In Euthyphro, Socrates challenges Euthyphro about the use of stories about the gods in his definition of piety. Socrates asks Euthyphro for a definition of piety, but only gets an example. So, Socrates asks Euthyphro for another definition of piety and he says, "holiness is what the gods hold dear; unholiness is what is not dear to the gods." In this dialogue, Euthyphro relies dogmatically on the gods. Socrates questions this definition of piety in relation to the gods. He believes any kind of dogmatic appeal will get in the way of ideas. Socrates is not criticizing religion, just wants a balance between religion and a rational approach to problem solving. He believes that Euthyphro should not abandon reason because of myth in his definition of piety. There is a contradiction in what Euthyphro says about "piety is what the gods hold dear." Some gods will hold something dear while others might find it offensive. So, in what Euthyphro says, is an object holy or unholy-piest of impiest? Both according to him. However, Socrates says it can't be both because it's contradicting. How can something be piest and impiest at the same time? Socrates is using this example as his justification of why he is challenging Euthyphro's use of religion in defining a word. Thus, Euthyphro makes an attempt to amend his definition by proposing the idea that the gods will agree on important issues? However, Socrates doesn't think this is a practical definition because what kinds of issues are important? Eventually Euthyphro gives up the debate with Socrates because his arrogance begins to conflict with the idea of being wrong and the lack of knowledge about the trial that he has illustrated.
             Socrates is right, in my opinion, in challenging Euthyphro's use of the myths about the gods. Euthyphro is only using religion as a source of justification and what he's saying about th
             ...