|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2005 : 23:27:56
|
I'm sure like most of you, it's rare that I come across anything new in the way of theological paradoxes, but I came across one today that I found really interesting. (It might not be new for any of you.)
Many Christians refer to their god as omnibenevolent, that is, all good. Many of those same Christians also hold that god is the source of all morality--that without god's perfect goodness, everything becomes relative and it is impossible to determine right from wrong.
But there's a rub.
The first question becomes, is god the wellspring of goodness? Does good originate with him and in him? If there is no such thing as good or bad without god, then god would be the source of morality. If that is true, then it means that good and bad are "god defined" concepts. They have no meaning apart from god. Essentially, he set up the rules. He is their author. If his nature was slightly different (like if he was a war god), then murder would be "good." Good and bad then cease to have any meaning outside the context of god's will. Good is what god decrees as good, and bad is what he decrees as bad. If this is the case, god can't be considered "good," he can only be considered amoral, since he is above the laws of morality. He is their author. Morality is nothing but a mirror of his nature. He is not subject to the laws of morality.
So goodness would be "intrinsic" to god, it's just that goodness would have no meaning apart from god. We can't call god "good" since "good" is whatever god is. It becomes a tautology. If god is the yardstick by which we measure goodness, then there is no yardstick by which to measure god's goodness.
But if one chooses to argue that goodness is a quality that not even god can change (so that even if he was a god of war, murder would still be evil), then god isn't the wellspring of morality. Hence, god himself would be subject to some moral code that resides outside and apart from himself. He is subjected to the same universal laws of morality that each and every one of us are.
So this leaves a Christian with one of two unsettling choices: Either god is not good, he is amoral; or god is good but morality does not come from him.
So, that's the dilemma. I know it's not exactly new (or earth-shattering), so apologies to anyone who's heard it before. I found a decent article that goes over some of these very same issues here.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/01/2005 23:36:27
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 01:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So goodness would be "intrinsic" to god, it's just that goodness would have no meaning apart from god. We can't call god "good" since "good" is whatever god is. It becomes a tautology. If god is the yardstick by which we measure goodness, then there is no yardstick by which to measure god's goodness.
Depending on how goodness is defined by god it may or may not be a tautology. For example suppose god defines goodness by means of an immutable set of laws. Then so long as god does not violate these laws (and he would need to be capable of doing so) then the phrase "god is good" is true and not a tautology.
This argument wouldn't seem to apply to the Christian God though, since he violates his own commandments with impunity. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 01:54:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Depending on how goodness is defined by god it may or may not be a tautology. For example suppose god defines goodness by means of an immutable set of laws. Then so long as god does not violate these laws (and he would need to be capable of doing so) then the phrase "god is good" is true and not a tautology.
Well, then those immutable laws (and whatever made them) are the source of morality, not god. Unless you are suggesting god made up those laws, which would again mean that goodness is arbitrary and defined merely as whatever god wants it to be.
quote:
This argument wouldn't seem to apply to the Christian God though, since he violates his own commandments with impunity.
Agreed.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/02/2005 02:10:21 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 02:47:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Unless you are suggesting god made up those laws,
Yeah, this is what I'm suggestingquote:
which would again mean that goodness is arbitrary and defined merely as whatever god wants it to be.
Well arbitrary or not, as long as the definition of good is immutable once it's laid down, and god is capable of being "not good" then the phrase "god is good" is meaningful and thus not a tautology.
In the case of the Christian God the most common argument I've heard is based on the assumption that goodness is based entirely on God's character. Thus while "God is good" is a tautology, it is still true, albeit only in a trivial sense. It's like saying that one meter is a length equal to one meter. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 03:22:13 [Permalink]
|
Matt- Yeah, this is what I'm suggesting
I've never seen this before, and it's interesting, but obviously it's the kind of thing one takes with a grain of salt... as far as I'm concerned, trying to spot ethical consistency in the alleged Christian god is a formidable feat... seems to me if there were a "snowball's chance in Hell" of there being truth to any of it, things should at minimum be the other way around. Of course, the Faithful will swear up-and-down otherwise, but to say their rhetoric never stands up to the most cursory cross-examination is almost an understatement (pathetic as that sounds... not to mention they tend not to take kindly to critical questioning... gee, I wonder why?)
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Well, then those immutable laws (and whatever made them) are the source of morality, not god. Unless you are suggesting god made up those laws, which would again mean that goodness is arbitrary and defined merely as whatever god wants it to be.
OK, the problem, then, would seem to be in the omnipotent Creator of everything (including Himself???) issue, which is an utter absurdity and more than preposterous enough to suggest we should not be overly surprised, nor work up "too much of a sweat" if numerous tautologies, dilemmas, circular arguments, logical inconsistencies and fallacies of all flavors, and similar malarkey precipitates from such ridiculous and completely nonsensical premises.
Ditto for the whole Bible, as far as I'm concerned... to which they'd say "Don't you think THAT part is true???" Well, how should I know- considering that all of those other parts are not only false... in fact, they're idiotically false... why would this benevolent god make us guess about this stuff? For His entertainment? So, maybe there it is... just seems we can't understand His idea of benevolence. So why bother? |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/02/2005 06:16:39 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 06:09:51 [Permalink]
|
H, the christian will have no problem with this because you are using LOGIC which has no place in the believers worldview. They will easily dismiss your critique, usually with the the "god can do anything".
When I mention that I see the christian god as good and evil by the reasoning that a god that created everything must have created evil, and therefore must know what evil is to create it, the response I usually get is "who am I to judge God?" or "Satan is Evil" (which misses the fact that god created lucifer, but anyway..)
I feel most christians cannot be honest with themselves about their religion. They do not accept and do not want to live the way their bible instructs them to live. They handwave any parts of the bible they do not agree with.
As for other religions (not counting Buddhists), I would assume I would get the same types of responses. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 06:30:22 [Permalink]
|
| So I can kill anyone who calls me baldy and be "good" then right. Even if its a group of 42 children. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 06:55:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
So I can kill anyone who calls me baldy and be "good" then right. Even if its a group of 42 children.
I suppose, but the judges and lawyers have a hand-wavey way of dealing with that stuff, too, and it's not as klutzy, although it's not exactly deductive logic, either (I think it's called "evil insitu" and sumtin' else... I'm not much on Latin.) Raping or murdering children is considered "inherently evil" meaning without doubt, such offenders are fit to barbeque. The other kind is "evil by definition" like running a stop sign with clear visibility and no traffic in sight for 2 miles, meaning they might cut you slack (except they won't because want the money from the tickets.) It's everything in between that keeps the lawyers driving those cool new Mercedes. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 11:18:09 [Permalink]
|
| Of course this totally ignores the reality that if one uses evidence rather than platitudes, Christians are essentially no more or less 'good' or moral than non-Christians, the Bible contradicts every morality law with opposite examples, the Christian religion has been the source or at least has been exploited to kill, maim, and torture others throughout history, (in other words the source of immorality), and, evolution of group behavior is a much better explanation for how we came to have something called 'morality' than any religion is. Social evolution of group behavior fits the evidence, where religion as the source of morality doesn't at all. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/02/2005 11:21:10 |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 14:17:00 [Permalink]
|
For a little background, since I haven't posted here in a long time - I am a Christian.
H. Humbert:
quote:
So this leaves a Christian with one of two unsettling choices: Either god is not good, he is amoral; or god is good but morality does not come from him.
Uh oh! Not an Either-Or! 
But backing up a bit, I don't think that we even have to address that point.
quote:
The first question becomes, is god the wellspring of goodness? Does good originate with him and in him? If there is no such thing as good or bad without god, then god would be the source of morality. If that is true, then it means that good and bad are "god defined" concepts. They have no meaning apart from god. Essentially, he set up the rules. He is their author. If his nature was slightly different (like if he was a war god), then murder would be "good." Good and bad then cease to have any meaning outside the context of god's will. Good is what god decrees as good, and bad is what he decrees as bad. If this is the case, god can't be considered "good," he can only be considered amoral, since he is above the laws of morality. He is their author. Morality is nothing but a mirror of his nature. He is not subject to the laws of morality.
So goodness would be "intrinsic" to god, it's just that goodness would have no meaning apart from god. We can't call god "good" since "good" is whatever god is. It becomes a tautology. If god is the yardstick by which we measure goodness, then there is no yardstick by which to measure god's goodness.
I guess I'm not sure how this is a problem. For all I care, we can do away with the term "goodness", and only use the term "Godliness." "Goodness" is not a tautology as much as it's simply another label for that quality.
beskeptigal:
quote:
Of course this totally ignores the reality that if one uses evidence rather than platitudes, Christians are essentially no more or less 'good' or moral than non-Christians, the Bible contradicts every morality law with opposite examples, the Christian religion has been the source or at least has been exploited to kill, maim, and torture others throughout history, (in other words the source of immorality), and, evolution of group behavior is a much better explanation for how we came to have something called 'morality' than any religion is. Social evolution of group behavior fits the evidence, where religion as the source of morality doesn't at all.
You are right, Christians are not inherently better - or worse - than anyone else. That is why grace is necessary.
But that's not the real problem with your post. The problem is - anyone can do anything in the name of god (or atheism for that matter), and that is completely irrelevant to what Godliness (or atheism, for that matter) actually is.
quote:
...the Bible contradicts every morality law with opposite examples...
Can you expound on that? Are you referring to passages where God tells Israel to kill people? I need more specifics before I go into it.
quote:
H, the christian will have no problem with this because you are using LOGIC which has no place in the believers worldview. They will easily dismiss your critique, usually with the the "god can do anything".
When I mention that I see the christian god as good and evil by the reasoning that a god that created everything must have created evil, and therefore must know what evil is to create it, the response I usually get is "who am I to judge God?" or "Satan is Evil" (which misses the fact that god created lucifer, but anyway..)
I feel most christians cannot be honest with themselves about their religion. They do not accept and do not want to live the way their bible instructs them to live. They handwave any parts of the bible they do not agree with.
As for other religions (not counting Buddhists), I would assume I would get the same types of responses.
Evil simply exists as "what God is not." Did He create it? Did He create his own nature? No - it just is.
The statement that logic has no place in a Christians worldview is simply.. silly. Now, trying to apply logic to God, in His "worldview" is another story. "Logic" is a subset of his creation, and trying to apply it to Him is about as easy as visualizing the 4th dimension. As the 4th dimension transcends our ability to visualize (I believe it exists), God trancends our ability to logically analyze (I believe He exists).
This is why "arguments" like "If God is all-powerful, why can't He create something so heavy He can't lift it?" are meaningless.
The bottom line is - people don't become Christians because they've got God figured out, or because of science - they usually become Christians because 1) Their parents were, or 2) Personal Experience.
Well, lunch is over. Back to work. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:09:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Matt- Yeah, this is what I'm suggesting
I've never seen this before, and it's interesting, but obviously it's the kind of thing one takes with a grain of salt... as far as I'm concerned, trying to spot ethical consistency in the alleged Christian god is a formidable feat... seems to me if there were a "snowball's chance in Hell" of there being truth to any of it, things should at minimum be the other way around. Of course, the Faithful will swear up-and-down otherwise, but to say their rhetoric never stands up to the most cursory cross-examination is almost an understatement (pathetic as that sounds... not to mention they tend not to take kindly to critical questioning... gee, I wonder why?)
Whoops! I didn't realize that you were addressing me here. I must have not been paying attention last night.
Basically I agree with you. But any reasonable Christian would simply admit that logic has no place in grounding their faith. And it's not much of a challenge to point out logical inconsistencies in the Christian worldview anyway.
I guess I see H's dilemma as being more of a logic problem than a religious one and restricting the god in the problem to the Christian God seems like an arbitrary restriction to me. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:18:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
But that's not the real problem with your post. The problem is - anyone can do anything in the name of god (or atheism for that matter), and that is completely irrelevant to what Godliness (or atheism, for that matter) actually is.
Perhaps you could clear something up for me then. In your opinion, is it possible to do good apart from God? |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Matt-
Nah, I throw posts together, and look-over/edit later to correct spelling errorz and lack-of-clarity (I hope) sometimes.
versa
My comment on the Bible sounds a little harsh, but wouldn't you agree it's so vague and often bastardized (even if it was well-intended) to almost make it a destructive document? It's not as though I haven't known many Christians I've admired (and some were likely far better people than I) but the degree of hypocracy involved can make the whole thing seem awful dubious, don't you think? |
Ron White |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:46:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
I guess I'm not sure how this is a problem. For all I care, we can do away with the term "goodness", and only use the term "Godliness." "Goodness" is not a tautology as much as it's simply another label for that quality.
Well, then it seems as if Christians should refrain from using the term "goodness" when describing god since it serves no purpose. It's the same as saying "God is godly." It just has no meaning.
quote:
Evil simply exists as "what God is not." Did He create it?
Yes. Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
quote:
The bottom line is - people don't become Christians because they've got God figured out, or because of science - they usually become Christians because 1) Their parents were, or 2) Personal Experience.
Right. As Mark Twain once said, you can't reason a man out of what he wasn't reasoned into.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 16:54:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I guess I see H's dilemma as being more of a logic problem than a religious one and restricting the god in the problem to the Christian God seems like an arbitrary restriction to me.
Well, I never restricted the problem to the Christian god, I just used him as an example since he is most often ascribed by his followers the qualities necessary to create the dilemma. However, Plato discusses some of these ideas in his dialogue Euthyphro, so they are not new or Christian specific.
And while you may see the dilemma as more of a logical problem, I see such logical inconsistancies as theological problems as well. The idea that theological maxims may contradict one another simply because they are theological doesn't make sense to me. Of course, I am quite aware that the average theist often has no problem accepting the illogical as a necessary step when attempting to apprehend the divine.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/02/2005 16:57:15 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2005 : 17:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evil simply exists as "what God is not." Did He create it? Did He create his own nature? No - it just is.
The statement that logic has no place in a Christians worldview is simply.. silly. Now, trying to apply logic to God, in His "worldview" is another story. "Logic" is a subset of his creation, and trying to apply it to Him is about as easy as visualizing the 4th dimension. As the 4th dimension transcends our ability to visualize (I believe it exists), God trancends our ability to logically analyze (I believe He exists).
H beat me to the scripture re: did god create evil.
But if you don't beleive in the bible, it follows that if evil is a thing, and god created everything in the universe, then god created evil. If god did not create evil, and evil is a thing, then god did not create everything in the universe. Then what created evil? Itself, in some kind of yin-yang balancing act? Is evil as powerful as god? Or did something else create evil? If so, what created that? Yadda yadda yadda...
I said that logic has no place in the believer's worldview and that is not silly, it makes complete sense. Because everything to the believer can be narrowed down to the supernatural, which is outside of logic. You may think this silly, but if the shoe fits, why are you ashamed of it? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
