Exalting God's Morality

[TheTrendyCynic]

Discussed in another thread, there is a great fable I read on the internet that serves to illustrate a few fundamental criticisms of God's supposed omnibenevolence. One of the more compelling is this (editted for grammar):

An Atheist On Judgment Day (Excerpt)

[Eve, an atheist, stands at the front of the long line of souls waiting to be judged. She has just watched God consign to Oblivion a devout Catholic because the Catholic could not explain why he believed in God.]

"Yet here you are, before your God, on the final Day of Judgment. Why should I allow you in - a heretic, a disbeliever, an infidel - when your predecessor, devout and faithful, full of love for me, was consigned to Oblivion? Tell me why. Justify your entry to my Paradise."

Eve straightened up, looking God in the face. "Why should you let me in? Because I am a better person than you."

If Eve had looked around, she would have seen the entire line of souls, perfectly still and wide-eyed, staring at her in shock.

"What did you say?", enquired God. His voice, though barely audible, caused tremors in the mountain.

Surprised at still being alive, her mouth dry, Eve continued. "I said, because I am a better person. You have shown it yourself already. You told Martin that you watched as his mother became ill and died. You destroyed him for believing for no good reason, when his whole life had been shaped by that belief. Your preachers on Earth encourage unquestioning faith, yet you do not tell us whether that is what you want. You give people no rational basis for belief, and then when they make up their own that is not good enough for you. You listen to our prayers, yet do not answer, leaving people to rationalise events for themselves. People kill and slaughter over trivial differences in doctrine, and you look on. In the churches and temples raised in your glory, children are mentally and physically abused - in your so-called House! All over the world, throughout history, people have murdered each other for believing the wrong thing about God, for believing in the wrong God, or for not believing in any God. The poorest and most helpless people are relentlessly targeted, being told to give what little they have now, for the promise of eternal bliss later. When a person is at his lowest ebb, that is when the smiling missionaries appear, knowing that his life will probably get better naturally and they can give you the credit. In your name, the ends justify the means as long as souls are saved". Eve paused for breath, and continued.

"And you? All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing? You just sit here and you watch it all... Any person in this line, had they your power, would show greater compassion and morality. You may be God, but you are far from Godliness."

The full story can be found here.

The point makes itself: God, the supposed pinnacle of all that is good, if held to his own standards of compassion, charity and benevolence, would be condemned for greater evils than those for which he condemns his children.

 

[No*s]

Or maybe God isn't a person, and He isn't subject to human morality.

 

[lilithu]

The point makes itself: God, the supposed pinnacle of all that is good, if held to his own standards of compassion, charity and benevolence, would be condemned for greater evils than those for which he condemns his children.

<yawn...> Your god maybe, but not mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point makes itself: ...

But that won't stop us!

God, the supposed pinnacle of all that is good, ...

Omnibenevolence is not a necessary attribute of Deity.

 

[jewscout]

The point makes itself: God, the supposed pinnacle of all that is good, if held to his own standards of compassion, charity and benevolence, would be condemned for greater evils than those for which he condemns his children.

Perhaps a deity of hell fire and brim stone...
That's not how i percieve my G-d!:162:

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Or maybe God isn't a person, and He isn't subject to human morality.

Or maybe God is a fish who swims in the sea. Regardless -- be he person, deity or fish -- if he purports to be 'morally good,' then he is subject to all of the standards and values such a statement implies. You're free to say that God is immoral, of course, but you can't call him "all good" then say he isn't subject to morality. Your distinction of 'human morality' is nonsensical; there exists no other morality.

As for the rest of you, very well -- if the characteristics of your God do not match the characteristics of the God in the story (at least, those characteristics relevant to the conclusion drawn), then consider yourself off the hook. Of course, it would be helpful to the discussion if you presented why you think the conclusion drawn by the above excerpt doesn't apply to your God -- you may have noticed that I posted this thread in a debate forum.

That was intentional.

 

[No*s]

Or maybe God is a fish who swims in the sea. Regardless -- be he person, deity or fish -- if he purports to be 'morally good,' then he is subject to all of the standards and values such a statement implies. You're free to say that God is immoral, of course, but you can't call him "all good" then say he isn't subject to morality. Your distinction of 'human morality' is nonsensical; there exists no other morality.

As for the rest of you, very well -- if the characteristics of your God do not match the characteristics of the God in the story (at least, those characteristics relevant to the conclusion drawn), then consider yourself off the hook. Of course, it would be helpful to the discussion if you presented why you think the conclusion drawn by the above excerpt doesn't apply to your God -- you may have noticed that I posted this thread in a debate forum.

That was intentional.

I did post it, but I'll elaborate.

Do I believe God "moral?" Yes, because I believe Him to be the source of everything. Do I believe God to be subject to our morality? No, God is essentially supramoral, when it comes to our perspective. To my knowledge, only humans act with human morality. I see no reason to judge God by it.

Further, I don't think we can understand God. He is beyond comprehension, and as such, everything we use is a metaphor. Given that, even when I call God "loving," I am describing aspects of God's behavior. The same God also said "Isaac I have loved, and Esau I have hated." When I call God "merciful," it is simultaneously true that God said "I create the light, and I create the darkness. I create good, and I create evil."

As a result, I think the story rather contrived. Of course, you are perfectly free to establish that a deity would be subject to human morality. If you can't, the article is somewhat pointless.

 

[lilithu]

Or maybe God is a fish who swims in the sea. Regardless -- be he person, deity or fish -- if he purports to be 'morally good,' then he is subject to all of the standards and values such a statement implies. You're free to say that God is immoral, of course, but you can't call him "all good" then say he isn't subject to morality. Your distinction of 'human morality' is nonsensical; there exists no other morality.

As for the rest of you, very well -- if the characteristics of your God do not match the characteristics of the God in the story (at least, those characteristics relevant to the conclusion drawn), then consider yourself off the hook. Of course, it would be helpful to the discussion if you presented why you think the conclusion drawn by the above excerpt doesn't apply to your God -- you may have noticed that I posted this thread in a debate forum.

That was intentional.

This is what I don't get:

You're an atheist - you don't believe in God - fine. I feel no need to convince you otherwise, and there's any number of things that we can talk about instead of God. Yet you, who do not believe in God, want to talk about this thing that you don't believe in. You want to judge the morality of this thing that you don't believe in. You want us to defend this thing that you don't believe in.

I hear over and over again about how I am irrational for believing that something exists without objective evidence. And they may be right. But it seems to me much more irrational to state that something does not exist and then want to debate its morality.

 

[No*s]

Lilithu...I'd frubal you if I hadn't already tonight .

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I did post it, but I'll elaborate.

Yes, I know -- that's why I started my paragraph off with 'as for the rest of you' after addressing your post.

The sum total of your concept of morality is of human morality; you know of no other, hence the arbitrary nature of the distinction you're making. There are only two alternatives available to you: Non-morality (which is the alternative I am proposing) or some unknown concept of morality that applies only to God. The latter is clearly the one you're suggesting, since you have admitted the inherently incomprehensible nature of God.

What is the nature of this unknown characteristic? You cannot know -- the only morality you are aware of is the human variety, and so this characteristic is utterly undefinable. It could be anything. You have no idea what it is. And yet you somehow know that God possesses it.

How can you ascribe to an entity a characteristic you know nothing about?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

The motives behind my attack on Godly morality are hopelessly irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you would like to question my motives in detail, I encourage you to start a new thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for the rest of you, very well -- if the characteristics of your God do not match the characteristics of the God in the story (at least, those characteristics relevant to the conclusion drawn), then consider yourself off the hook.

Aren't we so very fortunate ...

 

[No*s]

Yes, I know -- that's why I started my paragraph off with 'as for the rest of you' after addressing your post.

The sum total of your concept of morality is of human morality; you know of no other, hence the arbitrary nature of the distinction you're making. There are only two alternatives available to you: Non-morality (which is the alternative I am proposing) or some unknown concept of morality that applies only to God. The latter is clearly the one you're suggesting, since you have admitted the inherently incomprehensible nature of God.

Yes, in a sense. I specified that God is not subject to human morality. No, I wouldn't even go for the latter. I simply say that I believe God isn't subject to anything, this includes morality.

What is the nature of this unknown characteristic? You cannot know -- the only morality you are aware of is the human variety, and so this characteristic is utterly undefinable. It could be anything. You have no idea what it is. And yet you somehow know that God possesses it.

How can you ascribe to an entity a characteristic you know nothing about?

Frankly, I only use the terms I use as metaphor. I didn't ascribe much to God. I believe God acts (I am a Christian). The terms I use are things I use to describe His acts, and they are also colored by how I perceive them as a result of my faith. I don't think you can find me ascribing anything to God except as 1). as a metaphor like I described or 2). as a result of some form of divine revelation. I may well have both in mind. I do not tend to say "God is this," and where I do, you can bet it's a result of belief in divine revelation of some sort.

 

[Majikthise]

How can you ascribe to an entity a characteristic you know nothing about?

Because that is their faith/belief.Even as an atheist myself I understand what it is to believe in god because I once did .It's not whether you believe or not but how you live your life that counts.Religion or the lack of it shouldn't effect how we treat each other ,but it can effect how we react.

 

[lilithu]

The motives behind my attack on Godly morality are hopelessly irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you would like to question my motives in detail, I encourage you to start a new thread.

Your motives for the debate would indeed be irrelevant if I chose to engage you in the debate. I was telling you why this whole thing is hopelessly irrelevant.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I do not tend to say "God is this,"

Do I believe God "moral?" Yes

You see my confusion. Is God moral or isn't he? If he is moral, and this term 'moral' does not mean the only morality of which we are aware, then what do you mean?

Frankly, I only use the terms I use as metaphor.

Please describe, explicitly, what you mean by this statement.

How can you ascribe to an entity a characteristic you know nothing about?
Because that is their faith/belief.

Regardless of how you know something, you are still knowing something. The term 'Godly Morality' is just that -- a term, a meaningless conglomeration of articulated sounds with no reference to reality until it is defined. If No*s cannot define what it means, he is believing in nothing more than a meaningless collection of thirteen letters and a blank space.

 

[lilithu]

Because that is their faith/belief.Even as an atheist myself I understand what it is to believe in god because I once did .It's not whether you believe or not but how you live your life that counts.Religion or the lack of it shouldn't effect how we treat each other ,but it can effect how we react.

Dude, you made my day! The system won't let me frubal you so soon since the last, but I won't forget!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You see my confusion.

Yes, and with all due respect to your objectivist epistemology, 'Godly Morality' is no more a "meaningless conglomeration" than is the term "electron spin".

 

[Pah]

If God can not be judged by standards of morality, then his commandments become the orders of a parent who says "Do as I say, not as do". I wish not to be treated as a child.

You can take my comments in two ways. One, that I am negative and/or hostile about faith or, two, that it is the evidence I have accepted for not beleiving in God. The second is what I wish you to understand.

 

[No*s]

You see my confusion. Is God moral or isn't he? If he is moral, and this term 'moral' does not mean the only morality of which we are aware, then what do you mean?

Actually, I thought I made it clear. How about I requote the quotes this way?

I do not tend to say "God is this,"

Do I believe God "moral?" Yes, because I believe Him to be the source of everything.

Read those sentances together, and I think you'll get the picture. God is the cause of everything. Everything comes from Him, and this includes morality. Since I believe He teaches morality, that it has its source in Him, and that He has acted redemptively in the world, I apply the term to Him. He is "moral."

I did not say that God was subject to human morality, and I specified that in the post where I said "Do I believe God `moral?' Yes."

Please describe, explicitly, what you mean by this statement.

When I say that I use "metaphor," I mean exactly that. I cannot know God directly, so I either rely on divine revelation or metaphor to describe it. When I say metaphor, I mean, "a word or phrase to explain the attributes of another." God is loving. He acts in ways that I would interpret "loving." God is also described as "hateful," because He has caused suffering. They are interpretations of action. When I say God is Triune, I depend on what I believe to be divine revelation. I haven't reasoned up to the point.

I rely on metaphor, because there is really no other sound way to say things about God beyond "Creator." Even that may be disputed in a discussion.

Regardless of how you know something, you are still knowing something. The term 'Godly Morality' is just that -- a term, a meaningless conglomeration of articulated sounds with no reference to reality until it is defined. If No*s cannot define what it means, he is believing in nothing more than a meaningless collection of thirteen letters and a blank space.

I actually specified that "God is not subject to morality," and further "God isn't subject to anything." Thus, the term "Godly Morality" is not my term, so I have no need to define it. Scarecrows are not only easy to knock down but they are easy to discern when the person against whom you argue has already denied the position being knocked down.