Is it wrong to judge the morality of God's actions?

[DaveC426913]

DaveC:

It follows from what you wrote. You said:

I am not defending Sarkus' notion that anything God does is, by defnition, good.​

​

If God's acts are not good by definition, they must be good for some other, non-definitional reason.

They must be good because God acts in accordance with something outside of himself.

Option 1: God's actions are internally guided or determined.
Option 2: God's actions are externally guided or determined.
Option 3: God's actions are random.

You say you aren't arguing for 1 (cf. Sarkus, who is arguing for that).
As far as I can tell, you aren't arguing for 3, either. (If you were, then why would you be wasting so many words trying to assert that I am arguing for 3.)
So, that would seem only to leave Option 2.

Have I missed something?

Yes. Option 1. God's actions are internally guided. THis is what I"ve been saying.

The definitions you quoted are good enough. Here, I'll offer some more, and you can compare if you like:

arbitrary: subject to individual discretion or preference, or sometimes impulse or caprice.

I acknowledge the first one, individual discretion, but it does not have to be impulse or caprice.

whimsical: determined by chance or impulse or sudden desire, rather than necessity or reason.

Sure. Reason.

The fact that he could have chosen a different system shows that his choice was arbitrary. Like I said.

Pretty sure I've refuted this a number of times, but let's try it one more time.

You seem to be equating 'choice' with 'arbitrary' (A "shows that" B). Let me put it in a different context to see if you still think they're synonymous, or at least sequitur.

The fact that I could have chosen to walk out into highway traffic blindfolded shows that my choice to not do so was arbitrary.

Right? Staying alive, as opposed to dying horribly and painfully is a choice, and it is pretty non-arbitrary by any standard.

I would apply this to God and argue that, since he exists at all (we suppose) and the universe exists at all, these are Good things, as opposed to utter oblivion and non-existence. If existence and non-existence were both arbitrarily valid, then God and the universe and any counter-arguents might as well not exist, in which case the whole problem goes away.

Therefore, I submit that the mere presence of God himself defines* existence as Good over ... Not Good**.

A couple of caveats here:

* I am not saying God is "deciding" what is Good. I am saying existence is Good, as the absence of non-existence. Even before the universe existed (we suppose) God existed. Existence leads to all other things. Non-existence does not lead to anything. So, by dint of God existing at all, existence is a Good thing, logically and objectively.

Think of Decartes "Cogit Ergo Sum". He is not saying "I think I do exist" as if I can actively define myself; he is saying by dint of me having thoughts at all means, logically, objectively, I exist.

Likewise, by anything existing at all, especially an entity that has thoughts and can create universes, that has got to be logically, objectively a Good Thing (since there can be no counter-argument from a non-existent non-entity).

** I wouldn't say Evil is the opposite of Good; they are both predicated on existence. I would argue that Oblivion is the opposite of Good. In the same way Hate is not the opposite of Love. Both Love and Hate are very srong feelnig one has abot another person; they are two sides of the same coin. The opposite of Love is Apathy.

So I guess I'm proposing that Existence in-and-of-itself - as opposed to oblivion - is logically, objectively Good. There can be no argument that oblivion is Good or Bad since it is neither. Oblivion has no hair.

 

[Pinball1970]

Jesus is God. cf. the father, the son, the holy spirit. The Trinity. The word (God) made flesh. At least in Christianity.
Other religions don't hold Jesus in quite the same esteem, with both Judaism and Islam explicitly denying the divinity of Jesus.

The trinity, father son and ghost as three in one, is a later invention, that was not ironed out until 325 CE, I think it changed again after Constantine died.

Christianity you will get different answers, a perfect man who became god, just god, god as part of the Trinity, son of god, Messiah/the Christ, son of man which no one really knows about even though Jesus actually calls himself this in the text, or the impression they are all kind of the same thing which they are not.

Islam, a perfect man and great prophet.

Judaism, not even any kind of prophet, certainly not a god as that goes against everything that Judaism teaches I e. One true god and no other besides Yhwh.

 

[foghorn]

Depending on how deep one wants to spin Greek influence, "good" doesn't even have to connect to morality (or rules for how humans should interact with each other). Establishing or refining any association to ethics from the below may have had to wait for Kant.

• The Idea of the Good: The Good is the fundamental Form [construable as substitute for a personified God?] that underpins the system of Forms itself by making them meaningful and intelligible in turn, which Plato explains using the Analogy of the Sun: just as the Sun gives life to the world and natural light for the eye to see it, the Good gives essence to the Forms and a way for the mind to perceive them.
  
  #Analysis: In other words, Plato is saying that the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended by the ordinary senses. Thus, we should make use of the mind rather than the sensory organs to better understand the higher truths of the universe. The mind, much like sight, requires a "third thing" to function properly, and that third thing is Plato's idea of goodness. He likens a mind without goodness to sight without light; one cannot operate at peak efficiency without the other.

Today, we would just say that brain memories being applied to sensations or incoming sensory data is what makes identification and understanding possible (cognition). But that also entails something similar to abstract concepts (Plato's forms) being stored in such in order to classify or categorize objects, events, etc. One of those would be "acknowledgement" or verification that there even are manifestations occurring to begin with (roughly akin to Plato's metaphor of the sun providing light).
_

Are you saying Jesus was talking of the god he praised, as if he was talking about a good curry meal, and nothing to do with morality?

Your post of what 'good' means, sounds like Jesus was talking of his god as a dumb entity, that just happened to create the universe we find ourselves part of, and so in human respects, 'good' for us in general.

I think Jesus was using the word ‘good’ in the sense of wrong and right regards to human ethics.
King James Bible Mark 10:18
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

 

[Sarkus]

The trinity, father son and ghost as three in one, is a later invention, that was not ironed out until 325 CE, I think it changed again after Constantine died.

Well, given that classical theism wasn't "ironed out", so to speak, to any great degree until Aquinas in the 13th century, and is still undergoing change/development. I'd also be hesitant to call it an invention but rather interpretation.

Christianity you will get different answers, a perfect man who became god, just god, god as part of the Trinity, son of god, Messiah/the Christ, son of man which no one really knows about even though Jesus actually calls himself this in the text, or the impression they are all kind of the same thing which they are not.

The major sects of Christianity, though, do all hold with the trinity. Catholics, protestants, orthodox. Of those that don't, the main are Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, I think. If so, maybe 30 million Christians don't, compared to over 2 billion who do.

 

[Pinball1970]

If so, maybe 30 million Christians don't, compared to over 2 billion who do.

Yes, a whole lot of Catholics out there not using contraception thinking that the trinity somehow makes sense, does not make sense, is a mystery and god working in mysterious ways.
When I say god, I of course mean Jesus, well three in one but still just one god.
Whatever.

My religious education was pretty crap, Tertullian was never discussed or any of the early church fathers so the origin of the Trinity would not have been discussed.
We did something about Aquinas, cannot remember details.
The only time I remember doing what I now regard as useful scholarship was when we had a different teacher.
That's when found out what circumcision was, that Jesus spoke Aramaic and Gospels were written in Greek. Greek? Jesus was a Jew, how did that work?

 

[TheVat]

Gospel authors were going for an international audience. Koine Greek was the common tongue of TRE, especially the eastern half where Christianity was spreading. (Every so often, it's handy being married to a history buff - TY, spouse!)

 

[Pinball1970]

Gospel authors were going for an international audience. Koine Greek was the common tongue of TRE, especially the eastern half where Christianity was spreading. (Every so often, it's handy being married to a history buff - TY, spouse!)

Now I know VAT, as a 15 year old I was confused by that.

 

[Pinball1970]

Koine Greek was the common tongue of TRE,

Lingua franca

 

[TheVat]

The major sects of Christianity, though, do all hold with the trinity. Catholics, protestants, orthodox. Of those that don't, the main are Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons, I think.

And (cough) Unitarians. Thought probably fewer in number than Mormons. I was surprised to learn that the most Unitarian place in the world is Transylvania. Apparently they have the oldest established denomination. I've heard their blood drives are amazing.

 

[TheVat]

Now I know VAT, as a 15 year old I was confused by that.

Oops, I didn't read carefully. Thanks.

 

[Pinball1970]

Oops, I didn't read carefully. Thanks.

My knowledge of theology is pretty rubbish, a little here and there up to Nicaea.
Bible history a little better.
As an aside we have P52, the oldest piece of the NT that survived that we know of.
It is in Manchester John Rylands library.

John Rylands Research Institute and Library - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Depending on which set of the approximately 70 known gospels you consider, you can get widely different views of early Judeo-Christianity.

 

[C C]

[...] I think Jesus was using the word ‘good’ in the sense of wrong and right regards to human ethics.
King James Bible Mark 10:18
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

That's certainly the safe, conventional assumption. Albeit, the school of thought revolving around "Hellenistic Jews" could still try to inject a double meaning -- i.e., meandering off into Philo's philosophy (below).

[...] Are you saying Jesus was talking of the god he praised, as if he was talking about a good curry meal, and nothing to do with morality?

Your post of what 'good' means, sounds like Jesus was talking of his god as a dumb entity, that just happened to create the universe we find ourselves part of, and so in human respects, 'good' for us in general.

Again, any interpretation along the "Greek philosophical influence on the New Testament" route depends on how carried away people want to get in that department.

What we can conservatively say is that Hellenistic Judaism was real and still applicable during the NT formulation period (its gradual decay didn't begin until the 2nd century).

And Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria would have been contemporary with the era of the apostles. Apparently Philo did find a contrast for "Good" via designating sensations ("matter") as evil -- but this likewise was not so much in a "human ethics" context as a label for inferiority or deception. (The "true" or superior world being that of Plato's intelligible abstractions, and however God fit into Philo's modified version of the latter).

• EXCERPTS: Philo considered the anthropomorphism of the Bible to be an impiety that was incompatible with the Platonic conception of "God in opposition to matter" [...] Similarly, God cannot exist or change in space. He has no "where" [...] is not in any place. He is Himself the place; the dwelling-place of God means the same as God Himself [...] corresponding to the tenet of Greek philosophy that the existence of all things is summed up in God. God as such is motionless, as the Bible indicates by the phrase "God stands".
  
  [...] Philo endeavored to find the Divine Being active and acting in the world, in agreement with Stoicism, yet his Platonic conception of Matter as evil required that he place God outside of the world in order to prevent God from having any contact with evil. Hence, he was obliged to separate from the Divine Being the activity displayed in the world and to transfer it to the divine powers, which accordingly were sometimes inherent in God and at other times exterior to God. In order to balance these Platonic and Stoic conceptions, Philo conceived of these divine attributes as types or patterns of actual things ("archetypal ideas") in keeping with Plato, but also regarded them as the efficient causes that not only represent the types of things, but also produce and maintain them. Philo endeavored to harmonize this conception with the Bible by designating these powers as angels. Philo conceives the powers both as independent hypostases and as immanent attributes of a Divine Being.
  
  In the same way, Philo contrasts the two divine attributes of goodness and power ... as expressed in the names of God; designating "Yhwh" as Goodness, Philo interpreted "Elohim" as designating the "cosmic power"; and as he considered the Creation the most important proof of divine goodness, he found the idea of goodness especially in Elohim.
  
  Philo also treats the divine powers of God as a single independent being, or demiurge, which he designates "Logos". Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by Heraclitus' conception of the "dividing Logos", which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts, as well as the Stoic characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power.
  
  But Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent; therefore, intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." [Could the Christian Jews have appropriated that as Jesus?]
  
  Philo also adapted Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea". Philo identified Plato's Ideas with the demiurge's thoughts. These thoughts make the contents of Logos; they were the seals for making sensual things during world creation. Logos resembles a book with creature paradigms. An Architect's design before the construction of a city serves to Philo as another simile of Logos. Since creation, Logos binds things together. As the receptacle and holder of ideas, Logos is distinct from the material world. At the same time, Logos pervades the world, supporting it. This image of God is the type for all other things (the "Archetypal Idea" of Plato), a seal impressed upon things. The Logos is a kind of shadow cast by God, having the outlines but not the blinding light of the Divine Being. He calls the Logos "second god" the "name of God".

And while there is disagreement on whom the actual author of the Gospel of John was, Paul alternatively did have some of the background for Greek intellectualism:

• #Life and career: "Some modern scholarship argues that while Paul was fluent in Koine Greek, the language he used to write his letters, his first language was probably Aramaic. In his letters, Paul drew heavily on his knowledge of Stoic philosophy, using Stoic terms and metaphors to assist his new Gentile converts in their understanding of the Gospel and to explain his Christology."

But there are plenty of arguments going the other way, that later scholars may have been projecting too much (interpretative bias) with respect to there being a Philo derived theological agenda in the NT:

• The Logos of Philo and John: Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 40 A.D.) occupies a unique place in the history of philosophy. He was a Jewish thinker living in one of the most important cities of the ancient world during a pivotal time. Much of Philo's work is focused on the transcendence of God and the "Logos." The notion of the Logos was deeply ingrained in Greek philosophy during the first century. But what makes the Philonic Logos particularly compelling is that the Gospel of John (the Evangelist) calls Jesus Christ the "Logos" (John 1:1-3). Questions have subsequently arisen regarding what extent, if any, Christian doctrines such as the Incarnation are derivative of Philo. The aim of this article is to provide a brief sketch of the Philonic Logos and compare it with the Johannine* Logos. A close analysis shows only surface level similarities between these two conceptions...

 

[foghorn]

That's certainly the safe, conventional assumption. Albeit, the school of thought revolving around "Hellenistic Jews" could still try to inject a double meaning -- i.e., meandering off into Philo's philosophy (below).

So, this god had nothing to do with the bible or anything to do with humans, it (he) never even created them.
And Moses pretended some ‘understandable’ god fashioned the commandment tablets.
It seems trying to ‘make’ a god model, is the same as the dragon in my garage.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hey James R this just came across in my feed. No comment, just thought you might find it interesting.

 

[James R]

Exactly the point I spent pages in this thread trying to get through to certain people. Plato realised this more than 2000 years ago.

 

[Sarkus]

Stop being so conceited, James R, but, heck, I'll take your lead... You may have spent any number of pages trying to "get through to certain people", but what you failed to grasp, and seemingly continue to do so, is that Euthyphro's Dilemma does not apply to what the vast majority of classical Christian theists believe. It is a false dilemma for many/most Christians.

Who do you think first effectively dissolved the dilemma? Who do you think it was that first described the metaphysical ideas that gave a third option to Euthyphro's Dilemma, that made it a false dilemma? I'll give you a clue: it was pre-Christianity. Any idea?

It was actually Plato himself. Yep. That same Plato.
You see, what you're missing, is that Plato didn't actually believe the Euthyphro Dilemma. He didn't believe that it was one or the other. He used it as a dialectical tool. He deliberately set it up so as to examine the concepts it used, to highlight the weaknesses in those concepts, and ultimately to tear it down as a dilemma. In his early writings he left the analysis unfinished, merely showing both horns of the dilemma to be inadequate, but not proceeding to a finished philosophical answer. But he did in his later writings. In "The Republic", for example, he says that the Good is not external to the divine (thus refuting the left-hand-side of DaveC's image), and that the divine does not arbitrarily will what is good (thus refuting the right-hand-side). But, heck, what does Plato know, right?

Aristotle also came up with much the same dilemma-dissolving metaphysics: he states that God (Prime Mover) is identical with its own goodness - so not external; and God's will can not be arbitrary because God does not "decide" in time at all.

Classical Christian theism certainly had its roots in the pre-Christian thinking of the likes of Plato and Aristotle. But then the likes of Augustine of Hippo expanded on those roots in the context of Christianity, and then you had the likes of Anselm and Aquinas. But it is these early metaphysical ideas, that had already dissolved the dilemma that later Christian philosophers (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas et al) built upon. To them, and from them to the vast majority of those who hold to classical theism (which includes the vast majority of major Christian religions), there is therefore no such dilemma.


So I will say it again, my on-going efforts of "trying to get through to certain people": for the vast majority of adherents to classical theism (which covers the vast majority of Christian religions), there simply is no dilemma. And even the one who set it up only did so in order to ultimately tear it down. Maybe you didn't realise that? But you see, well, Plato realised that it wasn't a dilemma c.2,400 years ago. At least not if you accepted his metaphysical thinking, which, well, classical theism did.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I'm not persuaded by the apologetic arguments that have been made against the Euthyphro dilemma.

For example, one of the ones you mentioned relies on an explanation of God's nature that is similar to the following, from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

God is radically unlike creatures and cannot be adequately understood in ways appropriate to them. God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect. One consequence is that the simple God lacks parts. . . . There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience.

The argument that follows from this goes something like this:

There are two corollaries that follow from God’s simplicity. First of all, any goodness in the universe preexists in God as a unity. If He is identical with His attributes, then He is goodness, not just an exemplar of it. Goodness outside of God is contingent on His goodness. Thus, the idea that God refers to a standard of goodness outside Himself is absurd, making Euthyphro’s dilemma false.

Secondly, since God has no parts, then all of his attributes are not only identical with His essence, but are in some sense identical with each other. There is no “competition” between his attributes, for example, opposing His justice with His mercy. We tend to pit His attributes against each other in an attempt to understand Him. How could a loving God send people to Hell? God doesn’t just “will” goodness, but wills goodness out of His own nature. This refutes the divine command theory. There is no disparity between God’s sovereignty and His goodness.

Source: https://socratesjourney.org/65-euthyphros-dilemma-and-the-relationship-between-god-and-goodness/

The complaint that the apologists tend to make, then, is the following (from the source just quoted):

The discussion of Euthyphro’s dilemma throughout history suffers from a rationalistic approach. To get balance and clarity, we must turn to Catholic mystics such as St. Teresa of Avila. The mystics testified to the fact that the more unified they became with God, the more they beheld His simplicity, with no contradictions or disparities among His attributes. God is one and not a composition of parts.

The converse is also true. The farther we remain from God, the more we will see Him as divided within Himself because we are at odds with ourselves.

As I see it, the advice seems to be: don't think about the problem too much. Rationalism and thought are likely to get you into trouble, so they are to be avoided. Instead, just have faith in God and try to get closer to him. Trust that he represents all that is Good in the world, but don't try to understand how this can be or try too hard to make sense of it. You'll only get further from God if you think too much.

No doubt this sort of thing appeals to a lot of people, but it's not my cup of tea.

I don't think this kind of sophistry actually defeats the Euthyphro dilemma. It just tries to sweep it under the rug, in effect, through a clever circumlocution.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not persuaded by the apologetic arguments that have been made against the Euthyphro dilemma.

The issue here isn't whether you, or I, are convinced about the arguments against it, it's whether there is any value in judging the morality of God. Heck, neither of us are convinced by arguments that God exists in the first instance, so it's not as though we have to be convinced about something to be able to talk about it as if it does exist, or about those who are convinced, and what they believe.
As such, if you're talking about the God of classical theism, you simply have to accept that for the vast majority of people who believe in that God, there is no dilemma. You don't have to accept their arguments, you should, however, just accept their position if you want to talk about the God that they believe in. If you don't want your answer to be referring to that particular God, which the vast majority of Christian religions believe in, then sure. Fire away. It would just be irrelevant as to the position I put forward that you're arguing against.

The issue here, remember, is whether there is value to judging the morality of god's actions. And my position is, and has been, that for the vast majority of those who believe in the God of classical theism, there is no value whatsoever, because God is good. There is no dilemma to be constructed here. It simply can not be raised in argument against the God that they believe. To do so means you are no longer talking about the same God.

Is it of value to judge the morality of a God for whom the dilemma exists? Sure. Maybe. But that's not the God I've been arguing from.

So, sure, you can pick aparts the arguments that dissolve the dilemma, but in doing so you are no longer talking about the same God that I have been, or about the people who believe in that God.

As I see it, the advice seems to be: don't think about the problem too much. Rationalism and thought are likely to get you into trouble, so they are to be avoided. Instead, just have faith in God and try to get closer to him. Trust that he represents all that is Good in the world, but don't try to understand how this can be or try too hard to make sense of it. You'll only get further from God if you think too much.

No doubt this sort of thing appeals to a lot of people, but it's not my cup of tea.

I don't think this kind of sophistry actually defeats the Euthyphro dilemma. It just tries to sweep it under the rug, in effect, through a clever circumlocution.

You can view the arguments however you wish, see them as sophistry, unconvincing, whatever, but for those that actually believe in this God, you know, the vast majority of Christians of classical theism, it is more than sophistry. The arguments hold weight for them, and do dissolve the argument. Yes, there may be a lot of faith involved, but then we are talking about God, and if we're not already accepting of people's faith in this thread then this entire issue would be pointless from the outset for an atheist to discuss, right? I mean, beyond judging a fictional character, as if they were a Man, by whatever moral standard you hold.
I mean, you've accepted for sake of argument the existence of God. You've ignored already that, to an atheist, this is a matter of faith. You've already found unconvincing all those arguments for the existence of God, yet here we are discussing God as if He exists.
But you then draw the line at one specific area of faith, and say that you find that unconvincing? Seems... odd. But sure, whatever. Unfortunately it means now you're arguing about a different God to the one all those other people believe in, and the one I've been talking about.

As such, none of what you have said actually counters what I have been saying from the outset. If we're talking about the God of classical theism, the God that the vast majority of Christian religions believe in, then there is zero value in judging the actions of that God, as God is good. There is no dilemma to be constructed. You don't have to accept this God, but what you believe or not doesn't alter what they believe. We're talking about a God that neither of us believe exists, after all.

So if we're going to start assuming (for purpose of discussion) that God exists, and if we're assuming, as I am, that the God of classical theism exists (as that has been the one I've been arguing from) then we have to assume everything else about them that that entails, not just the stuff we personally find convincing or not, as we've set that aside from the outset.
And in doing that we have to assume that this God is the standard of morality, that God is good, and therefore judging God is pointless as, by default, all He does is good. If we don't see how an action can be construed as good, we have to accept that that is due to our lack of understanding, either of God or of the "greater plan", or other knowledge etc.
To judge this God by any other standard is to strip from that God what He is (the standard of moraliry), and thus it is no longer the same God.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

The sophistry of the argument that "God is goodness", as I said, really just sweeps the problem of evil under the rug, rather than trying to give a proper answer to it.

Take, for example, the question "Why would a good God send people to burn in hell for eternity?"

The answer from your favorite apologists, it seems, is that because God is goodness itself, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is an example of God's goodness. It can't be anything else, because it is not in God's nature to do evil.

Do you find that satisfactory? Do you think that most Christians find it satisfactory?