One classic theist response to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morality doesn't ultimately come from a contingent or subjective divine will, but from the necessity of the divine nature. Therefore, morality could not be other than it is and is not subjective, but morality's ultimate source is still God. So, God will's the things that he does because they are good, but not in reference to a standard outside of himself. Yet, that standard is not something arbitrary. There is ample commentary elsewhere on the web concerning the pros and cons of this alternative. In any case, I don't think its an obvious non-starter.

I'll add a third problem to Popper's views... it classifies obvious psuedo-sciences as sciences such as astrology, so long as they make potentially falsifiable predictions. Furthermore, it does nothing to distinguish something radically implausible like astrology from something more plausible, but not falsifiable such as ad-hoc psychological analysis. Popper's views and others similar to it (verificationism and logical positivism) belong to an era of philosophy when it was believed philosophy could be made 'scientific'. It has not really been replaced because few philosophers still hold to that belief.

You seem to make three distinct claims: First, that no one would believe in God without the aggressive 'preaching' of the entrenched world religions. Second, that we can neither prove no disprove the existence of God. Finally, you conclude from your first two claims that we shouldn't even consider the possibility of the existence of God. The first claim, as Professor Collier has already noted, seems to be false. Belief in the supernatural and gods of some kind is a frequently recurring cultural pattern. Strict materialism is much rarer than religious faith. Of course, this does not establish the truth or falsity of such claims, but it at least suggests that there is some sort of pragmatic or evolutionary benefit to such beliefs. Your second claim is certainly true in the sense that there are no arguments that widely accepted as establishing the truth or falsity of religious faith. Yet, it should be noted that lots of people do find some argument for or against religious faith to be...

Your final assertion is where you disagree with most ethicists. Most of us still believe that there is something approximating 'objectively right and wrong answers' to moral questions. Ethicists disagree with one another concerning what the proper basis is for discerning objective right moral answers, but the overwhelming majority of ethicists still think such a basis can be found from sources such as: maximizing the good for all (utilitarianism), reason itself (Kantianism), some sort of ideal human character traits (Aristotelian ethics), or natural law (Thomism). Your view seems to descend from David Hume's account that based morality in the sentiments rather than reason. Yet, even he thought there was a discernable pattern to what the sentiments approved of as 'virtuous'. In any case, no one ever solved a difficult problem in ethics, science, math, or any other aspect of life by presupposing that there were no 'right or wrong answers'. There may be few answers that we can get universal...

I certainly think that high school juniors and seniors can learn the basics of critical thinking, ethics, and philosophy. I have breakfast semi-regularly with a teacher from a private high school who teaches philosophy to his students. He'll be teaching Plato's Republic to his seniors this year. So, I do not doubt that high school students have the capacity to comprehend philosophy. However, it has also been noted as far back as Plato's Republic that older students are better equipped to study philosophy. This claim also seems correct to me. Even most college age students lack the life experience to understand the importance of philosophical issues. In contrast, I once taught an ethics class to 30-40 year old nursing students.... this was an unusually positive teaching experience since they took the course very seriously and understood its relevance. My biggest concern for you would be whether there are any jobs available to teach philosophy at the high school level. It is hard...

If you come out of an 'average' decent Ph.D. program, there is no guarantee that you would receive a professorship anywhere. Remember, your application will probably be in a stack of 100+ applications representing similarly qualified applicants. The critical step to getting a job (which many Ph.D. students fail to realize) is to distinguish yourself in some way during graduate school beyond simply getting a Ph.D. Graduating from a top program is one way to distinguish yourself... studying with a top professor within a specialty is another way (even if not at a top program)... producing a couple of articles for good journals is a third way.... impressing your professors in grad school so much that they say you are their best student in years is another way... getting good teaching credentials and experience might be another way... some combination of distinctions from this list is probably the ideal. Just remember that you need to focus on more than merely graduating from the Ph.D. program....you have to...

A traditional component of the 'just warfare doctrine' emphasizes the importance of 'discrimination' between soldiers and civilians in carrying out a 'just war.' While often ignored, this requirement was easier to fulfill before technology changed the nature of warfare over the past couple centuries. After all, it was relatively easy to know whom you were attacking with a spear or sword. Compared to the indiscriminant carpet bombing and fire bombing tactics used during the conflicts of the mid-twentieth century I think things have improved considerably in recent years due to the creation of higher precision ammunitions. However, even high precision ammunitions require accurate intelligence and careful rules of engagement to avoid substantial civilian casualties. In the conflicts you mention, discrimination has also become more difficult because the use of 'irregulars' (non-uniformed combatants), the use of civillian areas for military cover, and the awareness that civilian casualties can be used to...

I think it is difficult for most people to learn much philosophy without the benefit of some sort of class structure. Your best strategy would probably be to find a mentor or a group of philosophical inclined friends with some grasp of philosophy who would be willing to read and discuss important philosophical texts along with you. I would also recommend auditing a couple of philosophy courses when you get the chance.

I have a couple of comments. First, let me commend you for your sincere interest in an important topic. Second, beliefs that you are "scared into" are unlikely to last long-term. You are wise to be skeptical of such a process. Third, you don't need to 'stop thinking', but your mom is correct that you should relax. This is not an issue that you are likely to get a quick resolution on. Fourth, now for the really bad news. There is nothing resembling a consensus among philosophers on this issue. Many have thought God exists and it can be proven. Others have thought that the evidence is inconclusive, but that we should believe in God for either moral reasons (Immanuel Kant) or for prudential reasons (Blaise Pascal). Still others have thought that the evidence was inconclusive, so that we shouldn't believe. Yet, others have thought there was weight of evidence against belief in God. And finally, others have thought that all claims about God were inherently absurd. I'd encourage...

According to political philosophers like John Locke, we all receive certain benefits from government that make us better off than we would be in the 'state of nature.' As long as government makes us 'better off' on the whole over the 'state of nature' Locke says that it is a just situation. So, taking a certain amount of money through taxation is a small harm compared to the benefits of living in a stable and civilized society. In contrast, if we were enslaved by a government that 'forced us to work,' we would be worse off than in the 'state of nature.' In the state of nature Locke believes we have our life, liberty, and property.... any government that significantly infringes on these rights is unjust. I should point out that Locke seemed to think that even the limited taxation of his day was a 'necessary evil.' It is unlikely that he would have approved of our current degree of taxation.... of course, we also get benefits that Locke never would have imagined.