Resolving Euthyphro Dilemma

The Euthyphro dillemma is found in the Plato's diologue with Euthyphro. In the dialogue Socrates asked Euthyphro " Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Or if I may put it differently "Is the good act loved by gods because it is good or is it good because god so ordained it?" 

God is intrinsically good and holy. And God is the source of all that is good and pure. And since God is intrinsically good, he can never will (or love) what is wicked or evil. Just as God cannot non-exist, divine fiat cannot include wicked act. God's omnipotence does not mean that God can do logically impossible feats. Just as God cannot exist now and non-exist later, God cannot pronounce necessary moral truth now which is according to his nature, and later pronounce exactly opposite to his divine nature. So, is the good good because God so pronounced it according to his nature? Yes...and God cannot but pronounce it so because to pronounce otherwise is logically impossible.

But what moral reason is there to obey God's command?

We are to obey God's command because he is the giver of life. He brings me forth into existence. We are also to obey God's command because it is good. God will not issue command arbitrarily; rather he issues command according to his divine nature.

Of course, this assumes that God is necessarily good and so he will issue fiats only that which is good. The Abraham-Isaac story will nullify the assumption had Isaac really been sacrificed. But a believer will respond that because God is necessarily good, he will not issue command which will be truly wicked . A command may appear to be wicked, but in the grand scheme of things any command of God will result in the well being of the person if obediently carried out. But to see and experience that faith is required!

Is it fair to treat certain members of a society unequally?

Does the idea of justice demand that we treat certain members of the society unequally?

The society in which we live is not a fair or just one. Many people die of exposure to cold in winter as they sleep under the bridge. And in summer many people die of dehydration. It is the those living in the slums whose house get bulldozed and who face power cut more often than the rest though everyone pays the electricity. The poor thus have to manage without a fan in summer so that the rich could run their AC. The poor in the slums are so often denied ration card and they struggle to get it made as the officials are not helpful. But when the rich appears they get it made easily...for various reasons! The poor people also don't have sufficient to eat and so their children too grow up facing such shortage. The children often failed to go to school and so in their later life cannot compete with the rest. Even if they go to school they go to Government run schools the facilities would be so poor. And it is because of such poor facility that the rich don't send their children to these schools. In sickness the poor suffers, and when some lethal sickness strikes they are oftentime unable to get out of it. Or even if they did get out, all their resources would have been drained.

Privileges and resources are unequally distributed. Hardship and suffering are not equally distributed in the society. The poor face injustice in their social relations so much more than the rich and the powerful. They are unable to fight for their case; they don't know all the legal systems. They are treated with less respect.

It is good that if everybody's capability could be developed. However, if there is resources crunch, the poor must get the preference over the rich to be developed. The poor has to be brought up the level of the rich. If distributive system is unequal and therefore unequal distribution of resources and hardship result, then rectifying justice must entail that more resources be channeled to those who face more injustice more.

Just distribution entails that we have to distribute resources unequally specially in the light of the practical resources constraint that we experience.

How Christianity Became the Dominant Religion in the West

One of the most significant books I have ever read on history of Christianity is Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. When I first read the review, I was doubtful if modern sociological method could provide insight to ancient religious movement. But as I picked up the book for myself, I found the arguments of Stark very compelling. And if anyone would bother to read how Christianity became the dominant religion of the West, and also some core teaching of Christianity, this is the book I would suggest. N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God and Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity are probably the most significant books written on history of Christianity so far.

Stark underscored that an epidemic struck the Roman empire in 165 AD. And almost a century later, another epidemic struck the empire. From ancient sources, he recounted people's experience about the epidemic. So many people died. Many escaped to distant places leaving behind sick relatives to die. In the midst of such terrible situation, Christians stayed back to take care of each other and also those outside their fold. Taking care of each other during such times increased the chance of survival than being left alone. Stark's statistics is convincing. Here is just a small quote: “ In chapter I, I calculated that Christians made up about 0.4 percent of the empire's polulation at this time (160 AD), so let us suppose that 40 of this city's inhabitants are Christians, while 9960 are pagans – a ratio of 1 Christian to 249 pagans. Now, let us assume an epidemic generating mortality rates of 30 percent over its course in a population left without nursing. Modern medical experts cut the mortality rate by two-thirds or even more. So let us assume a Christian mortality rate of 10 percent. Imposing these mortality rates results in 36 Christians and 6972 pagans survivors in 170, after the epidemic. Now the ratio of Christians to Pagans is 1 to 197, a substantial shift.” And if we include those who would have converted during and after the crisis, the ratio could yield 1:134.

Another point Stark argued for was that Christians did not practice female infanticide and abortion, two very common practice in ancient Greco-Roman world. And over the years Christian women increased in number. And these Christian women, whenever they married Pagan men, often brought their husband to the Christian faith. And in almost all cases raised their children as Christian. And over the years, Christian population grew.

Earthquakes, fires, plagues, riots, invasion and other problems occurred at various points of history. And when such things did happen, the homeless and impoverished, the orphans and widows would fill the city. And considering that filth, insects and hygienic system were poorly maintained people did have short span then. Christian belief about charity for the poor, hope for the homeless, sense of family for the widows and orphans, shelter for the stranger etc revitalized the Greco-Roman social relationships.

The book is about 350 pages, and is published by HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins publisher. For Indian readers, you can order it from Flipkart at Rs. 682. I bought it from ebay and paid $14.95. But that was before Flipkart came into picture.

My New Year Resolution

Last Tuesday, 27^th December, 2011, with some of my relatives I drove down to Agra to see Taj Mahal. Having entered UP, we stopped at a toll gate to pay toll tax. In front of my car was a truck, and few more cars in front this truck. As I waited for my turn, this truck suddenly reversed without looking back. I blew the horn to indicate that there was a car behind. But before it could apply its brake, the headlight of my car and the bonnet damaged. As I got out of my car, I saw the driver exchanging seat with the senior driver. Probably this junior driver is an apprentice. I shouted at them to get down from their truck; they shouted back saying I should not have stopped my car so close to their truck. Well, I had maintained a gap of around 1 metre! Those who manned the toll gate came running to inquire; and as I explained to them what happened, the truck suddenly crossed the toll gate and sped away. I went after the truck, and forced them to stop. And I got into a heated quarrel with the truckers. Instead of other truckers saying that it was his fault, they all came to their rescue. One man said, without even asking what happened, 'had I driven slow I would not have hit the truck's bottom'.

Later I realised that shouting at those guys would not bring any positive result. They were not in a position to compensate monetarily nor would they admit their fault by being shouted at. I felt that I should have controlled my emotion and told them gently that if they were to reverse they should look back; and since they have already caused such damaged to my car, they should at least come down to apologize.

For some years I have been driving bikes and cars. Thankfully I have never got into any major accident with bike/car. I have read of people get into fight and people even getting killed after accident. But what's the point of getting angry? You don't solve the problem by getting angry. I don't think the issue in most cases is about monetary compensation. I think getting angry when someone hit your car is more of a culture than about some other reasons. Some people pass very unkind comment even when the bump is just a very light one. I think this is all unnecessary.

So my New Year resolution is that I shall not get angry when someone drive unto me rashly nor would I get into quarrel because of driving. I shall follow the golden rule “drive unto others as you want them drive unto you”. And whenever there is a hit, solve the matter gently!

What is Justice?

Treating the neighbour justly is a classic case of loving the neighbour. The third century Roman jurist defines justice as steady and enduring will to render to each his or her ius. Society is just insofar as its members are rendered the ius that they possess, the ius that is theirs. One may possess some ius without enjoying that ius; so it is important to note that justice is rendering to each his or her right or deserts (what he or she deserves).

Example: When you are deprived of your ius, your right, to a seat in a train, you are not enjoying your right; here justice is not rendered to you. One may call this ius as primary justice. When a murderer is let scot free without any punishment, we don't speak of punishment as something the murderer has a right to but as something he deserves. Here punishment is the murderer's just deserts, the ius. One may call this ius as corrective justice. Thus justice is rendering each one his or her right or deserts, ius.

Right-talk is to be located only in a social context, not in a vacuum. I have a right to be treated in a certain way by you or vice versa. This social bonds of rights are foundational to human community and human flourishing. To fail to treat a person as she has a right to my treating her is to wrong her. To fail to treat a society as it has a right to my treating her is to wrong it. Conversely, to fail to treat me as I have a right to be treated is to wrong me.

Was it Resurrection or Resuscitation?

Did Jesus really die on the cross or was he just fainted? What happened to his body after it was buried in a tomb? Did the disciples steal the body or did he recover from the unconscious state and walked out of the tomb? Is there plausible reason to trust the testimony of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ who said he is risen?

Crucifixion under the Roman authority was not unusual. The criminals were usually scourged first so much so that there could be so much of blood loss due to cut from the leather whip that has pieces of balls or bones attached. The Roman soldiers were expert in executing criminals; and escape of any crucified criminal is a death penalty for the soldiers. Expertise plus the penalty for the escape made crucifixion a very certain form of execution.

We read that Jesus was arrested at night. He was then led to the courtyard of the high priest where there was an attempt to charge him of various crimes, after which “the guards received him with blows” ( Mark 14.65). In the morning Jesus was delivered to the Governor Pontius Pilate. At the order of Pilate, Jesus was scourged and then delivered to be crucified ( Mark 15.15. The soldiers also plaited a crown of thorn and put it on his head, and there on the head they would strike. Jesus was then led out of the city and put up on the cross, with his hands and feet nailed to the wooden cross. Later on to check whether he was really death, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus with his spear and “at once there came out blood and water”.

After he was certified death, Joseph and Nicodemus were granted the body of Jesus to be buried. The body was then laid in a guarded tomb, which was then sealed so that none might roll away the stone without prior permission. This was Friday evening probably around 4- 5 pm. Sunday early morning, the tomb was found empty. What happened to Jesus' body: resurrected or resuscitated and gone?

( 'Resurrection' was a term employed only for those who came back to life with special physical properties. Till then 'resurrection' exists only in word; no one has really seen it nor did they expect it to happen then. The ancient people were clear about the difference between resuscitation and resurrection. They were not so foolish to confuse the two. They knew as much as we now know that dead people don't come to back life.)

How plausible it is for scourged and bleeding Jesus to survive the cross for 3-6 hours? And how plausible it is to suppose that the Roman soldiers mistook Jesus to be dead for having fainted when such mistake would invite death sentence for the soldiers? And how plausible it is to suggest that scourged and speared Jesus on his own would be able to roll away the stone that sealed the tomb? And how plausible it is for wounded and frail Jesus to claim that he has conquered death and his disciples are now to tell the whole world including the Roman soldiers and religious leaders who crucified him that he is now the king of kings and lord of lords?

The disciples did indeed preach to the Roman world that Jesus is risen and every knee, including the emperor's, is summoned to bow before Jesus. For preaching this “Gospel”, they were jailed, beaten, thrown to the lions, burnt to death and so on for approximately 300 years. Only in 313 AD through the Edict of Milan did Christianity become one of the religions that could be practised without inviting persecution. Why did the disciples who run away when Jesus was arrested began to worship and adore him in spite of death haunting them? What gain would they receive for telling a lie that Jesus is resurrected when what they actually was witnessed was only the resuscitated Jesus and who now have fled to Kashmir? In the face of hunger, imprisonment, head being chopped or being thrown into lion's den which is more plausible: To say that the disciples had such boldness to proclaim to the Roman world that Jesus is resurrected and he is Lord because they actually witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus or to suppose that they they witnessed the battered Jesus surviving the tomb and later escaped to India. Well, I choose the former explanation: that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead and he is who he claimed to be.