Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The determination of a state as "good" implies judgement.

That's why I specified it as symbolic. If "good" symbolizes a state of nature, one that we generally think of as judgement-free, then the judgements we place upon things that bring suffering, hardship, evil, atrociousness, etc. into the world, through identification as such, stand in contrast to it.

God "brings" nature into being and declares it "good".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does no good to state that benevolence really doesn't exist, so such a belief is foolish. Because that answer is not cogent to the question of why.

I think that claim is entirely relevant. At the very least, it goes against the explanation that people think God is benevolent because God actually is benevolent and this is observable in some way.

Perhaps, if the OP didn't intend a theological discussion, it should have been worded differently, such as, "why should people believe that benevolence has anything to do with a supposed god?" Then we can argue empiricism till we're blue in the face.

You're restricting yourself to one interpretation when many are valid. You don't have to take the benevolence or even the existence of God as given to respond to the OP.

It seems like you've interpreted the OP as asking "what are the beliefs that lead most people to attribute benevolence to God (whose existence is taken as given)?" It works just as well to interpret it as "the claim 'God is benevolent' is asserted by most people; what is the basis of this claim?" The second version does not take as given the existence of God.

 

[sojourner]

Preferable is not the same thing as normal.

That's my whole argument! What we innately prefer is what is "right" for us. Why, unless we're mentally compromised, would we prefer what is not "right" for us?

No, "most people" implies popularity. "Orthodox" means "true belief". Popularity does not necessarily imply truth.

In fact, popularity rarely implies truth. however, in this case, orthodox refers not to "true," but to the type of theology that most folks espouse.

No, it indicates that the human opinion that God is benevolent is assumed.

That's what I said: ""Assume" indicates that benevolence is a given in the construct of those addressed." In other words, "assume" indicates that benevolence is the human opinion of God.

In Age of Reason, Thomas Paine's response to Christianity and defense of deism, he wrote,

The Almighty lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call ours, "I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY MUNIFICENCE TO ALL, TO BE KIND TO EACH OTHER."

He and other leading figures of deism attributed benevolence to their non-interfering, some might say apathetic, concept of God.

there we go. Now we have a theological argument based upon why. I say it's because God is love. You say it's because God provides an objective example. Shall we develop the discussion along these lines?

Thank you!

 

[sojourner]

At the very least, it goes against the explanation that people think God is benevolent because God actually is benevolent and this is observable in some way.

I didn't say that it was observable, other than by our subjective intuition.

You're restricting yourself to one interpretation when many are valid. You don't have to take the benevolence or even the existence of God as given to respond to the OP.

It seems like you've interpreted the OP as asking "what are the beliefs that lead most people to attribute benevolence to God (whose existence is taken as given)?" It works just as well to interpret it as "the claim 'God is benevolent' is asserted by most people; what is the basis of this claim?" The second version does not take as given the existence of God.

Perhaps we'd be wise to ask the OP what was meant by the question.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You've been getting imput from some sort of comics, for "shinning" is what Groundskeeper Willie's got, in a Halloween episode of "The Simpsons."

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Don't you suppose that shining and praising God consist of a process that we grow into -- even after physical death?

No, I don't so suppose. I don't pretend we grow after death - at all. However other things DO grow from us.

As in:

. . .Earth, that nourished thee, shall claim
Thy growth, to be resolved to earth again,
And, lost each human trace, surrendering up
Thine individual being, shalt thou go[SIZE=-2] 25[/SIZE]
To mix forever with the elements;
To be a brother to the insensible rock,
And to the sluggish clod, which the rude swain
Turns with his share, and treads upon.The oak
Shall send his roots abroad, and pierce thy mould.

. . .


Thanatopis
William Bryant

(The Simpson's??? Really you should get out more.)

 

[sojourner]

No, I don't so suppose.

But we do. You're projecting your beliefs on us, and then calling us "wrong."

(The Simpson's??? Really you should get out more.)

Where else have you run across a comic reference to "shinning?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that it was observable, other than by our subjective intuition.

If it's observable by our subjective intuition, then it's observable in some way ("some way" in this case being our intuition). If it's not observable in some way, then it's not observable by our subjective intuition.

Perhaps we'd be wise to ask the OP what was meant by the question.

I find it odd that you would suggest this now after 95 pages of declaring other interpretations of the question to be invalid.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“But we do. You're projecting your beliefs on us, and then calling us "wrong."”

Not really. I could make a case that is what YOU are doing.

But to leave aside for the moment our competing quotes the larger point is this.

I am not saying what you believe is wrong for you. Nor do I really care WHAT you believe (as long as you don’t entangle ME in it). But I am asserting that many of you believers lack the moral courage and intellectual integrity to simply admit that you believe what you do because you WANT to. That doing so makes you feel better. You have no evidence for it beyond your assertions and you don’t need any. You postulate an afterlife and a “growing” and heaven cause in your mind such things are need to makes sense of your lives.

Ok, so be it. Just have the guts to say so!

And quit pretending that your “theology” is some divine insight given to a select few w/o any kind of fault or flaw and true believers embody that theology.

I note that after some 500 posts you are finally coming very close to saying as much.
Congratulations.

 

[Willamena]

I am not saying what you believe is wrong for you. Nor do I really care WHAT you believe (as long as you don’t entangle ME in it). But I am asserting that many of you believers lack the moral courage and intellectual integrity to simply admit that you believe what you do because you WANT to. That doing so makes you feel better.

Do you assert that as motivation for belief or an aside to motivation? Because it would seem hypocritical to assert it without knowing (or evening wanting to know) what it is they believe (which of course includes why they believe).

 

[sojourner]

But I am asserting that many of you believers lack the moral courage and intellectual integrity to simply admit that you believe what you do because you WANT to.

I don't do that. Many times, it would be easier to just "give up" trying to make sense out of myself in the world. What happens (at least for me, and others I know) is that we sense that there is more to us than the empirical, physical way we understand ourselves. There is Reason beyond our reason, Method beyond our method, Understanding beyond our understanding, Being beyond our being, and Purpose beyond our purpose. Philosophy does not satisfy that longing for ... More. psychology does not satisfy it. Faith does, though.

Bear in mind, I'm not making absolute statements, except as I perceive them to be absolute. I say "God created the universe." If you say something else, that's fine. We all seek to understand how the universe came about, and what that means for us. I say that, because that helps me verbalize a meaning that is mostly intuitive for me. It very well might not be "God." or, "God" might mean something to me, other than what you might think.
But this isn't about feel-good for me.

You have no evidence for it beyond your assertions and you don’t need any.

i do, because it's a common expression in the culture in which I live. That being said, I'm not too comfortable with the preponderance of the kind or degree of expression I experience from others. I'm far more comfortable with Dawkins than I am with Dobson.

You postulate an afterlife and a “growing” and heaven cause in your mind such things are need to makes sense of your lives.

I would say that I intuit such things. I have evidence for myself, but it's mostly internal and subjective.

And quit pretending that your “theology” is some divine insight given to a select few w/o any kind of fault or flaw and true believers embody that theology.

i never said that. If that's how some of my statements were understood, then they were either poorly said, or poorly understood.

 

[cottage]

Evil is about people and their actions, and by extension (of us) God and God's actions. Agent->action. If God, in creating things, isn't "actioning" things (isn't an agent), if instead actions are one of the things so created (a "part" of God), and if being in a created state is a good thing, even for an action, then all things are good. We could witness a horrific earthquake or hurricane on the Discovery channel and watch fascinated with no judgement if there is no loss of human life. Hurricanes cool the earth and regulate temperature. When we observe loss of human life, suddenly it becomes "atrocious". It's we who add the judgment to the situation that inherently has none. It's we who have "left the Garden".[/quote]
Evil is about people and their actions, and by extension (of us) God and God's actions. Agent->action. If God, in creating things, isn't "actioning" things (isn't an agent), if instead actions are one of the things so created (a "part" of God), and if being in a created state is a good thing, even for an action, then all things are good.


We could witness a horrific earthquake or hurricane on the Discovery channel and watch fascinated with no judgement if there is no loss of human life. Hurricanes cool the earth and regulate temperature. When we observe loss of human life, suddenly it becomes "atrocious". It's we who add the judgment to the situation that inherently has none. It's we who have "left the Garden".

The Problem of Evil (PoE) came about not because of judgements, but because of a direct contradiction. We cannot suppose an all good God and then immediately make a special plea excepting God from the term ‘all’. If an omnipotent God has the identity of perfect goodness then whatever he causes to exist must reflect that identity. And to pose the idea of evil and suffering as somehow being independent of the causal and sustaining power of an omnipotent God, upon which the contingent world depends for every minute of its continued existence, leads us straight back to the contradiction and the PoE, which was where we started.

 

[Willamena]

The Problem of Evil (PoE) came about not because of judgements, but because of a direct contradiction. We cannot suppose an all good God and then immediately make a special plea excepting God from the term ‘all’. If an omnipotent God has the identity of perfect goodness then whatever he causes to exist must reflect that identity. And to pose the idea of evil and suffering as somehow being independent of the causal and sustaining power of an omnipotent God, upon which the contingent world depends for every minute of its continued existence, leads us straight back to the contradiction and the PoE, which was where we started.

Ah... problem of evil. Thank you.

Well, perhaps those contradictions are there also because of certain judgements... like for instance that "good" cannot be symbolic of the state of nature; that God's "creating" is an action, rather than that all actions are something created; that "omnipotent" implies certain criteria about an action of creating; that "God" is something, hence one of his creations, and yet at the same time the creator apart from and distinct from that creation; that, similarly, the mind of man and all the ideas it possesses are distinct from and not a part of the "body" (world) that "surrounds" it. If the idea is flawed (a "problem") then perhaps it is our starting point that is flawed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ah... problem of evil. Thank you.

Well, perhaps those contradictions are there also because of certain judgements... like for instance that "good" cannot be symbolic of the state of nature; that God's "creating" is an action, rather than that all actions are something created; that "omnipotent" implies certain criteria about an action of creating; that "God" is something, hence one of his creations, and yet at the same time the creator apart from and distinct from that creation; that, similarly, the mind of man and all the ideas it possesses are distinct from and not a part of the "body" (world) that "surrounds" it. If the idea is flawed (a "problem") then perhaps it is our starting point that is flawed.

Hmmm, no that's not it.

 

[cottage]

Ah... problem of evil. Thank you.

Well, perhaps those contradictions are there also because of certain judgements... like for instance that "good" cannot be symbolic of the state of nature; that God's "creating" is an action, rather than that all actions are something created; that "omnipotent" implies certain criteria about an action of creating; that "God" is something, hence one of his creations, and yet at the same time the creator apart from and distinct from that creation; that, similarly, the mind of man and all the ideas it possesses are distinct from and not a part of the "body" (world) that "surrounds" it. If the idea is flawed (a "problem") then perhaps it is our starting point that is flawed.

Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-96.html#post1577362
The Problem of Evil (PoE) came about not because of judgements, but because of a direct contradiction. We cannot suppose an all good God and then immediately make a special plea excepting God from the term ‘all’. If an omnipotent God has the identity of perfect goodness then whatever he causes to exist must reflect that identity. And to pose the idea of evil and suffering as somehow being independent of the causal and sustaining power of an omnipotent God, upon which the contingent world depends for every minute of its continued existence, leads us straight back to the contradiction and the PoE, which was where we started.

Ah... problem of evil. Thank you.

Well, perhaps those contradictions are there also because of certain judgements... like for instance that "good" cannot be symbolic of the state of nature; that God's "creating" is an action, rather than that all actions are something created; that "omnipotent" implies certain criteria about an action of creating; that "God" is something, hence one of his creations, and yet at the same time the creator apart from and distinct from that creation; that, similarly, the mind of man and all the ideas it possesses are distinct from and not a part of the "body" (world) that "surrounds" it. If the idea is flawed (a "problem") then perhaps it is our starting point that is flawed.
Actually, I was wrong in what I said (that the problem is not one of judgements). So I think you are quite correct to say that perhaps our starting point is flawed. We know nothing of God (if he, she or it exists) save what the concept necessarily implies. So the starting point ‘God is perfectly good and benevolent’, is a judgement, one that is not self-evident or true by definition; further more, it also happens to be contradicted in experience. I would say those reasons are sufficient for us to conclude that the judgement is false.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, I was wrong in what I said (that the problem is not one of judgements). So I think you are quite correct to say that perhaps our starting point is flawed. We know nothing of God (if he, she or it exists) save what the concept necessarily implies. So the starting point ‘God is perfectly good and benevolent’, is a judgement, one that is not self-evident or true by definition; further more, it also happens to be contradicted in experience. I would say those reasons are sufficient for us to conclude that the judgement is false.

'God is perfectly good and benevolent' isn't the starting point, though. The starting point is whatever concept of God we hold, from which certain things (including good and benevolence, or not) are "necessarily implied".

 

[cottage]

'God is perfectly good and benevolent' isn't the starting point, though. The starting point is whatever concept of God we hold, from which certain things (including good and benevolence, or not) are "necessarily implied".

There is no 'whatever concept of God we hold'. There is only one concept of God, an Abosolutely Necessary Being, omnipotent and the Creator of all that exists. Any other attribute is an add-on. We cannot for example say 'God is not the creator' without contradicting ourselves, but there is no contradiction implied in saying 'God is not benevolent'.

 

[Willamena]

There is no 'whatever concept of God we hold'. There is only one concept of God, an Abosolutely Necessary Being, omnipotent and the Creator of all that exists.

That would be one concept of God we hold; yes. Another might differentiate "being" as verb or noun. Another might understand God, the creator, as imminent, and that image also gives omnipotence a different image than the God that is not imminent. There are more possibilities, but I think that's sufficient to make a point.

Any other attribute is an add-on. We cannot for example say 'God is not the creator' without contradicting ourselves, but there is no contradiction implied in saying 'God is not benevolent'.

If benevolence is implicit in the "good" symbolized in existence as compared to non-existence, then we may find a perspective from which God's benevolence is indistinguished from God's purpose as imminent creator. The possiblities go on...

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-96.html#post1577457
There is no 'whatever concept of God we hold'. There is only one concept of God, an Absolutely Necessary Being, omnipotent and the Creator of all that exists.

That would be one concept of God we hold; yes. Another might differentiate "being" as verb or noun. Another might understand God, the creator, as imminent, and that image also gives omnipotence a different image than the God that is not imminent. There are more possibilities, but I think that's sufficient to make a point.
‘Being’ as in the state of existing (N). God is generally considered immanent and transcendent (within and beyond ordinary experience), neither of which compromises his necessary omnipotence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...do-most-people-assume-god-96.html#post1577457
Any other attribute is an add-on. We cannot for example say 'God is not the creator' without contradicting ourselves, but there is no contradiction implied in saying 'God is not benevolent'.


If benevolence is implicit in the "good" symbolized in existence as compared to non-existence, then we may find a perspective from which God's benevolence is indistinguished from God's purpose as imminent creator. The possiblities go on...
The problem for the term ‘benevolence’ is the unfortunate factual existence of evil and suffering and the contradiction that results. God in his omnipotence and immanence may have any number of purposes, which might include the complete and final cessation of all evil and suffering, but even he cannot undo the past or make history other than what it is. The contradiction remains, unassailed!
_________

 

[Willamena]

God is generally considered immanent and transcendent (within and beyond ordinary experience)...

Yes: that's yet another image of "God", and of omnipotence. The immanent God can stand in contrast to the imminent God, or, with a particular philosophical understanding, they can be combined in one image.

The problem for the term ‘benevolence’ is the unfortunate factual existence of evil and suffering and the contradiction that results. God in his omnipotence and immanence may have any number of purposes, which might include the complete and final cessation of all evil and suffering, but even he cannot undo the past or make history other than what it is. The contradiction remains, unassailed!

The existence of evil does not necessarily deny the existence of good. For the argument that says a good God can only produce good, I say that's not good enough! --the imminent creator God is necessarily all things, here and now. The past is gone, it no longer exists; the future hasn't happened yet. If we didn't know suffering, we wouldn't know relief from it; if we didn't know death, we wouldn't hold so tightly to life. The symbol makes it significant, because the symbol, by definition, looks at both its instance and the instance when it is not present (to be The Mask for The Thing).

 

[Falvlun]

Because what we innately hope for (love and goodness) are understood by us to be "God."

This is a fourth assumption not directly made in the OP. Remember, my post took the three assumptions you yourself enumerated that the OP contains: 1: God exists. 2: God is the Creator. 3: Since God is the Creator, he played a part in the development of our traits.

Your argument is that we must stay within the bounds of the OP. You yourself just stepped out of the three assumptions the OP makes. This is fine for explanation of your own theology, but it can not be mistaken for the only possible explanation for the OP.

As I've said before, we have to begin with some assumption. And we assume that which makes the most sense to us. If we perceive that we we want to always return to a state of love and goodness, that state must be our "beginning." If God is Creator, God, also, is our "beginning." it only makes sense to us that the state of love and goodness are consistent with the God we conceptualize to "flesh out" that state.

I fail to see how the desire for a state of love and goodness is automatic proof that such a state is our beginning. Using the word "return" is only playing with semantics to make a circular argument, ie, return implies we've been there before, therefore you assume we've been there before. But as my first sentence indicates, you can write about this desire without using the word "return."

That's fine, but we're dealing with the assumption of an "orthodox God," since the question was asked, "Why do most people assume God is benevolent?" The question is asked of those folks who hold an orthodox theology, and a particular construct of God.

You must realize that we have moved a bit past the original OP. I believe you have answered the question very thoroughly, and I commend you for this. I believe the stage of the thread that we are in now is that we are examining the reasons (and particularly your theology since you've been kind enough to stick with this for so long) your theology makes the claims that it does. We are testing the premises and the conclusions for soundness.

Since I am one of those folks, I can only answer within the confines of what I hold to be true about God. to argue that stance on the basis of other valid, extant theologies is fine with me. But to posit an argument based upon "You can't prove that God exists -- in fact, most proof points to God's non-existence" is not cogent to the issue, for we are assuming God's existence in the OP.

I don't think I, or anyone else for that matter, has brought up God's existence. We are assuming that God exists for the purposes of this thread. We can, however, debate the characteristics assigned to God.

Have you considered the fact that the OP's question "Why do most people assume that God is benevolent" could have been asked because it is not obvious to everyone that God is in fact benevolent?

Why would you laugh? The viability of a concept of God is culturally, not individually based.

That's patently not true, and especially for this forum. God is constantly being defined in different ways, by different people.

But I laughed because your comment came off as incredibly hypocritical on one hand, and exceedingly blind to the fact on the other.