Follow TV Tropes

Following

Philosophical theism and God's goodness

Go To

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#1: Jul 14th 2011 at 1:29:01 PM

So I was reading the "divine right" thread, and came across claims like "[God] could very well choose to not be good."

Whoa nelly. I think it would be extremely helpful if people would state up front what philosophy they're arguing from when they talk about the nature of God. Here's a brief rundown on Platonic idealism and two versions of dualism:

Platonism: Mind, emanated by the One/Supreme Being, thinks reality into existence, producing ideas or Forms. Material things are shadows of Forms, making ideas prior to matter (hence "idealism").

Can the Supreme Being choose not to be good? No, no more than it can choose to be mindless: Mind and the Good exist within it at the highest possible level.

Thomism: A form of dualism rooted in Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas famously wrote five ways the term "God" can be defined without appeal to revelation. The important one for this purpose is the Argument from Degree:

"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being..."

God is uttermost being. Uttermost being is also uttermost good. The only way the goodness of Being itself/God could be qualified is if evil is real, and therefore Being itself is both uttermost good and uttermost evil. Christian tradition always denied this, defining an evil as "absence of a good", but it was accepted in Zurvanism.

Cartesian dualism: the first modern dualist, René Descartes' systematic philosophy starts by treating his own existence as axiomatic and attempts to derive the rest from its implications. He reaches the conclusion that he can't be certain even of mathematical axioms, because his brain might be afflicted with a defect or his soul afflicted with a false idea by an evil spirit. The only way to know basic facts beyond existence itself is if a good spirit is supremely powerful and cares about him. This is called God.

Can God choose to not be good? Hypothetically, but then we could know nothing beyond existence itself, not even that 2+2 = 4.

Everyone feel free to fill out other philosophies in the context of divine goodness.

edited 14th Jul '11 1:29:39 PM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
MatthewTheRaven Since: Jun, 2009
#2: Jul 14th 2011 at 1:57:39 PM

"Can the Supreme Being choose not to be good? No, no more than it can choose to be mindless: Mind and the Good exist within it at the highest possible level."

That's simply an assumption that does not follow from the proceeding argument. It's hard to believe there can even be a Form for a moral quality rather than an ontological category of beings.

"God is uttermost being. Uttermost being is also uttermost good. The only way the goodness of Being itself/God could be qualified is if evil is real, and therefore Being itself is both uttermost good and uttermost evil. Christian tradition always denied this, defining an evil as "absence of a good", but it was accepted in Zurvanism."

There is no reason to associate the act of being with morality other than because one wants there to be such an association - it relies on the idea of Evil as an absence of good, which is basically word play. You can just as easily define Good as an absence of Evil, especially considering so much of what religion views as good is actually restraint, temperance, and abstinence from well-defined evil acts.

"Cartesian dualism: the first modern dualist, René Descartes' systematic philosophy starts by treating his own existence as axiomatic and attempts to derive the rest from its implications. He reaches the conclusion that he can't be certain even of mathematical axioms, because his brain might be afflicted with a defect or his soul afflicted with a false idea by an evil spirit. The only way to know basic facts beyond existence itself is if a good spirit is supremely powerful and cares about him. This is called God."

Wishful thinking, really. Descartes wants a way to have certitude, therefore God is Good. It is just as likely that God could be the evil spirit deceiving him, especially since God allows for such evil genii in the first place.

Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#3: Jul 14th 2011 at 1:59:14 PM

The problem with all of those is that they fail to establish whether concepts like "supreme good" are meaningful, well-defined, and actually occur.

I would argue that calling a person or object "good" is a category error; it only makes sense to talk about actions or consequences of actions being good. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about "good" as a separate entity or a "supreme good" or "embodiment of good" in the first place.

Even if one considers the concept to be well-defined, there is the question of existence. Just because a concept is meaningful doesn't mean that it applies to an entity that really exists.

Also, Descartes' attempt to eliminate the need for unproven axioms can't possibly work. If you make no assumptions, then you can only derive tautological conclusions. If you assume the existence of a supreme being that ensures that your basic assumptions are sound, all you've done is add a huge assumption (the existence of a supreme being) on top of your existing assumptions, and you're left with less certainty than you started with.

edited 14th Jul '11 2:02:24 PM by Enthryn

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#4: Jul 14th 2011 at 2:02:57 PM

Guys, this is a thread about whether God is good in various theistic philosophies.

It's not "Prove you're so much smarter than Plato, Aquinas and Descartes."

Be positive here, not negative: if you want to talk about God, state what definition you 'do use, not which ones you want to feel smart by disagreeing with.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Heatth from Brasil Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: In Spades with myself
#5: Jul 14th 2011 at 2:36:38 PM

Hmmm, logically speaking, if God is omnipotent, he obviously can choose to not be good. And, yes, he can choose to be mindless as well. He 'can anything. This is what omnipotency means. If you start to put any 'limits', not matter how meaningless they are, then God is not 'omnipotent' anymore.

Of course, this is just semantic.

Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#6: Jul 14th 2011 at 2:52:17 PM

[up] No, it doesn't work that way. An omnipotent being can do anything, but that refers to any actual action, not anything that can be stated. It's quite possible to state things that sound like actions but are actually nonsensical; it doesn't contradict omnipotence to say that an omnipotent being cannot do those things, because there isn't anything to do in that case.

Of course, "not doing good" is a perfectly sensible action, given a definition of "good", as is "being mindless". An omnipotent being could do those things.

JethroQWalrustitty OG Troper from Finland Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
OG Troper
#7: Jul 14th 2011 at 2:54:13 PM

Not speaking all that philosophically, but aren't a god's actions generally viewed "good" despite of human moral. I personally think drowning the planet, raining fire on cities, sending bears on insolent children, etc. are not nice things to do, but yet YHWH is considered to be loving god.

the statement above is false
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#8: Jul 14th 2011 at 2:59:36 PM

[up][up]

An omnipotent being can do anything, but that refers to any actual action, not anything that can be stated.

In some philosophies, omnipotence is also constrained by Divine Simplicity. God can do whatever He wills, but since God is good rather than having goodness, willing evil never occurs.

[up] The Bible is off-topic here. Theistic philosophies attempt to define the term "God" without appeal to revelation.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Enthryn (they/them) Since: Nov, 2010
(they/them)
#9: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:07:20 PM

[up] What does it mean to say that God is good? Are you saying that God is exactly equivalent to the concept "good"? If so, I have two main questions: how do you define "good", and why treat it as an entity ("God") rather than just as a concept?

MatthewTheRaven Since: Jun, 2009
#10: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:10:48 PM
Thumped: This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping. Stay on topic, please.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#11: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:13:29 PM

The topic is specifically philosophical theism. Please don't debate about scripture here.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#12: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:16:42 PM

The topic is not "defeat Rottweiler in a philosophical argument." The topic is "How do different philosophies define the term 'God', and what are the implications for God's morality?"

Ideally, people would make positive statements about which philosophy they use to define 'God', instead of attacking philosophers. If negative statements are really necessary, they should be phrased in terms of why the philosopher you choose is better than the competitors.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#13: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:42:51 PM

"God is (embodies) good" is not a meaningful statement if God is then anthropomorphized. A label cannot refer to both an abstract idea and a (theoretically) concrete entity.

edited 14th Jul '11 3:43:23 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#14: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:44:20 PM

Do not debate the philosophies mentioned in this thread. That's off-topic.

This is not a debate thread.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#15: Jul 14th 2011 at 3:57:05 PM

Then I do not know how to interpret the OP. What question is being asked? Whether or not God is good under a given theistic logic is usually axiomatic.

edited 14th Jul '11 3:57:45 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#16: Jul 14th 2011 at 4:00:12 PM

It is "Share your thing so that we all know where we are arguing from" not "Argue the ideas presented". That can be for other threads.

At least this is how I am interpreting it. Rott. AM I GETTING YOU?!

As for myself it would be very good if I put down my own ideas about gods since they tend to be...very different. To say the least. Give me time...

edited 14th Jul '11 4:01:07 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#17: Jul 14th 2011 at 4:02:27 PM

[up][up] "When you use the term 'God', which philosophy are you using to define it?"

For instance, I lean toward Platonism, though I'm not wholly satisfied with material things as "shadow" and could be converted to dualism.

[up] YES, YOU ARE GETTING ME! grin

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#18: Jul 14th 2011 at 4:12:20 PM

Ahh.

My personal belief is that considering the existence of real evil in this world, that a deity with the ability to intervene in this mortal coil is either unwilling or quite clumsy with dealing with said evil.

The former means that said deity is not "good" by our standards. It may very well be a necessary evil, for a greater purpose, but the methods are still evil. The latter might be something like Bruce Almighty or something like that where the deity means well but is limited in some way. The best example of the former by way of a necessary evil would be the Anti-Spiral from Gurren Lagann.

Yes, I actually think tropes can be more useful than philosophy when discussing these matters.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Tongpu Since: Jan, 2001
#19: Jul 14th 2011 at 6:42:28 PM

Seeing as how I am not a theist, I don't use a theistic philosophy to define the term "god" or the nature of any particular being labeled as such. I define "god" as something along the lines of "a word other people use to refer to various hypothetical entities, as well as to a vaguely defined category encompassing such entities".

I determine whether a particular god is "good" by... well, actually, that's not something that I do, because I'm a meta-ethical non-cognitivist. "God is good" isn't meaningful to me in the same sense as, say, "this coin is copper" or "this corpse is fresh". If I call a particular god "good" or "evil", I'm not making a truth-apt statement about an objectively extant characteristic of said god; I'm expressing an attitude towards it based upon the characteristics assigned explicitly and implicitly to it by the person in the discussion who brought it up.

feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#20: Jul 15th 2011 at 2:02:09 AM

I think it would be extremely helpful if people would state up front what philosophy they're arguing from when they talk about the nature of God

Umm . . . Star Trek?

Seriously, I approach the concept of a being far more powerful than me by thinking of it as a Sufficiently Advanced Alien. If it's a creator, it's a very sufficiently advanced alien. I might not be capable of understanding it, and it may not be capable of understanding my moral system.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#21: Jul 15th 2011 at 3:01:20 AM

Because the question almost always comes up in the context of the problem of evil, lemme talk about that instead:

  1. If God is powerful enough to create the universe, he could make less evil in it than there is (by empirical observation of evil that God could get rid of). But he didn't, so he must be deliberately choosing not to be good, or else not exist.
  2. If God is not powerful enough to create the universe, in what sense is this God? Maybe a god, Greek-style, but it doesn't seem like the single perfect being that Christians consider God to be.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#22: Jul 15th 2011 at 3:50:51 AM

[up][up] Won't it be inherently capable of understanding your moral system, given study? After all, we could understand ants, if we tried. tongue

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#23: Jul 15th 2011 at 5:52:27 AM

If God is powerful enough to create the universe, he could make less evil in it than there is (by empirical observation of evil that God could get rid of). But he didn't, so he must be deliberately choosing not to be good, or else not exist.

Have you read Plantinga's free will defense? Most contemporary philosophers accept that it defeats the logical problem of evil.

In any case, definitions of God like the Argument from Degree only define God as most good, most powerful. For absolute omnipotence, i.e. pure agency, you're looking at something like Al-Ghazali.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
YoungMachete from Dallas Since: May, 2011
#24: Jul 15th 2011 at 9:41:14 AM

[up] From reading the (probably incomplete and misleading) wikipedia article on the Free Will Defense, I entirely disagree with it. For one, I don't believe that good and evil exist, only a person's perception of Good and Evil, therefore what we see as evil may be any hypothetical god's good, and also that something being made by free choice does not improve its value. If someone saved a child for money, I would consider that as equally "good" as someone saving a child out of the goodness of their heart. Also, I consider it within an omnipotent and omniscient God's capabilities to make a world both entirely free of moral evil, and one filled with beings percieving everything in the world as not only morally good, but morally god out of everyone's free will. In otherwords, I believe you can believe yourself to have free will without actually having it.

I am now prepared to get torn apart as I am not a philosophy major and I have only read the classics of philosophy, not any analysis or anything of that sort. I also believe that most of that is extremley pointless overthinking that could be spent on something else, but I won't say that again since it's also fun as hell to debate philosophy.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#25: Jul 15th 2011 at 12:08:24 PM

I believe that the concept of "good" itself is sufficiently abstract as to be worthless in framing a coherent discussion. I do not believe in an absolute moral good for the very simple reason that morality is inherently a subjective concept. I take the ontological viewpoint that our perception of reality defines our reality.

It may be that there is such a thing as a God or Gods, and that it/they defines some particular set of characteristics or phenomena as "good". With the faculties available to me, I have no ability to ascertain the truth or falsehood of these things, except that I see no evidence within the reach of my senses that would tend to support them. Applying Occam's Razor, I must conclude that both "God" and "good" as commonly defined are inventions of humans.

I am then left with the need to search for some kind of relative moral framework that makes sense to me. I observe that the Universe, left to itself, tends towards entropy. I also observe that, of all the forces in the universe, the only one that consistently acts to reduce entropy is life. Since I am incapable of identifying with myself as not-alive, I conclude that, from my point of view, being alive is good. By extrapolation, that which increases the ability of life in general (and humanity in particular) to continue is good

Caveat: I acknowledge that I am evolutionarily wired to desire life (life that doesn't want to keep living at a species level doesn't last long) and therefore wired to perceive being alive as good. You have to start somewhere.

Now, humanity is the only species we know of that is capable of appreciating itself in this manner. I take a logical leap and assert that it is not merely life, but intelligent life that is the highest purpose of the Universe. From this fundamental principle — which is, of course, a matter of choice — I can construct a moral framework that tends toward that end goal and yet still guides my day-to-day actions. I call this Good.

God? Irrelevant, unless He makes Himself known.

Edit: There are also goodnesses that are not related to species survival but to quality of life — beauty and the like. They're also abstract concepts but generally things that increase one's pleasure in life have an indefinite but likely net positive effect on overall species wellness.

Lazarus Long put it thusly: "If there is a purpose in life greater than topping a woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I have yet to see what it is." He also said that any species ethic that is not based on "women and children first" is inherently genocidal.

edited 15th Jul '11 7:21:49 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Add Post

Total posts: 25
Top