Question about a Russel Quote

[JayTee]

From - Why I am not a Christian - Bertrand Russel

[ QUOTE ]
If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone help me understand what Russel meant in the bold statement? If God had a reason for creating the universe in a certain manner, and therefore being the creator of those laws, how does that lead to the conclusion that God is subject to law?

Or am I interpreting this wrong?

[FortunaMaximus]

That free will exists and he was a self-emergent process too, even if he was the creator, and is bound to the same laws the Universe is.

That he, after all, is not omnipotent, but omniscient.

Hope that helps.

[Phil153]

If God has reasons for doing something, then those reasons are based on some underlying structure of the nature of truth, which is not arbitrary. The fact that a blob of jelly is different to a banana muffin is a fundamental truth, independent of God or any conscious force.

The very idea of differentiating one thing from another on some criteria means that rules exist in their own right, independent of anything

I havent' read the context of his quote, but I would hazard a guess that the debate goes like this:

1. People have a sense that there is a right and wrong, but struggle with understanding the basis of morality, and can't intellectually support it. People like NotReady believe there is no absolute morality, which they find abhorrent.

2. Theologians (and NotReady) solve this problem by positing God as the absolute source for morals and laws, getting around problem #1.

3. When questioned why God's laws are moral and just, instead of purely arbitrary, theologians defend God by saying that his laws are based on creating the "best universe", or a good one instead of an evil one.

4. Russell points at that if there is such a thing as "best", "good" or "evil" on which he made his choice of universe and laws, then to be non arbirtary, these laws or concepts must exist independently of the creator. Thus, you haven't solved any problems about the nature of morality or its legitimacy by introducing God. God himself must be subject to these laws of truth and structure in order to make such a choice.

Russell is correct in his points.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can someone help me understand what Russel meant in the bold statement?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a twist on Plato's Euthyphro dilemma. Phil's post was correct, except for the last line.

The problem is if God looks to some standard or law outside Himself, He isn't absolute, thus not God as Christian theologians believe the Bible teaches.

It's a false dilemma because God is Himself the standard - so Russell, as usual, was wrong in that idiotic book of his.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Russell points at that if there is such a thing as "best", "good" or "evil" on which he made his choice of universe and laws, then to be non arbirtary, these laws or concepts must exist independently of the creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they are independent or part of his nature, it becomes part of the 'how does god make choices' problem.

If he can, then he's in the Russell/Plato situation... does he flip a random coin, or does he decide on some set of god-level rules/principles.
If he can't, then he's a mere cog in the machine.

Either way, as far as morals go there's not much a god can contribute ... other than eternal punishment if we screw up how he wants things done.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a false dilemma because God is Himself the standard - so Russell, as usual, was wrong in that idiotic book of his.

[/ QUOTE ]
You forgot to say god IS the standard.

Doesn't make sense if you only say 'is'

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You forgot to say god IS the standard.

Doesn't make sense if you only say 'is'


[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with all the nits available to keep me in line.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You forgot to say god IS the standard.

Doesn't make sense if you only say 'is'


[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with all the nits available to keep me in line.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's okay just didn't want anyone to misunderstand the force of your argument.

chez

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If God has reasons for doing something, then those reasons are based on some underlying structure of the nature of truth, which is not arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a reason for buying coke instead of pepsi, but it is totally arbitrary.