Bertrand Russell

[matahari]

. My concern is with those who think they possess the one right solution and that their answer must be imposed on others.

Best,
Leela

---

In that case you have a major problem with all committed christians who take the words of Jesus seriously when He instructed them " Go and make disciples of all nations , baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost "

Note: He did not use the word Impose - what He actually said was - Make disciples

Tonette

 

[Thales]

This discussion begs for an accurate defenition of “good”, beyond Russell’s “right and wrong”. I imagine some will say God is the defenition of good, but then we have just gotten back to the question posed by the atheist.

Can anyone define goodness? It would be nice to get both the Christian and atheist idea of “good”.

 

[Leela]

---

In that case you have a major problem with all committed christians who take the words of Jesus seriously when He instructed them " Go and make disciples of all nations , baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost "

Note: He did not use the word Impose - what He actually said was - Make disciples

Tonette

Yes, I really do. That is why I am here. I want to spread your uncle’s message that life is not a problem to be solved.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

There is a big confusion here between what we can imagine and what actually exists.

There is a confusion when what we think and imagine doesn’t conform to reality. If one doesn’t know traffic laws and doesn’t conform to them, driving is confusing and dangerous. The same with life. God is Good and we can know that because He is our greatest good. Experience leads one to see the results of good or bad in other as well as ourselves. God is the source of life, “In Him we move and have our being”, Acts 17:28. That source of life we can see in what is the opposite, that which is bad. One knows bad when it happens to them. Doing and accepting bad IS a problem to be solved though, and can be done through the accepting and doing the opposite of bad, good, the Good that is God. I can’t define good other than I know it when I do it in cooperation with God.

 

[Leela]

Experience leads one to see the results of good or bad in other as well as ourselves. …One knows bad when it happens to them. Doing and accepting bad IS a problem to be solved though, and can be done through the accepting and doing the opposite of bad, good… I can’t define good other than I know it when I do it …

I agree with the above edited quote. I can’t see what is added by including the parts I cut out. Whether or not you posit a source for good and bad is a wheel that spins independently of how we figure out what is good and bad. In other words, whether I accept or reject the equation God is Good, I still have the same problem of trying to do good and avoid doing bad and I can’t see how my acceptance or rejection of that equation helps me do that without knowing a heck of a lot more about what God is and what good is other than “I can’t define [it]” but “I know it when I do it.”

 

[matahari]

Yes, I really do. That is why I am here. I want to spread your uncle’s message that life is not a problem to be solved.

---

But my uncle was a Religious brother . He lived his life joyfully and with commitment till his death .

 

[Leela]

---

But my uncle was a Religious brother . He lived his life joyfully and with commitment till his death .

I am also comitted to living my life joyfully and with a concern for others, and as long as your uncle did not hold life as a problem to be solved (by which we can assume he did not seek to impose his “solution” on anyone else) I wouldn’t hold his religion against him.

 

[Shike]

My concern is with those who think they possess the one right solution and that their answer must be imposed on others.

Doesn’t “imposed” mean forced?

I can’t remember the last time I read in the paper 13yr old Muslim girl forced to convert to Christianity or anything similar (oh, but we would, right, given the chance? The minute you turn your back… bam! Convert or die, right?). Let’s not get carried away.

But then again, I don’t read the paper that much.

Yes, I really do. That is why I am here. I want to spread your uncle’s message that life is not a problem to be solved.

Then I hope you are pro-life and are willing to help mothers and their children.

 

[Thales]

Some earlier posts conceived God and goodness, as one, being thought of as a Platonic form. I sort of agree with this in one sense of the word good. Some people have described “good” as the height of an aspiration. Something like, perfection or accuracy in what a thing is supposed to be. This is far from the moral defenition of good, which is where I think Leela was attacking the Platonic reference. A painting can be good, following accurate use of artistic elements, light and shadow, composition, etc to reach a desired effect/end. Good here does not infer any sort of moral value. That same painting could be a Nazi commissioned painting of the glory of Auschwitz. Clearly not morally good, but still a good painting.

God, as a being, is the height of existence, the creator of all other beings. The creator cannot make something greater than itself, so logically if God exists and is the creator, He is also the hieght of existance and by one definition of good, God is not just good, but the ultimate good. An end which all things aspire towards in order to reach fulfillment.
Man was created by God with a certain intent as well, and at the outset he was “very good”. Because of free will man was able to choose to deny or turn away from that which he was designed, from his intended purpose. This turning away is sin and evil. By following his own will, man, by his own free will, misses the mark.

This example assumes there is a God, because Russell does in the original quote. It is not a proof of God through goodness or a decision on His moral goodness either. I just wanted to isolate one defenition of goodness and show how God is good in that respect.

 

[d_erford]

I am also comitted to living my life joyfully and with a concern for others, and as long as your uncle did not hold life as a problem to be solved (by which we can assume he did not seek to impose his “solution” on anyone else) I wouldn’t hold his religion against him.

Hello, this is my first post

I think it depends on what your definition of “problem” is. If you view it as “a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome and needing to be dealt with and overcome”, then believers should not view life as a “problem”. But if you view life as having a specific end it was created to meet (such as spending eternity with God), then the “problem” could be determining how to achieve that goal. As Christians, we believe God has given us a guide in His Word, the Bible. Furthermore, as Catholics, we believe God has given us the teaching authority of the Church. From there, it is not a matter of imposing our beliefs on others out of pride and arrogance, but a matter of wanting what is truly best for others (having a “concern for others”, as you state). That is why we try to make disciples of all nations, because we believe God has given the Catholic Church the most complete set of tools to achieve the end for what we were created, and we wish everyone to have that same set of tools. This does not mean people of other faiths cannot get to Heaven, but that it may in fact be more difficult for them to do so because they would be lacking many of the helpful graces God provides through the sacraments and liturgy of the Church.

 

[Thales]

Hello, this is my first post

Well put d_erford, I agree! And welcome to Catholic Answers Forum!

 

[Thales]

I’ve seen the Russell quote boiled down into Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma and put this way; “is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

I’m not going to comment on the first horn of the dilemma right now, but I don’t think saying yes to the second negates the first. That said, I do agree with the second horn; God commands us to do things because they are good.

“If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God."

Why would something indirectly but intentionally created by God or anyone be logically anterior to the creator?

 

[Leela]

I’ve seen the Russell quote boiled down into Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma and put this way; “is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

I’m not going to comment on the first horn of the dilemma right now, but I don’t think saying yes to the second negates the first. That said, I do agree with the second horn; God commands us to do things because they are good.

“If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God."

Why would something indirectly but intentionally created by God or anyone be logically anterior to the creator?

Russell is saying that if you accept the second horn, you are saying that good is not merely what God commands but what God recognizes as good. So he doesn’t create the distinction between good and bad, he just recognizes which things are good and which are bad. The existence of good then preceeds God’s judgment of it as good or bad.

 

[Thales]

Russell is saying that if you accept the second horn, you are saying that good is not merely what God commands but what God recognizes as good. So he doesn’t create the distinction between good and bad, he just recognizes which things are good and which are bad. The existence of good then precedes God’s judgment of it as good or bad.

But what if you view the whole system of good and bad (morality) as a construct developed within His creation, when man came on the scene. If you think of God before the creation of man, what we call moral good doesn’t really mean anything. Morality concerns man and his interaction with other men, living in a physical world.

Does Russell’s argument depend on people thinking morality can only be known through God? I don’t, and I don’t think the Church does either. Man can figure out aspects of morality on his own, I just think it is going to be very piecemeal, extraordinarilly difficult and painful, and still no one will ever find concensus.

 

[d_erford]

Russell is saying that if you accept the second horn, you are saying that good is not merely what God commands but what God recognizes as good. So he doesn’t create the distinction between good and bad, he just recognizes which things are good and which are bad. The existence of good then preceeds God’s judgment of it as good or bad.

Hello, Leela.

What I write below will not be able to “prove” the Christian point of view because that point of view requires faith and the understanding that God is a mystery that we will never be able to understand completely. But perhaps it could begin to answer some questions.

If we believe God is all-good and define evil (or “bad”) as a privation of good, then there was originally no “bad” for God to distinguish from “good” because God was all that existed until He created the world. So “good” and “bad” cannot precede God. So we are left with the other horn: did God arbitrarily determine what to command as “good” and “bad”? “Goodness” is a facet of the fact that “God is love” (a mysterious tautology due to our limited human intellect). Actions that are considered “good” are those that are in line with God’s essence as love. For example, we know that one aspect of love is that a loving action is done by someone who has great concern for the well-being of the one they are loving. So rape, because it is a violence against the well-being of the victim, is not loving, meaning it is not in line with God’s essence and therefore is not good. So God could never desire that rape be considered good because it is against his essence as love.

Does this mean that God is not omnipotent? It depends on your definition. If you believe “omnipotent” means being able to do anything, regardless of definitions, reality, the law of contradiction, etc., then God is not omnipotent. But if we believe that God is love and His power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical, we realize His inability to say “rape is good” is not due to lack of power, but because it is against His very reality He has revealed to us as love. It is impossible for the same reason that it is impossible to draw a square circle: contradictory definitions.

Though I know it can’t completely answer the question because the final answer requires faith, I hope that helps a little.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

When I was a teenager I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”, and it seriously blew my mind. That book was one of the major factors in turning me into an atheist for a few years. I picked it up again the other day, for the first time in about ten years, and I was underwhelmed, to say the least. One of his arguments does have me puzzled, though. I’ll just quote from the book for clarity:

“If you are quite sure that there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or not?If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, then you must say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.”

Anybody want to help me out on this one, or point me towards a good book on the subject?

Pat

Plato’s Euthyphro.

Although Socrates doesn’t actually answer the question in that dialogue. I posted that more to remind everyone of just how old this objection/issue is. Russell is certainly not the first one to think of it, nor is this a question that affects only Christian beliefs. I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I’m sure that in seven pages someone must have posted the standard answer (really, Bertrand Russell; do you think Christians never thought that one through? ).

 

[severntofall]

But what if you view the whole system of good and bad (morality) as a construct developed within His creation, when man came on the scene. If you think of God before the creation of man, what we call moral good doesn’t really mean anything. Morality concerns man and his interaction with other men, living in a physical world.

A legitimate point; however if that is the case then one is forced to wonder why the god of the OT so frequently resorted to encouraging his followers to commit heinous acts that every single one of us would consider absurdly evil today (Hitler and Stalin type evil if not worse).

Does Russell’s argument depend on people thinking morality can only be known through God? I don’t, and I don’t think the Church does either. Man can figure out aspects of morality on his own, I just think it is going to be very piecemeal, extraordinarilly difficult and painful, and still no one will ever find concensus.

You mean just like it’s always been throughout human history and religious history.

 

[tonyrey]

I

f we believe God is all-good and define evil (or “bad”) as a privation of good, then there was originally no “bad” for God to distinguish from “good” because God was all that existed until He created the world. So “good” and “bad” cannot precede God.

 

[matahari]

. My concern is with those who think they possess the one right solution and that their answer must be imposed on others.

Best,
Leela

---

Your concern is with those who think they posess the one right solution. The solution to what are you referring ?
Tonette

 

[Leela]

---

Your concern is with those who think they posess the one right solution. The solution to what are you referring ?
Tonette

There isn’t just one “one right solution.” There are as many “one right solution”'s as there are religions.