. Another is:

Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man’s wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.

She is raped but stoned to death as a matter of purity/piety. The evil must be purged "from among you". If instead of this happening in the town it happens in the country:

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. (22:25-26)

Precisely, Euthyphro's dilemma is about what constitutes good and bad. Is it Divine command or is it not? — TheMadFool

The Euthyphro dilemma is not found in the dialogue. The dialogue says nothing about divine command. Euthyphro is not doing what he was commanded to do, but what he thinks the gods would want. Divine command cannot be read into the text. It is a different problem. The only thing it has in common with the dialogue is the name Euthyphro.

Thus pointing at situations where piety may be detrimental to being good. E.g. human sacrifices. — Olivier5

Right.

As you correctly pointed out and as Fooloso4 was forced to admit, "pious" = "loved by the Gods". — Apollodorus

It is clear that you have not read the dialogue or the OP. It is not something I was forced to admit, it is the premise of the dialogue. It is what Euthyphro says piety is. Socrates shows him and us why it is problematic.

Even if God is omniscient and the rest the question remains: "Does God love X because X is good; or is X good because God loves X?" The problem is ethical naturalism. However we try to define 'good', 'right' etc as 'having quality X' then the question 'Is X good / right / etc.' remains substantial.

'Good' is a different kind of concept in that way from, for example, 'mammalian'. Humans are mammals because they give birth to live young etc. It is not the case that humans' giving birth to live young and the rest had the consequence of their becoming mammals.

Do you understand that the Hebrew laws about rape weren't about piety?

It is clear that you have not read the dialogue or the OP. It is not something I was forced to admit, it is the premise of the dialogue. — Fooloso4

It is clear that, as usual, you are not reading your own statements. You wrote:

the equation beloved of God = pious is insufficient without the possession of knowledge of God. — Fooloso4

Your statement does not dispute the validity of the equation. It only says that the equation is "insufficient".

Therefore, you admit that "pious" = "loved by the Gods".

Do you understand that the Hebrew laws about rape weren't about piety? — frank

He neither understands nor does he want to because he's got another agenda which is to use Socrates to ridicule religion in general and Abrahamic religion in particular.

The fact is that Socrates is not talking about Hebrew laws.

He neither understands nor does he want to because he's got another agenda which is to use Socrates to ridicule religion in general and Abrahamic religion in particular. — Apollodorus

Sigh. I agree.

Do you understand that the Hebrew laws about rape weren't about piety? — frank

Piety is about obedience to the Law. The Law frequently deals with purity. The Jewish Law was mentioned for several reasons. If piety is obedience to the Law of God then it requires doing things we consider unjust. It is, to use Plato's terminology, questions of the just, noble (beautiful), and good that have prevented us from injustice in the name of piety. Euthyphro is prosecuting his father because it is a necessary purification. The Greek words for purification is related to the word for piety.

Edit: I am not making a direct connection between Euthyphro and Deuteronomy. The question is, what does it mean to be pious? In order to answer this question we need to look not only at the dialogue but at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What we find here is that pious obedience must be tempered to avoid injustice.

What we find here is that pious obedience must be tempered to avoid injustice. — Fooloso4

Piety isn't strictly about obedience, though it can have to do with purity. It's about showing devotion. Failing to show respect for the gods was the specific crime of which Socrates was found guilty.

In what famous speech did Jesus condemn the piety of the Pharisees? How did this echo through history in the form of Franciscans and eventually Luther and Calvin?

I guess I'm just looking for some sign that you're familiar with what you're wanting to criticize, such that you understand the roots of your own position (in religion ).

What we find here is that pious obedience must be tempered to avoid injustice. — Fooloso4

Everything must be tempered. That's why humans have a reasoning faculty and an innate, divine sense of what is right and what is wrong. And that means that by being pious, i.e., good and just, one follows a divine impulse.

I see no need to look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is simply anachronistic to do that. And you do it because your theory doesn't hold water when taken in an Ancient Greek context as I already explained:

"In reality, if, for example, justice is a manifestation of the divine principle of Justice (the Goddess Dike or Justitia), then the Gods love the pious because it is divine, i.e., a manifestation of their own innate goodness and justice.

Similarly, when humans assess what is right and what is wrong, they do so according to the divine sense of justice present in their souls.

As clearly stated by Plato, justice is not something external, it is an innate virtue of the soul which is essentially divine.

The world (cosmos) itself was created by God and arranged in such a way as to produce a vast array of good effects (Timaeus 28a).

So, when humans perform good and just actions they do nothing else than obeying the divine principle of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne)."

The world (cosmos) itself was created by God — Apollodorus

Or perhaps vice versa, given that "god" seems to function in this thread as a place-holder for our "best self", our moral sense, what we believe is our moral duty... You know the saying of Voltaire: God created man at his image, and man returned the favor in spades. You in particular seems quite free in defining god as you see fit.


Another point: I've been confused with the use of "pious" as meaning "beloved of God" in this thread. This is not the case in French or Italian, where it means "someone who fears and loves god(s)", i.e. the opposite of "beloved by the gods". There could be folks who are very pious but gods don't love them back, and there could be folks who are not pious at all but nevertheless loved and supported by the gods.

not accidental or coincidental but intrinsic — Wayfarer

Right, yet that doesn't really answer the inquiry in this context.

(Seems a bit like kicking the can down the road.) — jorndoe

Is it by coincidence/accident that goodness is intrinsic to God?
There aren't any particular conceptual barriers otherwise or to the contrary; we just end up back at the Euthyphro.
Anyway, maybe (this incarnation of) God has no particular say.
Incidentally, the Manichaeists had their own take, which is somewhat better, in some ways at least.

By the way, Rahner's idea and similar could, in principle, be grabbed by anyone, and has.
The Muslims say that everyone's born Muslim (Noah, Jesus, you, I, aliens?).
We might say that anyone is just born neutral, good, bad, and anything in between, and then may become Catholic, Sunni, whatever, or not, and do deeds that are good and bad (anyone can concoct/hijack a narrative).
If something is surmised to have been installed by God, then why not just drop the extras (God) and say that the "something" is intrinsic to (our experiencing) minds, analogous to most of us having two legs?
This one at least has evidence going for it, but what's it mean for the take that Craig expresses (if anything)?

Anyway, I don't see a particular way out of the Euthyphro yet.

If we look back to Socrates' trial, we see that he was being held responsible for a recent Athenian defeat. The reasoning was that impiety, of the sort Socrates encouraged, was the reason the Athenian gods had abandoned them.

This is the way to understand piety: it's like magic, literally. The original mages were tribal priests who held the knowledge of how to appease the gods.

So piety is a tool for controlling the universe. But how does this technology work? If it's giving us power over the gods, how?

Does it work because the gods love it? Or do the gods recognize it as magic beyond themselves?

This doesn't have much to do with monotheism, because as the scripture says, God is love. God and Good are the same thing.

In what famous speech did Jesus condemn the piety of the Pharisees? — frank

You make my point for me.

Oh good.

If you are good with that we can leave it there but I suspect you really do not know how it is that you made my point.

How did I?

The reasoning was that impiety, of the sort Socrates encouraged, was the reason the Athenian gods had abandoned them. — frank

Ok, makes sense. So the pious (he who loves the gods) is expecting that the gods will love him in return and hence favor him in this world. This implies that some people may be pious for a paycheck, so to speak. The pious often expects a reward for his piety.

There are many parallels to that kind of transactional reasoning in the Bible. Yahweh's covenant with His people, His unleashing hordes of gentiles on Israel because them Hebrews didn't deliver on their end of the deal, etc.

But interestingly, there are also other texts in the Bible that point to the opposite situation: the case of the pious abandoned by God. We all know that this happens all the time: the world is unjust; the pious may live a happy life, but often he doesn't...

The Book of Job is the most obvious example: it starts with Job being pious and Yahweh favoring him in return with a happy life and much riches, i.e. the "default" transactional situation. Then the sons of God present themselves to YHWH in some sort of gods council. Among them, is one called Satan. When YHWH boasts that his servant Job is the best pious human being ever, Satan replies:

9“Does Job fear God for nothing?” 10“Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

And so the book goes on with YHWH taking away all the riches and good things He originally granted Job as His side of the piety bargain: first his flock, then his children all die, then his health goes to rot. But Job still praises Y.

Then three of his friends tell him to revolt against Y and curse Him. That would be the logical thing to do in a transactional mode: YHWH failed to provide, so the pious can stop being pious. And indeed Job get finally a bit worked up and argumentative against YHWH, who is being unreasonably unjust, excessive in his neglect of His creatures, and for too long.

In the end, YHWH rebukes pretty much everybody by saying: I'm the boss here and I know best; you have no idea what My plans are so will you all shut up? Then Job is restored to health, riches and family, and lives to see his children to the fourth generation. Back to the default.

The message seems to be: if the gods let you down, be patient. They know what they do. Keep loving them. Don't expect any immediate favor or qui pro quo. Don't be so transactional. (But it's okay to get a bit pissed in the end.)

Or perhaps vice versa, given that "god" seems to function in this thread as a place-holder for our "best self" ....

Another point: I've been confused with the use of "pious" as meaning "beloved of God" in this thread. This is not the case in French or Italian, — Olivier5

I think you're confusing yourself because you aren't following the thread and you don't understand that the discussion is about Ancient Greece, not France or Italy.

It is Euthyphro himself who equates “pious” (ὅσιον) with “loved by Gods” (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν):

“Socrates:
Now what do you say about that which is pious (ὅσιον hosion), it is loved by the gods (φιλεῖται ὑπὸ θεῶν phileitai hypo theon), is it not, according to what you said? (10c – d).
Euthyphro:
Yes”
(10c – d).

Plato refers to “the Maker and Father of the universe (Poietes kai Pateras tou pantos)” and states that “this Cosmos is beautiful and its Constructor good”, etc. (Timaeus 28a – 29a).

Yep. I don't think the book of Job originated with the Jews, but the fact that the rabbis kept it in the canon shows that the insight Jesus demonstrates in regard to the Pharisees wasn't new.

In the Iliad, the Greeks are also shown taking actions meant to pacify the gods.

If you think of that as early science, we can translate Euthyphro as: does the universe follow higher laws? Or do the laws emerge from the nature of this universe?

Something like that.

Jesus' condemnation of the piety of the Pharisees is like Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro.

If Jesus is correct then piety is not a sufficient guide to doing what is right. And so piety does not equal what is loved by God.

One might say that their's is a false piety, but this gets us back to the beginning with the question "what is piety?" What Socrates was trying to get Euthyphro to see is that it is not enough to say that it is what the gods love. We must consider what it is that the gods love. To say they love piety is circular. Socrates steps outside the circle and in order to bring in the just, noble, and good.

The pious often expects a reward for his piety. — Olivier5

People are different and are pious for different motives. This is precisely why @Fooloso4 has failed to prove his point and will never succeed even in a million years.

1. Some humans are pious because they follow the divine sense of goodness and justice within themselves.

2. Some are pious because they follow the command of God as communicated through laws, customs, etc. which they recognize as being good and just.

3. And others are pious to escape punishment in Hades and to reap the rewards of a pious life in paradise (Phaedo 114e - 115a).

Very simple, really.

Socrates steps outside the circle and in order to bring in the just, noble, and good. — Fooloso4

As a higher law?

piety is not a sufficient guide to doing what is right. And so piety does not equal what is loved by God. — Fooloso4

Nonsense. There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.

Plus,

1. "Not sufficient" can mean "partly sufficient".

2. If you are saying "piety does not equal what is loved by God", you are implying that God hates piety, which is absurd.

The Book of Job — Olivier5

This and Ecclesiastes have always been problematic. They do not give us the kind of answers we want. Instead they say that such things are beyond the limits of our understanding. We cannot understand why God would allow the Adversary to do all these things to Job simply to prove that Job is only righteous because his circumstances allow him to be.

The problem with Job's friends is that they insist that he is to blame, but, as the author says, Job is blameless.

We might read this as merely symbolism, that the author is pointing to what happens in life, that we do not always get what we deserve. That righteousness is tested against adversity. But the story says more than that. God does not defend the idea that he is just. He has no defense against Job's accusations.

The truth of the matter is Job is never fully restored. He endured terrible suffering. His children were killed. No happy ending, which some scholars think was a later addition, can fix that.

Socrates steps outside the circle and in order to bring in the just, noble, and good.
— Fooloso4

As a higher law? — frank

Unlike Euthyphro Socrates knows he does not know. If there is a higher law he does not know what it is. Socrates focus remains on the human things.

Socrates focus remains on the human things. — Fooloso4

And that "proves" what exactly?

Then from whence the just, noble, and good?