The possibility of moral judgment of God?

[fred_conty]

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.

Giants, your argument goes something like this,
Unfairness or cruelty is blamed on Nature.
Lack of basic needs of mankind is blamed on nature.
Nature is controlled by God, so if he is there, then why dosen’t he do something.

How do you know he doesen’t? In many cases he does according to good witnesses.
Your question really is why dosen’t he do something about all problems all the time.

Basically because of the multiplication of atheists.
Things would be going along so well that the next thing you know would be,
“who needs God, look at how well everything is going.”
Or “we are doing so well ourselves, there must be no God.”
Or “we are so happy, and church seems so dull.”
Or “God is dead”,
Or … or … or …

I think you get the drift.

That’s the story of the bible over and over.

I think you are thinking that well why is God so important?

Because he is our final end, and if we miss that, then it is like missing the last train to Tipporary if you get my drift. We know this because God has told us so.
“Give us that ole time religion.”

Just a few thoughts.

 

[bilop]

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?

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.

God doesn’t create injustices. He may allow them, but he doesn’t create them. I don’t think it’s ever sinful to address an injustice.

God Bless

 

[Trurl]

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

Sure. But only christians use that definition, no one else does. In your own sub-culture you have it “resolved”. But that means nothing to the ones who do not share your point of view. Here, in the outside reality, if someone orders / performs genocide, there is no “excuse”, there is no “cop-out - that maybe it was the best thing, if only we were privy to the details”. Here there is no REAL difference if God drowned the whole population, of one person drowns his kid… both are reprehensible acts.

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.

Since that “moral compass” is just what we learn from our upbringing, there is no need to “deify” it.

 

[Trurl]

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

On what grounds can anyone declare if there is a “need” for me, or for others? Isn’t that a little presumptuous? I am aware what the church “teaches”, but that teaching is only binding for catholics.

 

[Giants]

Giants, your argument goes something like this,
Unfairness or cruelty is blamed on Nature.
Lack of basic needs of mankind is blamed on nature.
Nature is controlled by God, so if he is there, then why dosen’t he do something.

How do you know he doesen’t? In many cases he does according to good witnesses.
Your question really is why dosen’t he do something about all problems all the time.

That’s only my question because God is endlessly presumed to be all-powerful and omni-benevolent. Logically, an indifferent God or a less than all-powerful God is far more plausible, given the world as we know it. But that’s not what religion is trying to sell us.

 

[ColdComfort]

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.

Yes. Perhaps I should have just said it is not an issue for Christians. We understand that God is a unity and simple and when we speak of His attributes in isolation from others we do so only because of our limitations. Plato may well have understood this, depending on the commentator you read, either in his idea of the Good or the Beautiful. As you point out
however his unifying principle bears a very ambiguous relationship to what we would call creation. So: 1) God’s will can never be seen in isolation from reason, justice and so on and 2) His creation reflects this. It is good because He made it and governs it.

It is enough to say that the dilemma our poster refers to may have been an issue for Greeks but not for Christians.

 

[Qoeleth]

Sure. But only christians use that definition, no one else does. In your own sub-culture you have it “resolved”. But that means nothing to the ones who do not share your point of view. Here, in the outside reality, if someone orders / performs genocide, there is no “excuse”, there is no “cop-out - that maybe it was the best thing, if only we were privy to the details”. Here there is no REAL difference if God drowned the whole population, of one person drowns his kid… both are reprehensible acts.

Since that “moral compass” is just what we learn from our upbringing, there is no need to “deify” it.

Are you sure? If we are to have a viable ‘moral compass’ it would seem well to deify it, or at least ‘transcendentalize’ it. I mean, what else is it’s source of credibility? That a ‘moral compass’ is socially useful? That it is rationally demonstrable? Neither of these options seem really to amount to much…

Can we not separate God from nature and fate? We might say, for example “Fate is cruel”, or “Nature is indifferent”. but these are identifying forces other than God.

Maybe the ancient Greeks had some wisdom in separating Zeus from the Fates. One was wise, merciful and good, but the others were inexorable and indifferent. (I am not advocating Greek paganism, before anyone misinterprets me). But God is not simply Fate or Nature.

 

[Trurl]

Are you sure? If we are to have a viable ‘moral compass’ it would seem well to deify it, or at least ‘transcendentalize’ it. I mean, what else is it’s source of credibility? That a ‘moral compass’ is socially useful?

Yes. That is all. Morality is a collection of written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, which changes from time to time, and which changes from society to society. Some of those rules are codified into laws, others are somewhat binding. Breaking these ones will result in social ostracism, or simply declaring the offender as “having bad manners”.

Just consider, if everyone always would behave in a socially acceptable manner, would not many social problems disappear? There would be no friction or less friction between people, for example.

Of course, the picture is not this simple. Customs change, acceptable norms change. But, by and large life would be much smoother. After all not everyone follows the “code of good manners”, but if people would follow the basic laws, life would be much more pleasant. And there is still no need to “deify” or 'transcendentalize" this system. Reason is sufficient. What would be more reasonable than respecting others and have others to respect you? The principle of reciprocity is elegant, simple and effective - without any deity to “command it”. Commands are only needed if the rules are irrational, illogical and arbitrary.

Can we not separate God from nature and fate?

I have no idea what that means.

We might say, for example “Fate is cruel”, or “Nature is indifferent”. but these are identifying forces other than God.

Personification is an age-old habit, but it has no useful purpose. There is no such thing as “fate”, and the word “fate” is not even defined in a coherent manner. To say that “nature is indifferent” is simply a poetic language, without any substance. Though I find it ironic, that people praise God when something nice happens, and blame “Mother Nature”, when the proverbial substance hits the fan. (As if “Mother Nature” would be a conscious and malevolent being!)

 

[fred_conty]

That’s only my question because God is endlessly presumed to be all-powerful and omni-benevolent. Logically, an indifferent God or a less than all-powerful God is far more plausible, given the world as we know it. But that’s not what religion is trying to sell us.

Giants, you said,
“… a less than all-powerful God is far more plausible, given the world as we know it. But that’s not what religion is trying to sell us.”

I believe you mean because there is suffering or inconvenience or something else, that this proves that God is not all-powerful, or at least this idea of God is more true.

But it seems that there is something about God that is far more important than just being all powerful from our point of view. It is being concerned with our welfare. And according to christians, the most important point of our wellfare is that of attaining happiness forever.

All the saints, to a man or woman, have said that any suffering in this world is worth it if it will lead to attain happiness forever. Jesus himself said that if an eye leads you into sin, then pluck it out. For what will a man give for the loss of his soul.

So God is more concerned for us than just our immediate happiness here on earth. But most concerned for our happiness which will last forever.

And as I mentioned before, if our life on this planet becomes easy, then we will not have our focus on what is more important, the next eternal happiness.

If this were not so, then Jesus would not have laid his life down for this principle. He doesn’t ask us to do what He himself has not done.

So no matter what happens to us here and now, it will seem as miniscule from the platform of eternity.

And thru suffering many a person has either begged God for help, or shook their fist at him. But none of them ignored him. Which is the start he has to have to help them.

Just some thoughts about the goodness of God.

 

[zro_x]

On what grounds can anyone declare if there is a “need” for me, or for others? Isn’t that a little presumptuous? I am aware what the church “teaches”, but that teaching is only binding for catholics.

I suppose that’s a good point. Revelation may be necessary to bring people to the Church, but once in, there is no need for it. At least, not on a grand scale.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yes. That is all. Morality is a collection of written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior, which changes from time to time, and which changes from society to society. Some of those rules are codified into laws, others are somewhat binding. Breaking these ones will result in social ostracism, or simply declaring the offender as “having bad manners”.

Just consider, if everyone always would behave in a socially acceptable manner, would not many social problems disappear? There would be no friction or less friction between people, for example.

Of course, the picture is not this simple. Customs change, acceptable norms change. But, by and large life would be much smoother. After all not everyone follows the “code of good manners”, but if people would follow the basic laws, life would be much more pleasant. And there is still no need to “deify” or 'transcendentalize" this system. Reason is sufficient. What would be more reasonable than respecting others and have others to respect you? The principle of reciprocity is elegant, simple and effective - without any deity to “command it”. Commands are only needed if the rules are irrational, illogical and arbitrary.

I agree that a large part of ‘morality’ is to do with socially useful behaviours. But I estimate at least 25% of the population doesn’t give a damn about ‘society’. They only follow social customs, because it is necessary to do so, in order to obtain food, property and sex.

But Christian morality, I suggest, if carried out properly actually undermines society. If people put into the the Gospel principles- helping their enemies, trying to make themselves take last place, not considering provision of the future, despising wealth and the esteem of others, loaning money without expecting to be repaid and giving to anyone who asks, choosing celibacy as the better path, society will quickly fall apart. And, personally, I wouldn’t really mind.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

#2148 ( CCC ) To do so would be a form of Blasphemy. It would be a venial sin at the least, if willful. Would be a mortal sin if one really intends this act seriously and with full reflection is present and full concent is given. A very dangerous practice even in jest because it can lead to serious demeaning of the honor due Him Who is our creator and Who is all good. Consult your confessor for more percise dedail.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Excellent answer based on natural law.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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”.

1. No dilemma. God is all good. Those who do not believe in God do not " have a dog in the race. "
2. Since God is all Good, his works are all good and he acts freely according to his free will. Since God is all knowing and infinitely wise, he does nothing " at a whim. " All his acts are at once wise, intelligent, just, and moral. We cannot judge his acts by human standards, since we are always subject to prejudice of some kind, whereas God acts for the Good which may not always be known by us.
3. God created man in his image and likeness. Therefore he is the author of logic which is a proper function of the human intellect and will. In that sense he does indeed have power of the laws of logic. The trouble is that because the human intellect and will has been weakened by sin and by the surrounding culture most men tend to be illogical, especially in things which touch them deeply.
4. As a human being, even non-believers must be logical.
5. Right. God cannot violate the true laws of logic, including the law if identity or non-contradiction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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”.

God has given us the definitions, we are not manufacturing them. Non-believers have no right to object. How can they logically object to how God defines himself ?

Well, sorry. If a definition does not match reality, then it is too bad for the definition.

How would you know if God’s definition of himself matched reality or not. He is not a reality to you, so it is not something you can judge about.

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.

Trurl, that is just plain non-sense. You have no standing to interpret the Bible, not does any other individual. Only the Catholic Church through its Magisterium is qualified to intrepret the Bible. Sorry if that does not meet with eveyones acceptance but it is the truth.

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.

Off subject. Start another thread.

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

What conclusions are you speaking of ?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

There is no reason to say that Plato and the other great Greek philosophers knew nothing about God’s Revelation to the Jews. The Greeks were great traders with contacts all over Eastern and Southern Mediterranean. It is very likely that they knew much about the Israelites.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

This has a special meaning for Catholics. Catholics are obliged to form their conscience according to the entirity of Catholic teaching in faith and morals. For us, conscience is not a free agent that can " pick and choose. "

Indeed, every Christian is obliged to form their consciences according to the best guide they have in faith and morals. Certainly we are all obliged to obey the natural moral law. I assume that non-Catholic Christians would allow the Bible to be their guide. But many would no doubt find many conflicts there. This a problem Catholics don’t have. In the end every man will be judged on how he behaved according to the best knowledge he had.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Bible has never changed, nor has the word of God. And while the Bible is a valued source of Revealed Truth, it is not the primary one. Actually, Tradition is the primary source. The New Testament was written from the Traditions handed on by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ. The Magisterium of the Church is the only valid interpreter on the Truth of the Scriptures. Of course many would object to that. But of course, it should be clear to all, that there must be an Authoritative interpreter.

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 problem Trurl is that you have no standing to make a judgment. First, you don’t believe. Second, you are not a Theologian. Thirdly, you have a bias against the entire contents of the Bible and whatever Christianity offers by way of explaination. So you judgment is of no value. It is a mere personal opinion and a highly biased one at that.

You Blaspheme God because you object to what is in the Bible. The problem is that your views are biased, you refuse to be instructed, you expect God to be made in your image. If you weren’t so prejudiced you might see better.

I can and DO accept anything rational.

With the caveat that you agree with it. That isn’t very rational

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Wrong. See #117 and following in the Catechism. It would be more proper to say that the Catechism teaches the truths necessary for salvation. Certainly the Scriptures are a valuable source but it is the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium of the Church that interprets the Scriptures and indeed the Tradition of the Church is the primary source.