Thursday, January 21, 2010

Square One: Goodness & God

Now that the tests of a worldview have been somewhat agreed upon, I will attempt to address the main topic of the comments in this post. The topic of discussion has revolved around the goodness of God.


My position is that if God exist, He is necessarily good. God being the greatest of all possible entities would necessitate His being the greatest good. Also, God being the greatest, hence the perfect absolute eternal being, would necessitate an unchanging nature for perfection doesn’t get more or less perfect.


Moreover, if goodness exists it needs an ontological form. It necessitates an eternal absolute being to even be a meaningful concept. It must be more than an abstract concept, such as Plato’s forms. The alternative argument is that goodness as such does not exist and all good and evil constructs are culturally determined and do not correspond to any greater concept of “good.” One culture’s assertion of good cannot be any better or worse than another culture by any outside standard that can be appealed to by both cultures. If the competing standards lead to war, the winning nation sets the standard because they have the power to do so, not because there standard is more right, just more powerful.


Now the tendency of those who disagree with the philosophy above is to retort with instances of the Bible God’s actions recorded in the Old Testament as evidence of His not being good. The actions of God brought into the argument are third level (see last post) evidence without regard to the first level philosophy. I would like to see a philosophical – non anecdotal – response to the above philosophical position before bringing the discussion to the third level. In so doing, let us suppose no actions of said God have been recorded and we are only looking at the philosophical.


The question of where “good” is rooted and what “good” means must first be established before judging any practical data as good or evil. The above is both an argument for God’s goodness, and for His existence because whether we start with the existence of a real “goodness” rather then the existence of God my argument shows that this leads to the necessity of an eternal being where that good is rooted. If however, you are a proponent of the view that “good” is culturally determined and does not line up with an idea of “good” itself then it will not lead you to the conclusion of God’s existence. In that event we would have to examine the later view of good in greater depth to see if that lines up with reality and works in the practical level just as we would have to then look and see of God being good measures itself out in the practical. But let us start in level one before illustrating in level three if possible.


Furthermore, some discussion has revolved around this topic in the comments in the first level with discussion of whether a God that can be only good can be all powerful. For would not all powerful necessitate the ability to do something not good. To that I respond that if the greatest state of existence -- perfection -- is goodness than God being fully good and incapable of being less than good, would not be a limitation but an attribute of perfection.



23 comments:

boomSLANG said...

Again, relocating fallacious arguments doesn't "correct" them.

CyberKitten said...

This is not 'Square One'.

Karla said...

Maybe not, but finding where good is anchored is inextricably tied to many topics. It is rather foundational and needs establishing early on in worldview building.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Maybe not, but finding where good is anchored is inextricably tied to many topics.

But you post is *titled* 'Square One'.... Personally I think that before you can establish God's goodness you need to establish His existence.

...and it assumes the good is anchored *anywhere*.....

karla said: It is rather foundational and needs establishing early on in worldview building.

But we've been around this particular buoy *many* times. You assert that 'the good' is anchored in God and the rest of us disagee with you...... Now what?

Can we actually establish where the idea of 'good' comes from? You seem to be very Platonic about the whole thing (and much else besides it seems) whilst I, for one, have moved on from that rather Medieval worldview.

Karla said...

Cyber, we have been over it many times. Not everyone has been with me that long to see the past discussions.

Also, your willingness to accept cultural relativism seems unparalleled with the other guests here. You do not argue for objective morality as others have and your argument is very consistent with your naturalism. I'm not sure where to go in the conversation with you.

I do take it farther than Plato. Plato left it in the abstract because he saw it had to be beyond us, but didn't take it far enough to its ontological root. He was missing an essential foundation.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Also, your willingness to accept cultural relativism seems unparalleled with the other guests here.

Really?

karla said: You do not argue for objective morality as others have and your argument is very consistent with your naturalism.

Indeed. I think that the idea of objective morality is plain silly.... and I do attempt to be consistent in my views. I see that as basic to any belief system.

karla said: I'm not sure where to go in the conversation with you.

Apart from agreeing to disagree - is there anywhere *to* go?

karla said: Plato left it in the abstract because he saw it had to be beyond us, but didn't take it far enough to its ontological root. He was missing an essential foundation.

Where I would say he was either simply wrong or just misinterpreted by later thinkers.....

Karla said...

Cyber “Really?”

Sometimes. American atheists seem to still lean toward objective morality. Not all of them, but more so than Europeans. That’s just an observation from those I’ve spoken with.

Cyber “Indeed. I think that the idea of objective morality is plain silly.... and I do attempt to be consistent in my views. I see that as basic to any belief system.”

We both agree in the need to be consistent and that being basic to any belief system.

Cyber “Apart from agreeing to disagree - is there anywhere *to* go?”

Personally I like to have my thinking challenged even by those it’s highly unlikely I would ever agree with. But that’s just me. I feel like I benefit from being around those who think very differently from me.

Cyber “Where I would say he was either simply wrong or just misinterpreted by later thinkers.....”

Or he could have been partially right. . . .

CyberKitten said...

karla said: American atheists seem to still lean toward objective morality. Not all of them, but more so than Europeans.

I can understand how a theistic morality can be viewed as objective but I do struggle with the idea that a non-theistic morality can be. To me that makes very little sense.

karla said: We both agree in the need to be consistent and that being basic to any belief system.

Of course. What value is an inconsistent belief system? In fact would such a thing even *be* a belief system?

karla said: Personally I like to have my thinking challenged even by those it’s highly unlikely I would ever agree with.

Have any of us actually challenged your thinking? I don't get that feeling to be honest. Then again you haven't managed to challenge my thinking yet so I guess that we're even on that!

karla said: Or he could have been partially right. . . .

I actually haven't read much of Plato's work so far. I've read far more Aristotle who I found to be very good. Plato is too abstract for my liking. I think that the idea of his Forms actually existing 'somewhere', for example, is sheer fantasy.

Karla said...

Cyber “I can understand how a theistic morality can be viewed as objective but I do struggle with the idea that a non-theistic morality can be. To me that makes very little sense.”

You and me too.


karla said: We both agree in the need to be consistent and that being basic to any belief system.

Cyber “Of course. What value is an inconsistent belief system? In fact would such a thing even *be* a belief system?”

Some people hold to them. Einstein, I think it was, didn’t believe in objective morality, but saw it best to live as if it did exist. That seems to me a contradiction for what is true philosophically should line up with what is practically true.


karla said: Personally I like to have my thinking challenged even by those it’s highly unlikely I would ever agree with.

Cyber “Have any of us actually challenged your thinking? I don't get that feeling to be honest. Then again you haven't managed to challenge my thinking yet so I guess that we're even on that!”

Yes my thinking has changed, but not in the way maybe you are talking about. It has changed in that I did not know atheists before. I had read books on “atheism” but I didn’t really know the diversity amongst you and the passions that drive you. I also did not know how some of the things Christians talk about where come across to atheists and I have adapted some of my language and am still trying to do that. I see things that are taught a certain way in the Church that cause damage to those outside the Church and give a false idea about God. I see things that Christians need to correct because I now hear what it sounds like to those who aren’t Christians. I’m not talking about altering what we believe to be true to be more accepted, but changing how we say things to avoid false impressions. And I am still learning. It has been very beneficial. Also I like knowing people who don’t think like me because I enjoy being challenged in my thinking. I’m not saying I enjoy arguing, but I enjoy thinking. I don’t see most of the conversations here as arguments, but as mind challenging discussions.

karla said: Or he could have been partially right. . . .

Cyber “I actually haven't read much of Plato's work so far. I've read far more Aristotle who I found to be very good. Plato is too abstract for my liking. I think that the idea of his Forms actually existing 'somewhere', for example, is sheer fantasy. “

I have not read much either, what I know is from a college philosophy course. I too think “Forms” doesn’t work at all. But I think he had a part of it right that there needed to be “something” beyond the natural world where absolute reality occurs. I just see how good can’t be some form floating out in the cosmos, but must have an ontological origin or not exist at all as an absolute good.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Einstein, I think it was, didn’t believe in objective morality, but saw it best to live as if it did exist. That seems to me a contradiction for what is true philosophically should line up with what is practically true.

Oh, I think many people live their lives 'as if' something were true rather than knowing its true.

karla said: I had read books on “atheism” but I didn’t really know the diversity amongst you and the passions that drive you.

Written by theists by any chance?

karla said: But I think he had a part of it right that there needed to be “something” beyond the natural world where absolute reality occurs.

I, of course, do not agree.

karla said: I just see how good can’t be some form floating out in the cosmos, but must have an ontological origin or not exist at all as an absolute good.

I'll go with the 'not exist at all as an absolute good' part.....

boomSLANG said...

I just see how good can’t be some form floating out in the cosmos, but must have an ontological origin or not exist at all as an absolute good.

Morality/ethics isn't "floating out in the cosmos". But interestingly, you say it comes from "God", who is presumably out in "the cosmos", since "God" is "omnipresent".

In any event, no one has suggested anything remotely like that, and such is a caricature of your opponent's position.

Further, that your opponent cannot offer an "absolute good", concerning morality, and you then conclude that it must come from a "God", is a non-sequitur.

BTW, I've said over and over and over again that there IS no "Moral Objectivism". There just isn't. Is it always "wrong" to deliberately take a life???? Is it always "wrong" to intentionally deceive people(lie)? Is it always "wrong" to take what isn't yours(steal)? No, of course not. It is perfectly "moral" to do these things when/if it prevents unnecessary harm to human beings. Educated societies avoid harm because they know avoiding harm ensures happiness, and you can't be "happy" if cannot survive.

Karla said...

BoomSlang “Morality/ethics isn't "floating out in the cosmos". But interestingly, you say it comes from "God", who is presumably out in "the cosmos", since "God" is "omnipresent". “

I was discussing the difference between an abstract and a absolute being.

BoomSlang “In any event, no one has suggested anything remotely like that, and such is a caricature of your opponent's position.”

Yes I know none of you have suggested that.

BoomSlang “Further, that your opponent cannot offer an "absolute good", concerning morality, and you then conclude that it must come from a "God", is a non-sequitur.”

I understand that is not your or Cyber’s position. You both do not see any absolute good existing, thus have no need of an ontological source for a good that in your view does not exist. I get that.

BoomSlang “BTW, I've said over and over and over again that there IS no "Moral Objectivism". There just isn't. Is it always "wrong" to deliberately take a life???? Is it always "wrong" to intentionally deceive people(lie)? Is it always "wrong" to take what isn't yours(steal)? No, of course not. It is perfectly "moral" to do these things when/if it prevents unnecessary harm to human beings. Educated societies avoid harm because they know avoiding harm ensures happiness, and you can't be "happy" if cannot survive.”

And who decides what is “unnecessary harm for humans” and why does this not apply to animals? Or does it in your view? I know Cyber applies it to animals. How about insects? And why is “happiness” the ideal? What constitutes happiness? Is that not just a feeling in your worldview? What if someone is only happy as a serial killer? What if molesting small children makes them happy? Who decides what “happiness” is right? What if running a dog fighting ring makes them happy and doesn’t do any harm to people?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I was discussing the difference between an abstract and a absolute being.

Oh, I think that an 'absolute being' *is* an abstract!

Ali P said...

"And who decides what is “unnecessary harm for humans” and why does this not apply to animals? Or does it in your view? I know Cyber applies it to animals. How about insects? And why is “happiness” the ideal? What constitutes happiness? Is that not just a feeling in your worldview? What if someone is only happy as a serial killer? What if molesting small children makes them happy? Who decides what “happiness” is right? What if running a dog fighting ring makes them happy and doesn’t do any harm to people?"

I see morals as a personal thing, it may be influenced by upbringing and culture - but it is probably different for everyone.

I.E. Dog fighting bad, drug taking good, in my own moral system.

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I was discussing the difference between an abstract and a absolute being.

Discuss it all you'd like. In the mean time, is there an "absolute being" that you'd like to enter into the discussion? I ask, because people with only moderate knowledge of the Christian doctrine, know that the "God" found therein is no such "absolute being".

For starters, it invents and impliments "laws" that don't even apply to all human beings in the first place. Further, it can make a "law" obsolete when said law is finished serving its purpose. We've established both of the aforementioned, by your own admission, yesterday.

Then of course, we know that lying, stealing, and killing is not always "wrong"; it depends on the context of the situation, and since "God" is MIA, guess who determines the context of the situation?

If you answered, "we do", then you're right.

continues...And who decides what is “unnecessary harm for humans”...(?)

Humans do. Imagine that?

continues......and why does this not apply to animals?

Some say it does apply.

continues...What if someone is only happy as a serial killer? What if molesting small children makes them happy?

Then he or she should be prepared to pay the consequences if he or she is caught. Note, these are actual consequences, as opposed to empty promises of "Justice" in some "next life".

continues...What if running a dog fighting ring makes them happy and doesn’t do any harm to people?

Ask Michael Vick.

Karla said...

Cyber "Oh, I think that an 'absolute being' *is* an abstract!"

A being isn't an abstract. You could say that you don't believe an absolute being exists, but by definition if such a being did exist, it would not be an abstract.

Karla said...

Ali "I see morals as a personal thing, it may be influenced by upbringing and culture - but it is probably different for everyone.

I.E. Dog fighting bad, drug taking good, in my own moral system."

So if someone had the cultural upbringing that stealing was okay you wouldn't have a problem if they took your car?

Karla said...

BoomSlang “For starters, it invents and impliments "laws" that don't even apply to all human beings in the first place. Further, it can make a "law" obsolete when said law is finished serving its purpose. We've established both of the aforementioned, by your own admission, yesterday.”

I never said the law was abolished, or made obsolete, only that it was fulfilled. But there is no way that I can explain what I mean by that without a foundational context which is why I keep bringing the conversation back to the philosophical aspect of the goodness of God.



Boom “Then of course, we know that lying, stealing, and killing is not always "wrong"; it depends on the context of the situation, and since "God" is MIA, guess who determines the context of the situation? “


Um, let me try this. You’ve stated that there is no universal moral standard and morality is culturally relative.

I posit that there is a universal standard of Good. I am not positing there is a absolute system of laws that people must follow no matter the circumstances. There are situations where killing is not murder, while murder is always wrong, killing does not always equate with murder. The only absolute I am positing is the good eternal nature of God.

The laws of the Old Testament or the Torah were given by God to a people who needed laws written out for them for they still lived in a day where God dwelt with them, but externally, not internally. When Jesus came that law was not made wrong, but fulfilled, for it was there to point to the need for Him to transform us from the inside out. It was not made to keep us bound by rules and laws, but to free us to find the ultimate freedom in Christ.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: A being isn't an abstract.

A 'perfect absolute' being is. The same way that anything like that is an abstraction. A perfect horse is an abstraction. The idea of absolute horseness is an abstraction. The idea of absolute good is an abstraction. Actually the idea of 'good' is itself an abstraction.... So God is *definitely* an abstraction.

karka said: You could say that you don't believe an absolute being exists, but by definition if such a being did exist, it would not be an abstract.

Exactly - *If*

boomSLANG said...

Karla: I never said the law was abolished, or made obsolete, only that it was fulfilled.

i.e..equivocation.

Being "fulfilled" implies completed. In any event, we can solve this right now, because previously, when asked about some of the "Old Law" policies(i.e.."fulfilled" policies), you said...

"I do not think these are things we ought to do." ~ Karla

So, if "God" decided to reinstate these policies in 2010, for instance, punishing "drunkards"(intoxicated men and women) with ROCKS, is that something that...

a) we ought to do

b) we ought not do

?

Continues...But there is no way that I can explain what I mean by that without a foundational context which is why I keep bringing the conversation back to the philosophical aspect of the goodness of God.

Bring it up all you'd like. Bring it up until donkeys fly. You have yet to give a satisfactory, logically-based argument that proves "Moral Objectivism" is true, let alone, that it comes from "Yahweh". In fact, the more that you type, the more the evidence AGAINST "Moral Objectivism" piles up.

Continues...I posit that there is a universal standard of Good.

Again, "posit" it, assert it, jump up and down and scream it at the top of your lungs. Repetition and volume don't make erroneous thinking, "right".

Continues...I am not positing there is a absolute system of laws that people must follow no matter the circumstances.

Subtle back-peddling is still back-peddling. If you are arguing that "absolute good" is rooted in "God" and that "God doesn't change"(and that is your argument), then it should logically follow that the laws/commandments in the "Word of God"(e.g..the Bible) are also "absolute" and "unchanging".

continues...The laws of the Old Testament or the Torah were given by God to a people who needed laws written out for them....

So, is the implication that, prior to Moses getting the "Comandments" from "Yahweh", people didn't know that murder was wrong? Really? Seriously?

Karla said...

Cyber it sounds like you are using the word "abstract" to mean a concept that is not real, rather than a concept that has no being. So you agree if there was an eternal absolute Being than it would not be an abstract. However, you hold that idea to be abstract because you do not see it as real. . . Correct?

CyberKitten said...

Definition of Abstract:

1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.

I was using the definition given in Point 1 and Point 4

karla said: However, you hold that idea to be abstract because you do not see it as real. . . Correct?

Without a specified instance or concrete existence - Yes.

Karla said...

Okay Cyber.