The relationship between religious belief and moral truth has long been a source of debate. Does morality originate from divine command, or does it have an independent existence? Many have grappled with the challenge of reconciling religious beliefs with the principles of moral truth. Throughout history, scholars and thinkers have questioned whether morality stems solely from divine command or if it exists independently of any deity's preferences. In our modern discourse, we encounter a tension between religious dogma and reason—a tension that invites us to reflect deeply on the nature of good and evil. Although psychology has attempted to study religion from various perspectives, its analysis often falls short because it avoids addressing the inherent logical dilemmas that arise when one treats moral values as a mere byproduct of divine approval.

The Limits of Psychological Inquiry into Religion

Attempts by psychology to explore religious phenomena have frequently missed the essence of what makes moral principles compelling. Rather than engaging with religion as a whole, much of the psychological approach merely examines behaviors and attitudes without confronting the underlying logical challenges. For example, social psychology often examines religious belief as a social construct, focusing on how group membership and social norms influence religious behavior. While this is a valuable area of study, it often sidesteps the fundamental question of whether morality itself has an objective basis. Evolutionary psychology, similarly, might explain religious belief as an adaptation that promotes group cohesion, but this doesn't address whether the moral codes promoted by religion are inherently right or wrong. While some areas, like moral psychology (e.g., Kohlberg's stages of moral development), do investigate moral reasoning, they primarily focus on the developmental aspects rather than the ontological status of morality – its fundamental nature and origin. Consider, for example, the paradox of divine omnipotence: "Can God create a problem that He cannot solve?" If He cannot, then surely His power is not absolute; if He can, then there is a contradiction in His ability. This problem is not unique to theology—it echoes through logical puzzles in everyday life.

A well-known metaphor involves a barber who shaves only those who do not shave themselves. When one wonders if the barber shaves himself, a contradiction immediately arises. If he does, then by his own rule he must not; if he does not, then by necessity he must. This example, though seemingly trivial, mirrors the logical inconsistency encountered when we claim that divine will is the source of all morality. Such puzzles remind us that simple assertions about the nature of good and evil can quickly lead to irresolvable contradictions if not carefully examined.

Understanding the Paradox of Divine Omnipotence

When we ask whether God can create an unsolvable problem, we are not questioning His power in a practical sense but rather testing the limits of what is logically coherent. This line of inquiry suggests that some questions are not about ability but about the very structure of our definitions. Just as a "square circle" is a concept that defies all reason—a shape cannot simultaneously have four straight sides and be entirely without them—so too is it illogical to claim that any being, however powerful, could alter the inherent nature of a morally repugnant act.

Imagine, for instance, the morally abhorrent act of rape. Even if one were to suppose that a divine being could, in theory, favor such an act, the inherent wrongness of rape remains unaltered. To say that the act becomes right simply because it is divinely endorsed is to ignore the fundamental characteristics that make it reprehensible. In this light, the discussion is not about the limits of power but about the immutable logic that underpins moral truth.

The Euthyphro Dilemma: Reflecting on Moral Truth

This line of thought is at the heart of a famous philosophical challenge known as the Euthyphro dilemma, which first emerged in one of Plato's dialogues. The core of the argument asks: Is an action good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is inherently good? Modern thinkers, including noted philosophers like Immanuel Kant, have used this dilemma to highlight the fundamental difference between divine command theory and other ethical frameworks, such as Kant's own categorical imperative. Contemporary philosophers like William Lane Craig and Sam Harris have also debated this dilemma, highlighting its relevance to modern ethical discussions. For many, the realization that moral goodness is not arbitrarily granted by divine favor is both liberating and challenging.

If we believe that God's command is the sole source of moral value, then morality becomes a matter of convenience—a list of arbitrary decrees subject to change. Yet, if we accept that actions have an intrinsic moral quality independent of any external authority, we begin to see that true goodness is something that exists in its own right. This perspective not only reinforces the idea that morality is inherent in the fabric of our reality but also invites us to take personal responsibility for our ethical decisions.

The Inherent Nature of Good and Evil

At its core, the argument insists that actions possess their own moral quality, which is not contingent upon any external approval—even divine. When a moral truth is recognized, it stands regardless of whether any being, human or divine, supports it. If an act like rape is inherently evil, no amount of divine endorsement could alter its nature without contradicting the very concept of morality. In the same way, the goodness of an act is not created by divine decree but is an intrinsic quality that naturally aligns with the principles of moral perfection. By "principles of moral perfection", we refer to inherent moral values that are not dependent on subjective interpretation. For example, actions that promote well-being, fairness, and justice could be considered to reflect these principles, as opposed to ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism or deontology, which provide structured approaches to *assessing* morality. To claim that good is merely a reflection of divine favor is to overlook the consistent and rational structure that governs ethical behavior. It is an invitation to see beyond the surface of dogmatic assertions and to engage in a deeper exploration of what it means for an act to be right or wrong.

Reflections on Divine Power and Logical Consistency

In contemplating the limits of divine power, we encounter an intriguing parallel: the impossibility of creating a "square circle." This is not about a limitation in ability but about the nature of what it means to exist in a logically coherent world. When we assert that no being—even one as powerful as God—can turn an inherently immoral act into a moral one, we are not suggesting that there is a restriction on divine power. Rather, we are acknowledging that some concepts, by their very definitions, cannot be altered without collapsing into contradiction.

A potential counterargument might suggest that God's nature *is* inherently good, and therefore His commands are necessarily good. However, this still begs the question of *why* God's nature is considered good. Is it good simply because it is God's, or is there an independent standard of goodness that God's nature aligns with? If the former, we return to the problem of arbitrariness; if the latter, we acknowledge an independent moral standard.

This recognition is both an intellectual and emotional revelation. It challenges us to see that true moral understanding is not about blind obedience or arbitrary decrees; it is about embracing the clear and rational nature of ethical truths. When we align our thinking with these principles, we are empowered to challenge outdated or simplistic views of morality and to adopt a more thoughtful and reflective approach to the issues that define our human experience.

Embracing Independent Moral Reflection

What then, is the role of faith in this context? Faith can be a profound source of comfort and guidance, yet it should not preclude us from questioning and examining the underlying logic of our beliefs. To accept moral truths as inherently existing is to affirm the idea that there is a rational basis for our sense of right and wrong—a basis that transcends any single religious or cultural viewpoint. This perspective encourages us to look within ourselves and to trust our capacity for reason and compassion.

By cultivating an understanding of morality that is not solely dependent on external authority, we are invited to reflect on our own values and to engage with the world more critically. It is an approach that honors both our intellectual heritage and our innate sense of justice, urging us to create a more compassionate and reasoned society. When we realize that true moral goodness exists independently of any decree, we are better equipped to champion ethical principles in our everyday lives, even in the face of controversy and uncertainty.

Conclusion

The exploration of divine power, moral truth, and the inherent nature of good and evil is not an abstract academic exercise—it is a call to reflect on the very essence of our humanity. Understanding that morality does not hinge solely on divine approval frees us to examine our actions, our choices, and our responsibilities with clarity and purpose. In a world often divided by dogma and blind adherence, embracing a thoughtful and independent view of morality offers a path toward a more just and compassionate future.

In the end, the question we must ask ourselves is not whether any being, no matter how powerful, can alter the inherent nature of good and evil. Rather, it is a call to recognize the immutable truth that ethical values exist beyond the confines of divine decree, and that our capacity for reason and empathy is what ultimately defines the moral landscape of our lives. As we contemplate these ideas, we are reminded that the strength of our convictions lies in our ability to think critically, to feel deeply, and to act with both wisdom and compassion.

References

• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. This widely used textbook provides a clear and accessible introduction to various ethical theories, including a thorough discussion of Divine Command Theory and its challenges (Chapter 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?", pp. 48-65). It offers a good overview for understanding the philosophical context of the article's arguments.
• Harris, S. (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Free Press. Harris argues that morality is an objective domain that can be understood through reason and science, rejecting the notion that it is solely dependent on religious belief. The entire book develops this thesis, but chapters 1 and 2 ("Moral Truth" and "Good and Evil") are particularly relevant.