Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

When you use ‘innate’ it has the connotation that such a trait was always there. There was a time, the earliest life, when such a trait would not have been present. It is only though the effect of environmental attrition acting upon many generations that led to the trait being developed. Essentially the use of the word ‘innate’ is pulling a fast one by setting the trait itself up to be ascribed to god(s).

That make sense?

Playing devil's advocate, can you state that there was a time when the trait was not present with any degree of sureity? For instance, if we suggest that the trait accompanies self-awareness, perhaps, in that once beings became self-aware the need to protect the aware self was born, and that, perhaps, the value of this protection as "good" can be considered as inherent to the trait.

The arguments made above make no indication that the 'good' comes from anywhere but is innate to humans --as we are here, today.

 

[themadhair]

Playing devil's advocate, can you state that there was a time when the trait was not present with any degree of sureity?

Yes if you consider self-replicating systems to be life.

The arguments made above make no indication that the 'good' comes from anywhere but is innate to humans --as we are here, today.

You’re joking right? You quoted the following from me only a few posts ago – Do you realise that the instinct to desire happiness (broadly defined) is a result of those environmental pressures over those generations? .

 

[Falvlun]

When you use ‘innate’ it has the connotation that such a trait was always there. There was a time, the earliest life, when such a trait would not have been present. It is only though the effect of environmental attrition acting upon many generations that led to the trait being developed. Essentially the use of the word ‘innate’ is pulling a fast one by setting the trait itself up to be ascribed to god(s).

That make sense?

Though I agree with your point that our desire for happiness doesn't necessarily point to God, I think you might be missing sojourner's point. He's completely backed away from trying to prove that God is benevolent in any sort of objective sense. He is now simply providing reasons why, within his theology, one should consider God to be benevolent. In his theology, God exists. This God is benevolent. We are made in God's image, so therefore we desire goodness. Our desire of goodness points to God's nature since we are made in his image.

Obviously, there are many assumptions within that bit of theology, but according to sojourner, you can't question it, except from within said theology. Seeing as the theology includes the concept that God is benevolent, I'm not sure how you could ever even question that God is benevolent.

 

[themadhair]

I haven't touched on whether or not god is/isn't benevolent. I think the question in the OP is more psychological in nature (i.e. why do people make this assumption) rather than theological.

The problem that I see with sojouner's argument is that it screams 'assuming the conclusion' at me. That the conclusion in this case (we desire happiness and the variants thereof) doesn't seem to need a theological basis, and if fact holds regardless of the truth of that theological basis, just bugged me into a response if I'm honest.

I have a disdain for 'presuppositional' argument I suppose.

 

[Falvlun]

Through metaphor and allegory. A person named "Eve" didn't factually, in human history, listen to a talking snake and eat a piece of fruit. That's not the way the world *is*. But that allegory helps us to understand our place in the world.

My question was how something can help you understand the world if it doesn't represent the way the world actually is. I include properly applied allegories or metaphors as representations of how the world is. To use your Eve example, the allegory is telling you a truth about the world: your place in it. I don't suppose you believe it is telling you the opposite of the truth about the world: it says your place in the world is X, when really it is Y. This would be more akin to what I was getting at in regards to how theology can be helpful if it doesn't necessarily tell is the true way of things.

Besides, in relation to the context of my question, I fail to see how believing that God is benevolent can be taken as a metaphor.

If we didn't have our innate desire for love and goodness, then I suppose I could agree with that. That being said, though, since those things are understood by us to be our "right" state of being, benevolence is comprised of love and goodness.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this addresses my "malevolent Being" hypothesis. I agree that benevolence is comprised of love and goodness, but there is no reason to assume that a malevolent being couldn't have made us desire love and goodness just so that we'd be tortured even more in a world of evil and suffering.

 

[Willamena]

Yes if you consider self-replicating systems to be life.


You’re joking right? You quoted the following from me only a few posts ago – Do you realise that the instinct to desire happiness (broadly defined) is a result of those environmental pressures over those generations? .

Okay; you've lost me. I don't follow.

 

[themadhair]

Okay; you've lost me. I don't follow.

Things that bring us happiness – food, sex, shelter, company, etc. – all greatly aid survival. Creatures that better sought these things out were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. This continual selective pressure led to the development of the instinctual basis to seek happiness out.

Why do humans value company for example? Because our ancestors, over many generations, were subjected to an environmental selective pressure that favoured those who better sought out company. In any given generation those who sought out company more efficiently were more likely to survive and pass on that trait. Those that were not so adept at seeking out company would be less likely to survive. This continual reinforcing and selecting for company-seeking traits led to the instinct we humans have for each others company.

That help?

 

[cottage]

Babies are entirely selfish. Like the adults they will become they are learning all the time how to achieve happiness. And happiness is only 'goodness' where it is good for them. The love that babies crave is the satisfying their needs, food and comfort.

 

[Willamena]

Things that bring us happiness – food, sex, shelter, company, etc. – all greatly aid survival. Creatures that better sought these things out were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. This continual selective pressure led to the development of the instinctual basis to seek happiness out.

That's a good thing...

Why do humans value company for example? Because our ancestors, over many generations, were subjected to an environmental selective pressure that favoured those who better sought out company. In any given generation those who sought out company more efficiently were more likely to survive and pass on that trait. Those that were not so adept at seeking out company would be less likely to survive. This continual reinforcing and selecting for company-seeking traits led to the instinct we humans have for each others company.

That help?

You've not indicated, though, why there would ever be a time when these things weren't a good thing for the conscious, happiness-seeking individuals involved.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"But that allegory helps us to understand our place in the world."

I have NEVER understood this. Never.

Duty calls but later I will start a thread on WHAT this Garden of Eden myth is supposed to mean. Maybe our self described master of theology could explain it.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree... unless by "moot point", you mean you'll continue to find excuses to evade the question I asked.

Tell you what - don't get caught up on the word "God". We can call the hypothetical entity "Squiggly" if you want. With that in mind, spelling things out more precisely for this hypothetical scenario:

- Squiggly exists. Squiggly (whatever Squiggly is) is all-powerful and created a universe.
- Squiggly's universe looks and feels like our universe, but for whatever reason, Squiggly no longer cares about it. Maybe Squiggly got bored with it. Whatever the reason, Squiggly doesn't do anything for anybody anymore.
- Despite Squiggly not caring, for whatever reason, we still like good things and dislike bad things. We can chalk it up to evolutionary adaptation if you want a more concrete explanation.

Taking all this as a given, you are yanked out of this universe with its loving God and plunked down on the counterpart for Earth in Squiggly's universe. You open your eyes, look around, go for a stroll and interact with the inhabitants of Squiggly's universe. How would things be different from the universe you left behind? How would the people be different? What signs would there be that in this universe that aren't present in this universe that show that its creator just doesn't care?

This doesn't work. You're ascribing attributes to God that run contrary to the theological construct. God is unchanging. God cared to create us -- God continues to care. You're creating a fantasy-land in which God is no longer God. So there's really no point in the exercise.

 

[Willamena]

"But that allegory helps us to understand our place in the world."

I have NEVER understood this. Never.

Duty calls but later I will start a thread on WHAT this Garden of Eden myth is supposed to mean. Maybe our self described master of theology could explain it.

There have been many done, but this one specifically dealt with allegory.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...803-all-creation-cursed-sins-two-nudists.html

 

[Falvlun]

This doesn't work. You're ascribing attributes to God that run contrary to the theological construct. God is unchanging. God cared to create us -- God continues to care. You're creating a fantasy-land in which God is no longer God. So there's really no point in the exercise.

sojourner, how exactly are we supposed to debate with you? You claim that any argument that is contrary to your theological construct is invalid. Of course any sort of argument against your theological construct will be contrary to your theological construct.

It is like a YEC claiming you can debate all you want about how old the Earth is, as long as one of your premises is that it is 10,000 years old.

 

[themadhair]

You've not indicated, though, why there would ever be a time when these things weren't a good thing for the conscious, happiness-seeking individuals involved.

I have never claimed the above. What I am doing is providing the explanation for why such happiness-seeking instincts necessarily develop through the natural process of life, and why such instincts do require god(s) to arise.

 

[Willamena]

sojourner, how exactly are we supposed to debate with you? You claim that any argument that is contrary to your theological construct is invalid. Of course any sort of argument against your theological construct will be contrary to your theological construct.

It is like a YEC claiming you can debate all you want about how old the Earth is, as long as one of your premises is that it is 10,000 years old.

Try imagining the debate with gravity. When we do, gravity must be assumed --to require someone to debate a world without gravity that behaves exactly as our world does would make no sense in the debate where gravity must be assumed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This doesn't work. You're ascribing attributes to God that run contrary to the theological construct.

No, I'm not. I'm ascribing attributes to Squiggly and not claiming that Squiggly is God at all. I'm saying that Squiggly has a certain set of characteristics and not making any determination of whether this makes Squiggly a god, a demon, a spirit or a two-slice toaster.

God is unchanging. God cared to create us -- God continues to care. You're creating a fantasy-land in which God is no longer God.

I'm hypothesizing. This means that what I'm suggesting doesn't actually exist, but I'm asking you to think about how things would be if it did. If you want to call it a fantasy-land, that's your prerogative.

So there's really no point in the exercise.

Maybe you don't see one, but I personally think it will be illuminating.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try imagining the debate with gravity. When we do, gravity must be assumed --to require someone to debate a world without gravity that behaves exactly as our world does would make no sense in the debate where gravity must be assumed.

I see it more like debating about gravity in a hypothetical world without the Higgs boson. Sure, it makes no sense given our current understanding of physics, but it's easy enough to entertain the notion that there's some other mechanism or phenomenon that causes gravity.

 

[Willamena]

I have difficulty answering questions posed in someone else's fantasy-land, too.

 

[sojourner]

Do you know how many generations passed before a human baby is born? Do you know the effect that environmental pressures have had on those generations? Do you realise that the instinct to desire happiness (broadly defined) is a result of those environmental pressures over those generations?

Doesn't matter how the desire is introduced. It is there. I would wager that by the time the first sentient human beings arrived, they desired love and goodness as their "natural" state. And, since it is sentient humans that conceptualize God, it is sentient humans that we're concerned with here, not some undescribed proto-being.

You are attributing to god an instinct that is an almost inevitable result of life. Organisms that better survive to reproduction get to pass on their traits. The selective pressure for such a happiness-seeking-instinct has been present for every single generation ever born on this planet. I would love to hear a valid reason from you why such an instinct could not develop in the absence of god(s).

We are assuming in this argument that God is Creator. If God is creator, then God made us with the capacities we have. The world we are discussing is assumed to have God as its impetus. Therefore, any argument about human traits developing without God's impetus is a moot point. I suppose the trait could develop in a world that was not created, but then a world that was not created doesn't help us decide why people think that God is benevolent, now does it!

Absolute rubbish sojourner and I suspect you are aware of such.

Oh? So, in a discussion wherein we seek to ascertain the correct timing for a 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass with a 350 cubic inch engine, it's relevant to begin to introduce philosophical statements where we pretend that cars don't exist. I see.

When you make the unfounded conjecture that the desire for seeking good is due to a god, then it logically begs the question of whether such a desire would arise regardless of god’s existence.

Unfounded? How is it unfounded? We're talking theology here, man! "Why do most people assume God is benevolent? When we discuss God, we assume God's existence. We assume a universe in which God is Impetus. That's the construct under debate here.
In a debate arguing God's existence, it might follow as a logical question. In a debate that assumes God's existence, I don't see how it could logically follow.
If you want to begin another thread debating where our desire for love and goodness as a norm comes from, please feel free to do so.

I present the above mentioned points as evidence that such a desire is entirely possible, if not outright inevitable, in a non-god universe.

Problem is, that's not what we're discussing here. How is "finding parts for a '56 Ford" relevant to "how to iron a shirt?"

When you ascribe traits to god that would arise regardless of god’s existence then I think I’m entitled to call you on it.

In our scenario, it's impossible for God to be non-existent.

When you then cop out of answering this criticism by claiming such a discussion is in the domain of theology, rendering any non-god discussion impossible despite it’s direct relevance to the point at hand, then I think I’m entitled to call utter vacuous bs.

It's not directly relevant. You, as a non-believer, might desire that the "possibility of God's non-existence" is always relevant, but here it's not. Any discussion of God is, by definition, in the domain of theology.

Actually in our case we were not discussing god’s attributes but an attribute that life has. You tried to pull a fast one and label that attribute of life to god.

Sorry. The topic under discussion is: "Why do most people assume God is benevolent?" The sleight-of-hand here is the attempt to take the discussion from a position of theological theodicy to one of humanistic philosophy.

Since this is a theological discussion, from the human point of view of "how can God be good, when we suffer?", it is our relationship to God, and the manner in which God created us that is relevant.

Not interested in answering reasonable criticisms to points you have made more like.

Present something reasonable, and I'll answer it.

better yet, retract as vacuous and unfounded your claim that ”That intuition [of desiring good] is fleshed out in our understanding of God”.

It's not vacuous. It's a valid theological argument, well within the theological construct in question. What is vacuous is trying to interject non-theological arguments in a theological discussion, under the guise of "logic."

Two questions that will be weaselled out of yet again To be blunt about it, in a hypothetical universe with no god can you give a compelling reason (or any reason for that matter) why creatures, through the natural process of surviving over generations, would not develop the instinct to seek out happiness (broadly defined)?
Assuming you can find no compelling reasons for the above, is not then pointless to label a trait that life, over generations, gravitates towards simply by surviving as having anything to do with a ‘theological understanding’?

These aren't real questions to be weaseled out of. They are superfluous questions that it does no good, for purposes of our discussion, to answer.

First of all, this isn't a "hypothetical universe with no God." For our discussion, it's the real universe, understood by us to have been created by God.

Second, regardless of whether I might find "compelling reasons for the above," in a discussion wherein God's attributes are under scrutiny, it is not "pointless to label a trait that life, over generations, gravitates towards simply by surviving as having anything to do with a ‘theological understanding.’" In fact, it precisely is the point. God is creator for purposes of our discussion. Therefore, what God has created is precisely a theological understanding.

What you're trying to do is divorce God from the whole discussion, and assert that theology is bogus, from the standpoint of human suffering. What is being "weaseled out of" here is not your questions, but the very "necessary existence" of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have difficulty answering questions posed in someone else's fantasy-land, too.

Really? If it's defined well enough, I don't.

Take the threads we've had here about Noah's Ark: I don't think for a second that life on Earth was ever wiped out in a divine flood or that anyone ever loaded every animal species into a boat and kept them there for a year. However, I can still consider and answer questions about what geological evidence such a flood would leave behind, or what sort of difficulties Noah would have had in feeding all those animals and dealing with their poop, or what a divine flood would imply about the nature of the God who did it.