It seems appealing to say we shouldn't judge God, or that God himself is the standard of goodness. The problem with attempts to avoid having some standard of goodness to which one appeals is that without such a standard, the term "goodness" is deprived of meaning. If I say that Kyler Murray is a good quarterback, and you ask me what I mean by that, I can point to the fact that the Cardinals are the team with the only perfect season in the NFL, and then go over his completion percentage, quarterback rating, rushing and passing touchdowns, number of interceptions, etc. If he started losing games and getting bad numbers, and you came to me and told me he should be benched, it would be no argument to say, no Kyler is the standard of goodness, and by definition everything he does is worthy of approval.
Part of the standard definition of God is to say that that being is perfectly good. So before we call someone God, we have some idea of what that is supposed to mean--we are presupposing a standard of goodness that some being, such as Yahweh, meets. If someone were to say "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God," the answer would have to be that this would make sense except that some who says that Yahweh is not good is arguing, in fact, that Yahweh doesn't merit the title of God. In virtue of what is some being, however powerful, entitled to the title of "God?" Answering back to a being who really is God would be mistaken by definition, but to assume that this being merits the title of God would be to beg the very question at issue.
If there is no standard of goodness that we are claiming that God meets when we say that God is good, then the phrase "God is good" doesn't mean anything. Is it an expression of subjective approval on our part (we like the Big Guy, or think we had better because of what the Big Guy might do to us), or is it an actual statement? And if it is a statement, what is it?
28 comments:
Many christians want to avoid God conforming to some standard of goodness, because it seems to them to demean God. But I can't help thinking that surely God accepts that 1 + 1 = 2 and Modus Ponens are true, which means he conforms to the standards of maths and logic without that demeaning him. Rather it would demean him if he didn't, because those things are necessarily true.
God, who is the greatest conceivable being, is also goodness itself, since being and goodness are really convertible. A being, in so far as it is like God, is good, and a being, in so far as it is unlike God, is not. Given that all creation is ordered to this good, one might reasonably ask, “If all creation is ordered toward the supreme good, who is God, to what good may we say that God is ordered? To none other than the supreme good who is himself. The only appropriate finality for an infinite being is infinite being.”
To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
Hi bmiller, you said: "The only appropriate finality for an infinite being is infinite"
I'm wondering whether you think God can be the finality for the truths of mathematics. i.e. could God make 1 + 1 = 3 ?
unkleE,
Math and logic are tools that we humans create, and highly useful in their domains, but much less useful outside of them. You can find real-world situations where 1 + 1 = 3, or even 1.
unkleE,
I think the question of "why should we say God is good?" is different from "can God make 1+1=3?"
To me, your math question looks like you're asking something like this:
According to the rules of math, 1+1=2. But what do we make of someone, even God, who says 1+1=3?
In that case, I would say that the "=3" person either doesn't understand the rules, cannot apply the rules, does not apply the rules or is operating with different rules.
I don't think it has much to do with being and goodness.
Or maybe the question is really this:
Since 1+1=2 is a feature of natural reality, then could God have created a natural reality where 1+1=3?
I assume you mean natural reality since we tend to think 1 apple plus 1 apple gives us 2 apples and not 3 and so that is confirmed by what we see in our apprehension of reality in nature. However, I think God can suspend what happens naturally. The multiplication of fishes and loaves is a relevant example of this.
Now maybe there is a reason presently known to God but within our means to discover why 1+1=2 is naturally the best form of natural reality. Maybe otherwise there would be some instability that wouldn't allow a creation for any amount of time...something like that. Or not. But all we can know is what we can observe and process and it seems that 1+1=2 is the way the world works whether or not there could be a world in which 1+1=3.
bmiller has offered an excellent example of the limitation of mathematics to particular domains. In the domain of counting, we find 1 + 1 = 2.
However, we do other things with numbers besides counting.
Hi One Brow,
I asking whether 1 + 1 could = 3, I am assuming the normal definitions of those terms, i.e. that 1 and 3 are integers in the number system, and = means has the same value as. (If we can't use symbols like letters and numbers without explaining how those symbols are defined each time we use them, this sort of discourse would be terribly difficult!)
So using those normal definitions, can you point to any situation where 1 + 1 = 3?
Hi bmiller,
Yes, Jesus can multiply loaves and fishes, but that still didn't make (5 loaves and 2 fish) = y thousand of each. Manifestly the two weren't equal because the first couldn't feed them all and the latter could. What he did was miraculously add thousands of loaves and fish to the 5 + 2 that were there.
So we can use your example. If I have 1 apple and you give me another apple I have 2, not three. And if God miraculously creates a third apple the mathematics of that is not 1 + 1 = 3 but 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
And I don't see any way this depends on some physical reality and won't be true in another physical reality. The reality of 1 + 1 = 2 is contained within the very definitions of the terms which don't require any particular reality.
We can use other examples. Can God make Modus Ponens untrue? Can God make a triangle with 4 sides? CS Lewis says we can't make up a nonsense sentence and then make it sensible by putting "God can" in front of it.
So I argue again that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 as we define those symbols, and it would make God nonsensical to say otherwise. And I still haven't seen an example otherwise.
unkelE,
Your "normal definitions" are built entirely on an abstraction designed to support the process of counting. Your point is valid to the domain of counting. However, we use numbers for other things.
For example, we use numbers to measure. Is that an "abnormal definition", or merely a different definition? Sometimes, when we measure things, we can find for various that 1 unit of something plus another unit of something can combine to make less than, or more than, two units of that thing (I can offer examples, if you like).
1 + 1 = 2 not because of some universal law, but because we create the definition for "1" and "2" in such a way that it could not be otherwise.
unkleE,
I think you have some hidden assumptions in your question that make it badly formed. That's why I proposed 2 different scenarios, to see what your assumptions were.
1 + 1 = 2 is contained within the very definitions of the terms which don't require any particular reality.
But there is a particular reality here. It's "the very definitions of the terms" regardless of who defined the terms.
So I argue again that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3 as we define those symbols, and it would make God nonsensical to say otherwise. And I still haven't seen an example otherwise.
Of course you're right to say that if you or anyone else has defined a process that makes rational sense and then if someone is trying to follow it and comes up with the wrong answer he is wrong for the reasons I noted (there may be more).
Here is what I was reacting to:
But I can't help thinking that surely God accepts that 1 + 1 = 2 and Modus Ponens are true, which means he conforms to the standards of maths and logic without that demeaning him.
It looks like to me that you are arguing against some idea that God is constrained somehow if He he cannot somehow make something rational irrational by a wave of His hand. You say that He is conforming to the standards of math and logic, but that has it backwards. The human mind can grasp the rational concepts of math and logic only because we were created in the image of God. He is not "conforming" to these processes, He is ultimately responsible for them in the first place. It's like a finished painting saying that the artist has been constrained by the painting.
Hi again,
Thanks for your responses. But I think they prove my point, not disprove it.
"Your "normal definitions" are built entirely on an abstraction designed to support the process of counting. Your point is valid to the domain of counting. However, we use numbers for other things."
All that you say is relevant if we were discussing mathematics and number theory. But we are not. We are discussing what God can or cannot do. There may indeed by ways we can use numbers that make 1 + 1 = 3, but that is not the matter under discussion. I am arguing that God can conform to an external standard of goodness without diminishing himself, and I am using the parallel example of integer numbers. And in this case, we seem to be all agreed. if we are talking about integers, God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3, because that is contrary to the definitions of those numbers. The fact that he (and mathematicians) can make 1 + 1 = 3 in some other cases is irrelevant to this matter.
"The human mind can grasp the rational concepts of math and logic only because we were created in the image of God. "
I agree with this. I think the parallel in the moral argument for Theism (that we need God to exist to create in us the faculty for discerning good and evil) is the best way to sustain that argument. But this point, too, is irrelevant to the argument about whether God can arbitrarily change the laws of mathematics (or ethical truths).
"He is not "conforming" to these processes, He is ultimately responsible for them in the first place. It's like a finished painting saying that the artist has been constrained by the painting."
If this was true, you are saying that God "could have" created a world where the integers are defined as we know them and yet 1 + 1 = 3. And I say that is nonsense, because once you define the numbers as we do, then it can be proven that 1+ 1 = 2 and not 3 or 27.
"God is constrained somehow if He he cannot somehow make something rational irrational by a wave of His hand"
And I think here you are admitting the point I am making, and that CS Lewis made before me. If something is truly irrational then God cannot make it true. To that extent he is constrained, but only constrained to be rational.
So once we admit that, we can see that it is quite reasonable that God is "constrained" to be good. Not because that is a weakness in God's omnipotence, but because it is a strength in his goodness (and in the case of numbers, a strength in his logic).
unkleE,
Well I don't know what God could have done because I'm not God. I suppose since God is rational and since we are made in the image of God and we can see the rational logic involved in math then to some extent math is derivative of God's nature. Since God cannot be contrary to His nature then in that sense he would be changing His nature if he changed math. Since God cannot change His nature (otherwise He would not be God) then if follows that He cannot change math.
I disagree that this is "constraint" on God. But you're welcome to your opinion.
unkleE said,
And in this case, we seem to be all agreed. if we are talking about integers, God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3, because that is contrary to the definitions of those numbers
Thus, anyone can make 1 + 1 = 3 by changing the definitions.
Thanks for replies.
"Since God cannot change His nature (otherwise He would not be God) then if follows that He cannot change math."
So then we come to the main reason we are having this discussion. Perhaps it is true that God cannot change ethics as well. i.e. God says loving neighbour is "good" because it really is good, not simply because he has decreed that it is good.
"I disagree that this is "constraint" on God."
Yes, I agree. That's why I put "constrained" in inverted commas.
"Thus, anyone can make 1 + 1 = 3 by changing the definitions."
LOL! And I suppose anyone can make God not exist by changing the definitions too! :) But I don't think either statement changes anything in the real world.
unkleE,
Perhaps it is true that God cannot change ethics as well. i.e. God says loving neighbour is "good" because it really is good, not simply because he has decreed that it is good.
If God says loving your neighbour is "good" then God is either right or wrong.
If God is wrong, then he is not perfect and so he is not God.
So similar in a sense.
unkleE,
LOL! And I suppose anyone can make God not exist by changing the definitions too! :) But I don't think either statement changes anything in the real world.
I agree. Changing my definition for "horse" does not affect the nature of an animal standing in front of me.
On the other hand, I have never seen some object that was a "3". There is no real world to be changed.
Hi bmiller,
"If God says loving your neighbour is "good" then God is either right or wrong."
I wonder what standard you are using to define "good" and whether God is right or wrong? I think that is the core of the matter. What do you think?
Hi One Brow,
" have never seen some object that was a "3". There is no real world to be changed."
I have never seen an object that was a "3" either, but I don't feel it is helpful to get into whether numbers are "things" or not. My comment was related to the world being real and using numbers in that real world. And I still haven't seen anything to make me think that God can change something that is logically true and in fact tautological (like 1+ 1 = 2 and not 3). Nor to think he is any the less for that.
And therefore, to my main point, it may be (and I believe it is) that basic ethical statements are as tautological as the statements of maths or logic, if only we humans had the moral faculties to see it. What do you think about that?
unkleE,
From the beginning of this I've had trouble understanding what your point is.
Any chance of you just laying it out?
Perhaps it is true that God cannot change ethics as well. i.e. God says loving neighbour is "good" because it really is good, not simply because he has decreed that it is good.
Your stated problem is the Euthyprhro Dilemma. It seems you want to tie it to mathematics in some way. If so, why just make the case.
I gave a possible solution.
If God says loving your neighbour is "good" then God is either right or wrong.
If God is wrong, then he is not perfect and so he is not God.
You asked:
I wonder what standard you are using to define "good" and whether God is right or wrong?
Truth is the standard. If there is no truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong and so the question is moot.
I do not have to actually know what the truth is to make the judgement that if there is such a thing as truth then God is either right or wrong when He says loving your neighbour is "good". If he is wrong he is not God. If He's right it is the truth. I don't know of any Christian sect that thinks God gets things wrong or tells lies.
"From the beginning of this I've had trouble understanding what your point is.
Any chance of you just laying it out?"
I guess it makes the discussion difficult if you don't understand what I said at the beginning! :)
My point was in my original comment. Victor was asking questions about standards of goodness relating to God. I said I thought there IS a standard of goodness external to God. Some people reject that because it seems to them to place a standard higher than God. I said I didn't see it that way and I used the parallel question of whether God is "subject" to laws of mathematics and logic. I think he is, i.e. he cannot change 1 + 1 = 2 because that is necessarily true by definition. So, I suggest, basic ethical truths may also be necessarily true without it being a "problem" that God is subject to some standard outside himself.
Since then I have been answering questions from you and One Brow. Originally you both seemed to reject what I thought was obvious, that logic and maths are necessarily true by definition. I sort of feel that we have answered that, so now the discussion, if we wish, can return to the more contentious question of whether ethical truths could also be necessily true.
"Your stated problem is the Euthyprhro Dilemma. It seems you want to tie it to mathematics in some way. If so, why just make the case."
Yes, of course it is the dilemma. I am just offering a solution to it. As I have just explained, I made my case in my first comment. Of course it wasn't a fully expressed case because it was a blog comment not a philosophical paper. But it is all there, and explained a little more (above) in this comment.
"I gave a possible solution."
Yes, you did, and I said I thought it was resolving the dilemma in the same way that I am - by saying "God is good" we are implying a standard outside God that God conforms to. And that seems to me to be the logic of Victor's post. So I was agreeing with what I think was Victor's point, and offering the analogy to logic or maths as a way to justify that view.
Thanks for seeking clarification. I hope I have given it.
Thanks unkleE.
unkleE,
And therefore, to my main point, it may be (and I believe it is) that basic ethical statements are as tautological as the statements of maths or logic, if only we humans had the moral faculties to see it. What do you think about that?
We do have moral faculties, and we do see basic ethical principles. We've built a society around them. We see that several species of non-human mammals act as if they see some of these principles, although they are not as good at abstracting them as we are.
Do basic ethical principles change in different circumstances, much like definitions in math change depending on circumstances? We behave as if they do.
Hi thanks for those thoughts.
I of course agree that we do have moral faculties, but I believe they are impaired (I think looking around the world makes that obvious) and insufficient to allow us to state moral truths with the same certainty that we can state mathematical and logical truths.
I don't believe basic ethical principles change with circumstances, but I believe the details do. As a christian, I believe the basic ethical principles are "Love God and love neighbour" - I believe they are true in every circumstance. But the outworking of those principles into principles like "Don't murder" or "Care for the poor" will vary (perhaps depending on the definition of "murder" and "poor"), and certainly lower level ethical duties like "Ishould donate to this charity" are certainly not always true.
With this view of ethics, I can answer the Euthyphro Dilemma by saying God does recognise the absolute truth of the basic moral statements, and I can re-format the Moral argument for God by saying we need God, not to make the standard, but to tell us what it is since our moral faculties can't know the basic moral truths absolutely.
That was really the basis of my comments here.
unkleE,
If we build the same type of logical framework for moral truths that we do for mathematical truths, we can use that framework to state them with certainty within the framework.
The real question, for both mathematics and for ethics, is how well that framework applies to the task at hand.
I think there are many difficulties with that, because once we move beyond the most basic moral truths ("love your neighbour" or "Do as you would be done by") the situation is very much important in deciding what is "right".
As a christian, I feel we need God's guidance for that.
Post a Comment