Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[McBell]

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.

And yet the Bible paints a different story.
I can present 613 separate pieces of evidence that God changes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Speaking for myself, what I'm trying doing is to evaluate a claim. At a fundamental level, it's no different than anything else:

- I think that the way my car is running is caused by my fuel pump. If I want to confirm this, I replace the fuel pump with a different one and see if this changes how the car runs. If there's no change, then I know that it was something else and not the fuel pump that caused what I observed.

- you claim that the way the world is is because God exists and He's benevolent. If we want to confirm this, we (at least conceptually and hypothetically) replace God with a different one and see (again, conceptually and hypothetically) if this changes how the world is.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I find that "defined well enough" for me usually equates to "used to think that way, myself". And if I didn't, well...

Most of us are skilled at stories and story-telling from childhood. Fewer though are skilled at myth.

 

[sojourner]

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.

The only way we can understand God is through theology. The theological construct we have formulated makes sense to us, although it isn't without problems. One of them is the theodicy question: "Where is a good God, in the midst of human suffering?" This is no different from any other discipline. Science only gets us so far before it begins to unravel. So does psychology. So does medicine. We can only understand what we can understand.

Theology seeks to understand something that is, ultimately, not understandable. It operates on a universal human intuition that there's "something more" than us -- something beyond our understood experience. That's what we call "God," and we have constructed an understanding of that, based upon the parameters of scripture, Tradition, reason, and experience.

God cannot be shown to be benevolent in an objective sense. The only way we can understand God is through the theological construct that makes subjective sense to us. Therefore, the only way to really argue the question of "why do people assume God is benevolent," is from a theological platform -- specifically, the theological construct that makes sense to us.

What I have hoped to point out is precisely that -- and the reasons why the theology works out that way. Ultimately, it is a question of "Why do you believe what you do?" I thought I answered that.

 

[sojourner]

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.

The problem is, as I've explained, any question dealing with God is a theological question. The question, "Why do feel a need to have a theological construct," is a psychological question. But that's not the question that was asked.

You're right. There is no real theological basis for love and goodness. Obviously, those who don't espouse a religion have those experiences, and psychologists can talk about the impact those things have on the human psyche. What I'm saying is that we have perceived this innate state within ourselves, and constructed a theology around it, to help us get a handle on it, so that it has meaning for us.
That's really all theology does, just as with any other discipline.

For example, you could talk about atomic theory till you're blue in the face. But that doesn't really have any meaning, until the bomb goes off in the next town over, and you're left dealing with the literal and figurative fallout. Then it has meaning. Sometimes, theology can help in constructing that meaning. Sometimes, psychology can help. But no one discipline can be a "catch-all" for human understanding.

So, if we were to change the question to read, "in what way does suffering carry meaning for us?" Many of us would find meaning in a theological answer.

 

[sojourner]

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.

It brings meaning, and meaning is important to human beings.

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.

We have to begin somewhere in order to find meaning. Ultimately, a malevolent being tricking us doesn't convey any real meaning, especially where hope, desire, love, trust and compassion are concerned.

We assume that God is good and that God conveys those things we desire. Why would we assume to worship that which we don't desire? It would not inform our lives.

We have to begin with ourselves, because it's the only thing we really know. Since we hold these particular attributes in a place of prime importance, it's those things that give us impetus to live. It's those things that we stay alive for. it's those things that we want to be eternal for us. Therefore, we "flesh out" those eternal things with an understanding that carries meaning for us -- an understanding of God, in whom these "eternal things" are evident. That's all we can really know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find that "defined well enough" for me usually equates to "used to think that way, myself". And if I didn't, well...

I never thought that a worldwide flood actually happened.

When I said "defined well enough", I just meant that whoever is giving you the hypothetical gives you enough information that you can work with it. For example, say someone asked me "what would you do if hamburgers ate people?" My answer might be "I'd avoid hamburgers and stick to hot dogs." I don't need to have ever thought that this was really the case to entertain the notion.

However, if the person then turned around and said "well, then you'd be dead, because the hot dogs would eat people too," then there's no point. They didn't frame the hypothetical scenario properly.

I hope my silly example illustrates what I meant.

The problem is, as I've explained, any question dealing with God is a theological question.

But I've re-phrased my question so it doesn't deal with God, it deals with Squiggly. Squiggly is not God.

You're right. There is no real theological basis for love and goodness. Obviously, those who don't espouse a religion have those experiences, and psychologists can talk about the impact those things have on the human psyche. What I'm saying is that we have perceived this innate state within ourselves, and constructed a theology around it, to help us get a handle on it, so that it has meaning for us.
That's really all theology does, just as with any other discipline.

But you're acting like your answer is necessarily the only one. It's just as easy to suppose that this "innate state" you're talking about was not caused by God at all, or that it was caused by God but not for the reasons you think He did, or that God created it when He cared, but now He just doesn't give a darn (... or no longer exists... or is now indisposed with other matters).

For example, you could talk about atomic theory till you're blue in the face. But that doesn't really have any meaning, until the bomb goes off in the next town over, and you're left dealing with the literal and figurative fallout. Then it has meaning.

I live in the evacuation zones of both an 8-reactor nuclear power plant and a 4-reactor one. My sense is that the technicians and engineers who run both of them are able to derive meaning from atomic theory without a reactor blowing up.

Speaking personally, I'm able to derive meaning from, say, the equations of friction and what they imply without any cars at all skidding off a curve and crashing. In fact, the entire discipline of engineering is based around the idea that people can appreciate the consequences of abstract ideas without actually experiencing them.

Sometimes, theology can help in constructing that meaning. Sometimes, psychology can help. But no one discipline can be a "catch-all" for human understanding.

So, if we were to change the question to read, "in what way does suffering carry meaning for us?" Many of us would find meaning in a theological answer.

But that wasn't the question. The question was "how can we tell that God is benevolent and not apathetic?" and you still haven't really answered it.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, how exactly are we supposed to debate with you?

Theologically.

You claim that any argument that is contrary to your theological construct is invalid.

That's because you're mixing arguments. You can't argue theology with science. Which is why the "10,000 year old earth" is a non-argument. We know that the earth is older than that, regardless of what the Bible says.

Since the question is a theological question, it can only be debated theologically. When we ask, "How old is the earth?" What's the best discipline to use? Science. When we ask, "How do we understand ourselves in the world?" What's the best discipline to use? Philosophy.
If we ask, "How do we deal with suffering?" The best discipline might be psychology. But if we ask, "How do we understand suffering in light of a benevolent God?" Then we're in the realm of theology.

Your arguments are invalid, because they're not theological.

Of course any sort of argument against your theological construct will be contrary to your theological construct.

The construct can only be challenged by another construct.

That's your frustration. You don't want to argue theology from a theological standpoint.

Perhaps the question ought to be changed, then. We seem to have digressed from "Why do we view God in this way?" to "How can your theology possibly be correct, when we cannot prove it objectively?"

 

[sojourner]

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

Illuminating what? A real answer to the OP, or that theology is silly, because it can't be proven?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Illuminating what? A real answer to the OP, or that theology is silly, because it can't be proven?

Yes, I think it would help to point toward a real answer to the OP.

 

[sojourner]

- you claim that the way the world is is because God exists and He's benevolent.

No, I'm claiming that the OP assumes God's existence, and hoping to explain why we believe God to be benevolent.

To use your example, you assume the car has a fuel pump. Therefore, you deal with the fuel pump when you perceive a fuel pump problem. Then, when that doesn't work out, you begin to say, "Maybe the car doesn't really even have a fuel pump. Let's think of other ways that a car with an internal-combustion engine might operate, if there were no such thing as a fuel pump."

 

[McBell]

Since the question is a theological question, it can only be debated theologically.

for you perhaps.
BUt it seems that there are those who are not restricted to such limitations.

 

[sojourner]

But I've re-phrased my question so it doesn't deal with God, it deals with Squiggly. Squiggly is not God.

A rose by any other name...
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be...

But you're acting like your answer is necessarily the only one. It's just as easy to suppose that this "innate state" you're talking about was not caused by God at all, or that it was caused by God but not for the reasons you think He did, or that God created it when He cared, but now He just doesn't give a darn (... or no longer exists... or is now indisposed with other matters).

It's only easy to suppose if we suppose God's non-existence...which the OP doesn't do.

I've explained why we formulate the construct the way we do. Because that's the only that's been posited here that carries any real meaning for humanity, the way we find ourselves.
No. This theology isn't the only valid one. But it's the one that "works," given the circumstances laid out in the OP. If you want to come up with a theological construct that makes sense, based upon God "not caring," or "God is too busy," please feel free to do so, and we'll discuss theology on that basis. But you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments that are cogent to your construct.

I live in the evacuation zones of both an 8-reactor nuclear power plant and a 4-reactor one. My sense is that the technicians and engineers who run both of them are able to derive meaning from atomic theory without a reactor blowing up.

and when the reactor does melt down, and life is profoundly affected in unexpected ways, how will atomic theory provide any meaning for the state in which the victims find themselves?

Speaking personally, I'm able to derive meaning from, say, the equations of friction and what they imply without any cars at all skidding off a curve and crashing. In fact, the entire discipline of engineering is based around the idea that people can appreciate the consequences of abstract ideas without actually experiencing them.

And when the car skids off the road, and the result is a dead 4-year-old, and the thing is no longer an abstract idea, but a dead, beloved, innocent relative, how will engineering provide meaning for that reality?

But that wasn't the question. The question was "how can we tell that God is benevolent and not apathetic?" and you still haven't really answered it.

No, the question is, "Why do most people assume God is benevolent?" And I have answered it. You just don't buy the answer. If the question were, "How can we tell that God is benevolent and not apathetic?" my answer would have been completely different.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I think it would help to point toward a real answer to the OP.

A real answer, or one that you're comfortable with?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I'm claiming that the OP assumes God's existence, and hoping to explain why we believe God to be benevolent.

To use your example, you assume the car has a fuel pump. Therefore, you deal with the fuel pump when you perceive a fuel pump problem. Then, when that doesn't work out, you begin to say, "Maybe the car doesn't really even have a fuel pump. Let's think of other ways that a car with an internal-combustion engine might operate, if there were no such thing as a fuel pump."

Actually, that's a bad example, since it's quite possible to imagine an internal combustion engine without a fuel pump. Most small engines don't have one - it's rare that you'll find a gas-powered lawn mower with a fuel pump; instead, the fuel is fed by gravity.

Assuming you're starting from a blank slate, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility that a car operated without a fuel tank until you had conclusively identified that the engine wouldn't have enough fuel pressure without one. This would mean making conclusive determinations about how much pressure the fuel system would supply without a pump (is the tank mounted in the floor or on the roof?) and how much fuel pressure the car actually requires (is the engine carburetted or fuel injected?).

Edit: I think this is similar to what you're doing. It seems like you've made up your mind about certain things and now refuse to accept other possibilities that conflict with them. Notice the similarity:

- God has to be benevolent, because then he wouldn't be God!
- the car has to have a fuel pump, because if it were carburetted and fed from a fuel tank on the roof, it wouldn't be a car!

I don't think either of these statements are really defensible.

 

[sojourner]

for you perhaps.
BUt it seems that there are those who are not restricted to such limitations.

Which is precisely why we're not getting anywhere.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, that's a bad example, since it's quite possible to imagine an internal combustion engine without a fuel pump. Most small engines don't have one - it's rare that you'll find a gas-powered lawn mower with a fuel pump; instead, the fuel is fed by gravity.

You said, "car," not "lawn mower."

Assuming you're starting from a blank slate, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility that a car operated without a fuel tank until you had conclusively identified that the engine wouldn't have enough fuel pressure without one. This would mean making conclusive determinations about how much pressure the fuel system would supply without a pump (is the tank mounted in the floor or on the roof?) and how much fuel pressure the car actually requires (is the engine carburetted or fuel injected?).

We're not beginning with a blank slate, though. We're beginning with certain assumptions, which you seem comfortable changing in the middle. Can't do that and do any justice to the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A rose by any other name...
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be...

Hang on - you can't have it both ways. You disagreed with my hypothetical because you said it wasn't God. Now you're saying it is God. Which is it?

It's only easy to suppose if we suppose God's non-existence...which the OP doesn't do.

The OP allows for a range of approaches. In any case, you don't need to suppose the non-existence of God to suppose the existence of an apathetic God. The two things are mutually exclusive, actually.

I've explained why we formulate the construct the way we do. Because that's the only that's been posited here that carries any real meaning for humanity, the way we find ourselves.

But it's not that at all. Plenty of people have formulated constructs for God that aren't benevolent at all. It seems like you're conflating yourself with all of humanity.

No. This theology isn't the only valid one. But it's the one that "works," given the circumstances laid out in the OP.

There were no circumstances laid out in the OP. It just asked why people assume that God is benevolent.

If you want to come up with a theological construct that makes sense, based upon God "not caring," or "God is too busy," please feel free to do so, and we'll discuss theology on that basis. But you'll have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments that are cogent to your construct.

But that's the thing; this isn't how discussions work. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to say "Given 'X', what do you think about 'Y'?" without going through a rigorous proof for 'X'.

In fact, that's the approach I've taken in this thread. For purposes of this discussion, I've taken it as given that a God I don't believe in exists. If we're going to apply your standard, then before we even get to the point we're at, don't you have some homework to do to come up with a convincing argument for your version of God?

and when the reactor does melt down, and life is profoundly affected in unexpected ways, how will atomic theory provide any meaning for the state in which the victims find themselves?

And when the car skids off the road, and the result is a dead 4-year-old, and the thing is no longer an abstract idea, but a dead, beloved, innocent relative, how will engineering provide meaning for that reality?

You're moving the goalposts. The theoretical and abstract are connected to the real and physical things they represent. You claimed that the two things were detached. Now it seems that you're complaining that the theories of friction don't provide comfort to grieving relatives of collision victims, which is a whole different thing than what we were talking about before.

No, the question is, "Why do most people assume God is benevolent?" And I have answered it. You just don't buy the answer. If the question were, "How can we tell that God is benevolent and not apathetic?" my answer would have been completely different.

It's an aspect of the original question. The OP asked why people assume that God is benevolent. I'm asking why people assume that God is benevolent as opposed to some other attribute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said, "car," not "lawn mower."

And you said "internal combustion engine". The things that stop us from typically having cars without fuel pumps are things like performance and fuel efficiency, not physical impossibility.

BTW - many early cars had no fuel pump.

We're not beginning with a blank slate, though. We're beginning with certain assumptions, which you seem comfortable changing in the middle. Can't do that and do any justice to the OP.

Exactly which assumptions have I changed?

 

[sojourner]

You disagreed with my hypothetical because you said it wasn't God. Now you're saying it is God. Which is it?

Actually, that's why I used this example. You seem to think that renaming something makes it no longer that thing. You can't assume a universe in which God doesn't exist -- and then use an example in which a "being" entirely like God is presented.

I objected to an example where God is not present. You pretend to provide that and insist I answer it, when really, the example provided is God wearing different clothes, and skewed from the original understanding of God. It's a trap. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I won't play that game with you.

The OP allows for a range of approaches. In any case, you don't need to suppose the non-existence of God to suppose the existence of an apathetic God. The two things are mutually exclusive, actually.

That wasn't what we were supposing. We were supposing an innate state of humanity is not caused by God. Which you cannot easily do, unless God doesn't exist.

But it's not that at all. Plenty of people have formulated constructs for God that aren't benevolent at all. It seems like you're conflating yourself with all of humanity.

You'll have to show where a construct of God that is not benevolent carries any real meaning for humanity on a large scale.

There were no circumstances laid out in the OP. It just asked why people assume that God is benevolent.

In a construct that assumes God's benevolence, there are implied circumstances particular to that construct.

For purposes of this discussion, I've taken it as given that a God I don't believe in exists.

No you're not, or you wouldn't be arguing God's existence here.

If we're going to apply your standard, then before we even get to the point we're at, don't you have some homework to do to come up with a convincing argument for your version of God?

Already did that. The only rebuttal that seems to have been provided is that "God doesn't really have to exist, though."

You're moving the goalposts. The theoretical and abstract are connected to the real and physical things they represent. You claimed that the two things were detached. Now it seems that you're complaining that the theories of friction don't provide comfort to grieving relatives of collision victims, which is a whole different thing than what we were talking about before.

No, I didn't. I said precisely what I meant: Science helps inform the conception of the reactor. Engineering helps inform the construction of the reactor. What informs us in the aftermath of a meltdown?

It's an aspect of the original question. The OP asked why people assume that God is benevolent. I'm asking why people assume that God is benevolent as opposed to some other attribute.

If it's an aspect of the same question, you're liable to get an aspect of the same answer.