The possibility of moral judgment of God?

[Qoeleth]

A theme which appears in Camus is the possibility of humans making an adverse moral judgment on God, e.g. “God has behaved unfairly, or cruelly, or without mercy.” A similar theme has appeared on a recent thread, about rejection of God (or the concept of God).

I suggest that moral judgment of God is, in fact, not possible, since God is, by definition, the highest level of moral goodness. If someone says or feels, “God is unfair”, they necessarily are making the judgment with reference to some higher standard of justice. But what is the source of this standard of morality- if not God Himself?

Can we pass moral judgment on God, or are we really simply passing moral judgment on Nature, Fate and the Universe?

 

[Giants]

A theme which appears in Camus is the possibility of humans making an adverse moral judgment on God, e.g. “God has behaved unfairly, or cruelly, or without mercy.” A similar theme has appeared on a recent thread, about rejection of God (or the concept of God).

I suggest that moral judgment of God is, in fact, not possible, since God is, by definition, the highest level of moral goodness. If someone says or feels, “God is unfair”, they necessarily are making the judgment with reference to some higher standard of justice. But what is the source of this standard of morality- if not God Himself?

Can we pass moral judgment on God, or are we really simply passing moral judgment on Nature, Fate and the Universe?

It seems philosophically problematic to assert that God is the highest level of moral goodness, then blaming unfairness or cruelty, etc. on Nature, Fate, and the Universe. In what sense are these concepts not regulated by God?

It’s like saying I’m the greatest, most loving parent in the history of forever, even while I take no extraordinary (or even ordinary) measures to make sure my kids are adequately fed, bathed, and clothed. Hey, if they manage it on their own, that’s great, but if not, well that’s just fickleness of Nature, Fate, and the Universe, you know? What can you do? Just know that I love you anyway.

 

[Qoeleth]

It seems philosophically problematic to assert that God is the highest level of moral goodness, then blaming unfairness or cruelty, etc. on Nature, Fate, and the Universe. In what sense are these concepts not regulated by God?

It’s like saying I’m the greatest, most loving parent in the history of forever, even while I take no extraordinary (or even ordinary) measures to make sure my kids are adequately fed, bathed, and clothed. Hey, if they manage it on their own, that’s great, but if not, well that’s just fickleness of Nature, Fate, and the Universe, you know? What can you do? Just know that I love you anyway.

What is primary to your definition of God- that He is morally good, or that He controls Fate, the Universe and Nature? The two can be difficult to reconcile.

 

[Giants]

What is primary to your definition of God- that He is morally good, or that He controls Fate, the Universe and Nature? The two can be difficult to reconcile.

Every theistic definition of God that I run up against does reconcile them though, or at least they claim to.

 

[Trurl]

This is the age-old Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good, right, just, fair because God wants, orders, demands it, or does God want, order, demand something because it is good, right, just, fair? In other words, is “good” dependent on God, or is it independent from God? There has never been a satisfactory solution to this dilemma, and no wonder.

If “good” is defined by God’s whim, it is arbitrary, and thus if God demands an atrocity, then it is good, moral thing to do, BUT somehow our “sense of justice” rebels against this picture. On the other hand, if “good” is independent from God, then God is not the final arbiter. Of course this is only a problem for believers. One can only feel sorry for them.

This really should not be a problem, after all God has no “power” over the laws of logic. Even God cannot violate the law of “non-contradiction”.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If “good” is defined by God’s whim, it is arbitrary, and thus if God demands an atrocity, then it is good, moral thing to do, BUT somehow our “sense of justice” rebels against this picture. On the other hand, if “good” is independent from God, then God is not the final arbiter. Of course this is only a problem for believers. One can only feel sorry for them.

The big issue with this approach is that God, by definition, does not have “Whims.” God, being infinite and unchanging, is not subject to “Whims” as a human would be. This is a flawed conclusion drawn by many who have no done an in depth study of the nature of the Bible. The Bible, while divinely inspired, was still written by humans, and as such was subject to the limits of human understanding. As a result, many actions attributed to God are depicted as what we would define as “Whims.” However, a whim implies a change in nature.

As God is eternal and unchanging, and as He is infinite goodness (conclusions drawn from St. Thomas Aquanias’ theorums), one could logically conclude that all that is good and moral is derived from him, and all that is bad / immoral is the result of rejecting His will.

 

[Trurl]

The big issue with this approach is that God, by definition, does not have “Whims.”

Why would anyone accept YOUR definition? Christians like to create their own “definitions”, and when someone points out that reality does not match those “definitions” then they claim “red herring”. Well, sorry. If a definition does not match reality, then it is too bad for the definition. Reality cannot be discarded, however incorrect definitions can and MUST be. Anyone is free to “define” something according to their WHIM, but that has no bearing on anything. Sure, you can argue that whatever God does is “good, just, moral - BY definition”… etc, but then you have to “castrate” the Bible, so it will “suit” your point of view. Sorry, no dice.

God, being infinite and unchanging, is not subject to “Whims” as a human would be. This is a flawed conclusion drawn by many who have no done an in depth study of the nature of the Bible. The Bible, while divinely inspired…

I have always been wondering, just what does the word “inspired” mean in this context. Did God “whisper” into the authors’ ear? Or directly “messed” with their thought process? But this is irrelevant here. Just mentioned.

As a result, many actions attributed to God are depicted as what we would define as “Whims.” However, a whim implies a change in nature.

God as depiscted in the OT is fundamentally different from the picture in the NT.

As God is eternal and unchanging, and as He is infinite goodness (conclusions drawn from St. Thomas Aquanias’ theorums),

Since the conclusions are based on logically deficient premises, they are not worth anything.

 

[inocente]

Can we pass moral judgment on God, or are we really simply passing moral judgment on Nature, Fate and the Universe?

Morally, we cannot go against our conscience.

 

[zro_x]

Excellent question qoeleth. Here’s my attempt to resolve the issue.

Just as Jesus is the Body of God, God is the mind of goodness itself, and goodness is God’s nature. so the two are really indistinguishable. Thus, by being goodness,God is the final arbiter. However, God and his nature are, according to many theologians, necessary, so God cannot change his nature (goodness) because it is logically impossible.

 

[ColdComfort]

This is the age-old Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good, right, just, fair because God wants, orders, demands it, or does God want, order, demand something because it is good, right, just, fair? In other words, is “good” dependent on God, or is it independent from God? There has never been a satisfactory solution to this dilemma, and no wonder.

If “good” is defined by God’s whim, it is arbitrary, and thus if God demands an atrocity, then it is good, moral thing to do, BUT somehow our “sense of justice” rebels against this picture. On the other hand, if “good” is independent from God, then God is not the final arbiter. Of course this is only a problem for believers. One can only feel sorry for them.

This really should not be a problem, after all God has no “power” over the laws of logic. Even God cannot violate the law of “non-contradiction”.

Euthypro is of course one of Plato’s works. It always helps to remember that Plato knew nothing of Jewish revelation. His idea of God is foreign to Christian thought.

 

[bilop]

Morally, we cannot go against our conscience.

If it is well formed. If our conscience is not well formed, it is not a good moral guide.

If your conscience is telling you to murder your neighbor b/c he plays loud music, listen to the Church, not you conscience.

God Bless

 

[inocente]

If it is well formed. If our conscience is not well formed, it is not a good moral guide.

You seem to be saying that the rule is to follow my conscience unless someone tells me it’s not well formed, when I should follow theirs. Then why not just always ignore my conscience and follow theirs?

If your conscience is telling you to murder your neighbor b/c he plays loud music, listen to the Church, not you conscience.

Your temper might tell you to kill him in a flash of anger but if you sat down and thought about it I doubt your conscience would.

What I was getting at is when I see something unfair, it could be God testing me or the devil getting at me or just the luck of the draw, I’ve no way of knowing. But if I was concerned about not judging God, I’d have to override my conscience and accept every injustice just in case it was Him and not the devil or fate.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why would anyone accept YOUR definition? Christians like to create their own “definitions”, and when someone points out that reality does not match those “definitions” then they claim “red herring”. Well, sorry. If a definition does not match reality, then it is too bad for the definition. Reality cannot be discarded, however incorrect definitions can and MUST be. Anyone is free to “define” something according to their WHIM, but that has no bearing on anything. Sure, you can argue that whatever God does is “good, just, moral - BY definition”… etc, but then you have to “castrate” the Bible, so it will “suit” your point of view. Sorry, no dice.

I have always been wondering, just what does the word “inspired” mean in this context. Did God “whisper” into the authors’ ear? Or directly “messed” with their thought process? But this is irrelevant here. Just mentioned.

God as depiscted in the OT is fundamentally different from the picture in the NT.

Since the conclusions are based on logically deficient premises, they are not worth anything.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why would anyone accept YOUR definition? Christians like to create their own “definitions”, and when someone points out that reality does not match those “definitions” then they claim “red herring”. Well, sorry. If a definition does not match reality, then it is too bad for the definition. Reality cannot be discarded, however incorrect definitions can and MUST be. Anyone is free to “define” something according to their WHIM, but that has no bearing on anything. Sure, you can argue that whatever God does is “good, just, moral - BY definition”… etc, but then you have to “castrate” the Bible, so it will “suit” your point of view. Sorry, no dice.

Definition was not the appropriate term for that, but either way it’s not mine, it’s the Church’s. God’s unchanging nature is a conclusion reached over many lifetime’s of intense study, and the entire thought behind it is far beyond my ability to comprehend. That said, it is what the church had taught for centuries, and as such is what my theory is derived from.

I have always been wondering, just what does the word “inspired” mean in this context. Did God “whisper” into the authors’ ear? Or directly “messed” with their thought process? But this is irrelevant here. Just mentioned.

I’ve actually wondered this as well, and am ill-equipped to answer this question.

God as depiscted in the OT is fundamentally different from the picture in the NT.

God as depicted in the OT is heavily influenced by the culture and knowledge of the time. God as depicted in the NT is heavily influenced by Jesus and his teachings. It is understandable that there would be a contrast in presentation considering they were written many thousands of years apart. While the presentation may be different, the fundamental truths inherent in them are the same.

Since the conclusions are based on logically deficient premises, they are not worth anything.

You dismiss St. Thomas Aquinas’s proofs because you cannot accept them. This does not negate their worth nor their correctness, just as me saying 2+2=5 does not make it so.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A theme which appears in Camus is the possibility of humans making an adverse moral judgment on God, e.g. “God has behaved unfairly, or cruelly, or without mercy.” A similar theme has appeared on a recent thread, about rejection of God (or the concept of God).

I suggest that moral judgment of God is, in fact, not possible, since God is, by definition, the highest level of moral goodness. If someone says or feels, “God is unfair”, they necessarily are making the judgment with reference to some higher standard of justice. But what is the source of this standard of morality- if not God Himself?

Can we pass moral judgment on God, or are we really simply passing moral judgment on Nature, Fate and the Universe?

This is a fascinating question. Having thought about this I came to a somewhat different conclusion.

I suggest that we can pass moral judgement on God in the same sense that a child might question an adult in the process of developing it’s conscience. In other words, it may be good for us to “wrestle with God” in this sense not because we are going to correct or change God but because it is a morally healthy practice to test our knowledge by challenging others, including our parents and God.

Now in the case of a child challenging it’s parents, it is entirely possible for the child to be right and for the parent to be wrong. That would seem impossible with respect to God. But the fact that we will alway lose the argument doesn’t mean we should not make it.

More importantly, I suggest it is absolutely necessary to pass moral judgement on nature, fate, and the universe. It is entirely appropriate for us to struggle against the environment around us. I don’t buy the argument that we should passivly submit to disease and other hardships of life. But I also don’t buy the argument that suffering, either disease or the hard work to fight it, is without moral purpose.

However, in the case of God, we have the problem of inscrutability. If, for example, a parent loses a child does he blame God? You can’t consider this subject without getting into the whole topic of theodicy.

 

[Trurl]

Definition was not the appropriate term for that, but either way it’s not mine, it’s the Church’s. God’s unchanging nature is a conclusion reached over many lifetime’s of intense study, and the entire thought behind it is far beyond my ability to comprehend. That said, it is what the church had taught for centuries, and as such is what my theory is derived from.

I did not mean that it is your personal definition, but that is not relevant. Reality does not support that definition.

God as depicted in the OT is heavily influenced by the culture and knowledge of the time. God as depicted in the NT is heavily influenced by Jesus and his teachings. It is understandable that there would be a contrast in presentation considering they were written many thousands of years apart.

Well, then, maybe a new “revelation” is in order… After all more happened in the last one hundred years than in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. But I bet… there will be no new revelation. Then again, the Bible is supposed to be the unchanging word of God. And it is anything, but unchanging.

While the presentation may be different, the fundamental truths inherent in them are the same.

Not by a long shot. You see… I read them. And I can comprehend them. What I cannot do (and will not do) is twist it around to serve my needs. Just read Luke 19:27 … where Jesus speaks in a parable. The King he speaks of is - of course - God, who else could it be? Jesus always spoke about God. Just read it… “And for those who would not want me to reign over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me”. This is Jesus speaking in the New Testament. The “fundamental” truth… yeah, right. “Love” at its best…

You dismiss St. Thomas Aquinas’s proofs because you cannot accept them. This does not negate their worth nor their correctness, just as me saying 2+2=5 does not make it so.

I can and DO accept anything rational.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I did not mean that it is your personal definition, but that is not relevant. Reality does not support that definition.

You make the claim, now you must support it. In what ways does reality not support this definition?

Well, then, maybe a new “revelation” is in order… After all more happened in the last one hundred years than in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. But I bet… there will be no new revelation. Then again, the Bible is supposed to be the unchanging word of God. And it is anything, but unchanging.

How do you figure it’s changed? The Catholic Church has maintained the exact same Bible since it was ratified in the 400’s, and prior to that the same Books were used by the vast majority of parishes. The protestants took out some books, and a few cults have sought to add some, but from where history sits, it’s been the same book for just shy of 1600 years.

Not by a long shot. You see… I read them. And I can comprehend them. What I cannot do (and will not do) is twist it around to serve my needs. Just read Luke 19:27 … where Jesus speaks in a parable. The King he speaks of is - of course - God, who else could it be? Jesus always spoke about God. Just read it… “And for those who would not want me to reign over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me”. This is Jesus speaking in the New Testament. The “fundamental” truth… yeah, right. “Love” at its best…

Oh, you read the Bible? You must be an expert! /sarcasm

If you look at the entirety of that parable (provided for you below) you will find that it is Christ teaching through parable. It is not Christ who is making the command of death, but rather the king of the story, one could rationally conclude that is a god figure, meant to represent a physical counterpart to a spiritual reality. The message in this parable is quite clear; that those who make use of God’s gifts will be given more, but those who squander and disregard those gifts will receive nothing but death, in this instance referencing the ultimate spiritual death that is Hell.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 19:11-27[/BIBLEDRB]

I can and DO accept anything rational.

Again, you make the claim. Exactly what is irrational about Aquianas’ proofs?

 

[Qoeleth]

This is the age-old Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good, right, just, fair because God wants, orders, demands it, or does God want, order, demand something because it is good, right, just, fair? In other words, is “good” dependent on God, or is it independent from God? There has never been a satisfactory solution to this dilemma, and no wonder.

If “good” is defined by God’s whim, it is arbitrary, and thus if God demands an atrocity, then it is good, moral thing to do, BUT somehow our “sense of justice” rebels against this picture. On the other hand, if “good” is independent from God, then God is not the final arbiter. Of course this is only a problem for believers. One can only feel sorry for them.

This really should not be a problem, after all God has no “power” over the laws of logic. Even God cannot violate the law of “non-contradiction”.

But it would seem that our moral ideals can never be independent of God- if God is by definition the highest good.

If, on the other hand, humans somehow had access to ‘a sense of moral goodness’ which is sufficiently high to make adverse judgment onf Fate, Nature and the Universe- the title of ‘God’ should be applied to this source of goodness.

 

[Qoeleth]

Euthypro is of course one of Plato’s works. It always helps to remember that Plato knew nothing of Jewish revelation. His idea of God is foreign to Christian thought.

The dilemna, though, was not really Plato’s, but given to a character in one of his dialogue. Plato himself would not have been troubled, as he would see God as the absolute good, and the world as mere shadows of these absolutes. Often, these shadows were distorted and imperfect, and hence the experience of natural evil. These shadows did not arise because God willed them, and God did not really control them.

Augustine believe that Moses had actually taught Plato about God. This is historically implausible, but it does reflect certain similarities in the approach to God.

 

[zro_x]

Well, then, maybe a new “revelation” is in order… After all more happened in the last one hundred years than in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. But I bet… there will be no new revelation. Then again, the Bible is supposed to be the unchanging word of
God. And it is anything, but unchanging.

There’s no need for new revelation. It is common catholic teaching that The bible contains all the truths necessary for salvation.

Not by a long shot. You see… I read them. And I can comprehend them. What I cannot do (and will not do) is twist it around to serve my needs. Just read Luke 19:27 … where Jesus speaks in a parable. The King he speaks of is - of course - God, who else could it be? Jesus always spoke about God. Just read it… “And for those who would not want me to reign over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me”. This is Jesus speaking in the New Testament. The “fundamental” truth… yeah, right. “Love” at its best…

The bible is designed by God to reach across time and space to all cultures and people. It would make sense for God to instill the fear of hell into those who are first starting their religious life. As one gets deeper into the faith, one realizes that sinful people slay themselves.