Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[cottage]

I prefer the concepts of cosmic evil, conscious evil or that which is against God. It's the only kind that makes any sense without being nothing more than a gradient of bad.

There can be a view of evil as an opposite force of good (Zoroastrianism, Christianity, etc.) in which the two forces compete against each other. In this instance pain and suffering in themselves are not evil but can be a consequence of the actions of the two forces.

Another type of evil is that in which there are not two opposing forces but evil is viewed as simply that which is against God. Disobeying God. To me this is similar to Judaic thought in which there is no evil force working against God but the individual's choice to reject God.

The concept that anything we dislike that causes suffering as evil means that anything from a child murderer to getting a splinter in my toe are both evil. That concept of evil is nonsensical to me. There are other terms in our language that convey better meanings. It's also the non-cosmic, non-spiritual concepts of evil which are used to divide different cultures and lead to some pretty horrific justifications. So called demonizations.

edit: Forgot to state that I actually do not believe in the evil/good dichotomy.

Thank you for that.

I’ll make some general points on the subject, if I may:

My view of evil is that of unnecessary suffering, by which I mean all suffering is unnecessary. If a headache or splinter in a toe causes suffering, then it is evil. (More on this further down the page)

The Parent/child analogy

The Parent/Child analogy is frequently used to defend the existence of evil. Here it is said that God is like the parent who may have to subject a child to an element of suffering in order for it to learn and be aware of life’s pitfalls. But this analogy makes two misleading assumptions: it assumes that the world, as it is, must exist, and that God is like man. Suffering is a feature of our world and parents have no option but to deal with it the best they can. But it is clearly nonsense to say an omnipotent God had no option but to create the world as we know it. For if God is the absolutely necessary Being (which he is by definition), then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone.

Defiance and denial of God


Arguments stating that the denial or rejection of God brings about the existence of evil are perfectly logical – providing we don’t insist upon the attribute of benevolence. But the concept of free will, where created beings challenge and defy an omnipotent, omni-benevolent Creator, is a demonstrable absurdity.

Can suffering be good?

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism and cause his death.
So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists. And as there is no logical necessity for the existence of suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without suffering. But a contradiction is implied if an argument is made from the obverse position. Therefore to argue for suffering, at any level, in order to introduce what we perceive as ‘good’ is just an exercise in circularity.

Cottage

 

[Rakhel]

I truly don't understand the all loving G-d idea. That is more evil than a belief in a fallen angel who might be in charge of a hell.

 

[Falvlun]

Why do people assume that pain and suffering equals evil?

Because humans are self-centered creatures.

Could you clarify which is the self-centered part?
1. A starving child wishing that he weren't hungry.
2. Me wishing that there wasn't any starving children.

Now, I can see how it might be myopic to believe that pain and suffering equals evil, but I hardly see how it can be pure selfishness that makes us think so.

By and by, I thought the last post by Cottage was excellent, and am interested in the replies to his post.

 

[Storm]

Could you clarify which is the self-centered part?
1. A starving child wishing that he weren't hungry.
2. Me wishing that there shouldn't be any starving children.

I could, but I don't appreciate the way you're trying to twist the point.

 

[Falvlun]

I could, but I don't appreciate the way you're trying to twist the point.

I edited my post. Does that clarify?

 

[keithnurse]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

That's what most people want to believe. It doesn't mean that a god IS benevolent, it just means people WANT to believe He/She is.

 

[Storm]

I edited my post. Does that clarify?

Not really.

 

[rojse]

Could you clarify which is the self-centered part?
1. A starving child wishing that he weren't hungry.
2. Me wishing that there wasn't any starving children.

Now, I can see how it might be myopic to believe that pain and suffering equals evil, but I hardly see how it can be pure selfishness that makes us think so.

By and by, I thought the last post by Cottage was excellent, and am interested in the replies to his post.

We are self-centred because we concentrate on humanity's suffering. Even when this is not ourselves or our family, we are still self-centred towards humanity. Most of us are quite happy to eat meat and so forth without considering the pain and suffering of the animals that we eat, as a simple example.

Rebuttal question - if humans had no pain or suffering, but animals did, would you view God as benevolent or not?

 

[Falvlun]

We are self-centred because we concentrate on humanity's suffering. Even when this is not ourselves or our family, we are still self-centred towards humanity. Most of us are quite happy to eat meat and so forth without considering the pain and suffering of the animals that we eat, as a simple example.

Perhaps that is true; perhaps we are selfish in regards to humanity. I would label that a vice in the case of our rape of the Earth "for the betterment of humanity", but I call it a virtue if we are conscious enough of the suffering of all, and not merely ourselves.

If there were some direct benefit to suffering, that only suffering could provide, and the end of suffering would mean the end of that benefit, I could see how humanity could then be accused of selfishness. However, the good of the benefit would have to outweigh the bad of the suffering (particularly seemingly needless and useless suffering). I do not think we should be faulted for not easily seeing what this benefit might be, and why that benefit could not be obtained any other way.

Have you ever read the Brothers Karamazov? Perhaps it has colored the way I view suffering. Here is an excerpt of Chapter 4, which I highly suggest you read:

"I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price."

Chapter 4 -The Brothers Karamazov

Rebuttal question - if humans had no pain or suffering, but animals did, would you view God as benevolent or not?

I never considered that the elimination of pain and suffering would not include the animals. I think that the existence of animal rights activists, now, when human suffering does exist, is evidence that people care about the sufferings of animals, and we are not completely blinded to anything but our own comfort.

I do grant that if there were no human suffering then the spotlight on suffering would be dimmer, though I do not think it would completely go out. There would certainly be someone who asked "If God was so benevolent, then why does he make the innocent animals suffer so much?"

 

[Storm]

My thoughts are that humanity is still very selfish, both individually and collectively.

I don't think that's a bad thing, though. Theodicy is a prime example of this. Things which displease us, we imagine to be in defiance of God. After all, how could a loving/ benevolent Creator disagree with our perspective?

Even the loftiest ethical systems are about creating the world we want to live in.

 

[cottage]

My thoughts are that humanity is still very selfish, both individually and collectively.

I don't think that's a bad thing, though. Theodicy is a prime example of this. Things which displease us, we imagine to be in defiance of God. After all, how could a loving/ benevolent Creator disagree with our perspective?

Even the loftiest ethical systems are about creating the world we want to live in.

Indeed! I entirely agree with all the above. There is no thought or action that is without a selfish element. And no exceptions.

Cottage

 

[logician]

"Benvevolence", "malevolence" etc. as far as its view from a supposed god's perspective is really undefinable. Is it benevolent to create a universe? Destroy a universe? Be apathetic towards one's creation? It doesn't really matter, as by defnintion a god is answerable to no other entity.

 

[Falvlun]

"Benvevolence", "malevolence" etc. as far as its view from a supposed god's perspective is really undefinable. Is it benevolent to create a universe? Destroy a universe? Be apathetic towards one's creation? It doesn't really matter, as by defnintion a god is answerable to no other entity.

See, I don't think this really answers the question.

The point is that WE have defined benevolence and WE call God benevolent.

EDIT:
It's like assuming God likes purple. Our definition of purple and God's definition of purple might be completely different. But when people assume that God likes purple they are using their defintion, and not God's. So even though the answer might really be "God's definition of purple is undefinable by us", it still doesn't explain why some people assume that God likes purple.

 

[logician]

See, I don't think this really answers the question.

The point is that WE have defined benevolence and WE call God benevolent.

.

Who's we?

 

[Falvlun]

Who's we?

Humans. If you were describing another human as benevolent, what characteristics come to mind?

Likewise, when the typical person describes God as benevolent, he is using the same set of characteristics, since that is, afterall, what benevolence means.

If a different set of characteristics were being used to describe God as benevolent, then I suggest that a different word needed to be used.

Or, to look at it another way, if we can't judge God by our definition of benevolence, then neither can we attribute benevolence to him.

 

[logician]

Humans. If you were describing another human as benevolent, what characteristics come to mind?

Likewise, when the typical person describes God as benevolent, he is using the same set of characteristics, since that is, afterall, what benevolence means.

If a different set of characteristics were being used to describe God as benevolent, then I suggest that a different word needed to be used.

Or, to look at it another way, if we can't judge God by our definition of benevolence, then neither can we attribute benevolence to him.

There are as many definitions of "benevolent" as there are cultures, probably a lot more than that. To satisfy everyone's definition, there would have to be a multitude of gods.

 

[cottage]

There are as many definitions of "benevolent" as there are cultures, probably a lot more than that. To satisfy everyone's definition, there would have to be a multitude of gods.

But in this case we're referring to the the God of theism and the general defintion, which is that he has certain attributes, one of which is that he is a perfectly good and moral being, merciful and loving to his creation. That what the argument disputes.

Cottage

 

[logician]

But in this case we're referring to the the God of theism
Cottage

Never heard of it.

 

[Storm]

"Theism" isn't a religion anymore than atheism is.

 

[Falvlun]

There are as many definitions of "benevolent" as there are cultures, probably a lot more than that. To satisfy everyone's definition, there would have to be a multitude of gods.

If this were true, language would break down and no communication would ever be possible. You are claiming that definitions don't exist, and that people can never know what another person means when they say anything. Yes, benevolence has a definition, and it is distinct from miserliness, unjustness, and sadism. Yes, different cultures may have different details in their concept of benevolence, but for it to still translate as benevolence, there has to be some common ground. It is this common ground, or general meaning, of benevolence that I am using.

Benevolence:
–noun 1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures. 2.an act of kindness; a charitable gift.
Origin:
1350&#8211;1400; ME < L benevolentia. See benevolent, -ence

Antonyms:
1. malevolence.

This is the English definition of benevolence. Since we are using English to communicate, that is the default concept that must be used. Furthermore, since many Americans or other Western Europeans-- who argumentatively have similar enough cultures to have non-alien ideas about what benevolence is-- define God as benevolent, then they must think that God is kind, charitable, and shows goodwill. If this is not what they mean when they say that God is benevolent then they are using the wrong word.