What does "Goodness" mean when applied to God?

[RichardHresko]

In Abraham's Dilemma and in Existence of God we have run into the question of the Goodness of God. What do/can we mean by this?

Aquinas, for example, basically claims that goodness merely means desirable, and that God is Good because he is desirable. See Summa Theo. Ia, 6,1 and Summa Contra Gentiles I, 37-38.

Note that this doesn't have anything to do with God being nice or moral in any conventional sense of the word.

In fact Aquinas denies that morality can be applied to God, because morality implies an obligation to act in a certain way, and God is NOT obliged to anyone. He did not have any obligation to even create the universe, let alone create it in any particular way.

[PrinceMyshkin]

In Abraham's Dilemma and in Existence of God we have run into the question of the Goodness of God. What do/can we mean by this?

Aquinas, for example, basically claims that goodness merely means desirable, and that God is Good because he is desirable. See Summa Theo. Ia, 6,1 and Summa Contra Gentiles I, 37-38.

Note that this doesn't have anything to do with God being nice or moral in any conventional sense of the word.

In fact Aquinas denies that morality can be applied to God, because morality implies an obligation to act in a certain way, and God is NOT obliged to anyone. He did not have any obligation to even create the universe, let alone create it in any particular way.

A wonderful question! One answer that comes (too quickly?) to mind is that if God is indeed the creator of the uiniverse, his "goodness" must be manifest in the way the universe is unfolding. And I would submit that our small corner of it hasn't always done as well as I personally would like, wherefore I would respond that the goodness of God is NOT all I would wish it to be or that for some reason not now or perhaps never to berevealed, that "goodness" is being held in suspension.

Hats off to you for bringing this thread back to life, and to Logos for rethinking her original decision.

[Logos]

....and to Logos for rethinking her original decision.
Which was a total mistake, made in a nanosecond of multi-tasking, not enough coffee, and, uhm, something about a sick cat :)

[RichardHresko]

Prince Myshkin writes:
"One answer that comes (too quickly?) to mind is that if God is indeed the creator of the uiniverse, his "goodness" must be manifest in the way the universe is unfolding. And I would submit that our small corner of it hasn't always done as well as I personally would like, wherefore I would respond that the goodness of God is NOT all I would wish it to be or that for some reason not now or perhaps never to berevealed, that "goodness" is being held in suspension."

This contains two points of interest. The first is whether God's goodness is manifested by the state of his creation. The second is whether God has failed or been found limited in his goodness if we could imagine a better universe than he created.

As to the first, God's existence and goodness could be inferred from the existence of a created universe (though it should be noted that neither his existence nor goodness requires him to create). The goodness aspect, which we are considering here, consists in the fact that by the act of creation there is something rather than nothing, and that something is more good than nothing (actuality being a higher state than potentiality).

As to the second, one could take the position that surely God would have done a better job of creation if he willed it or if he could have done so, and thus argue a lack of good will or power. However, the problem with this argument is that there is an underlying assumption that God has a moral duty to act in a particular way. Given the totality of what he has given, literally everything that anyone has, it is hard to see where the moral obligation comes in. Thus I do not believe that we can infer his degree of goodness from pur perception of the quality of his creation.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I meant to direct myself against what I think of as the circular thinking of those who believe in God and that he is necessarily good, the essence of which appears to me to be God must be good - otherwise what good is He?

Assuming that Scripture is the principal argument for the existence and nature of God, it presents us with instances where he can be argued to be something other than good, as well as many where he appears to be caring or merciful. Elsewhere one has read arguments principally by practicing Christians that what God sometimes demands of us or metes out might not appear to be good but ultimately is for our good or betterment. I have usually found those arguments to be either specious or disingenuous.

[RichardHresko]

Prince Myshkin writes:
"I meant to direct myself against what I think of as the circular thinking of those who believe in God and that he is necessarily good, the essence of which appears to me to be God must be good - otherwise what good is He?"

I would amend the question to "God must be good, otherwise what god is he? I don't believe it is circular to insist that God must be good in a definitional sense. Anymore than to insist that a fruit have seeds on the inside. I think it is more helpful to consider God to be a position or title rather than a name, provide a job description, and check for the existence of anyone who fulfills the description. In such a procedure it is not circular to insist that God is good. Nor would it be inconsistent to say that God is good, and that therefore there is no God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Prince Myshkin writes:
"I meant to direct myself against what I think of as the circular thinking of those who believe in God and that he is necessarily good, the essence of which appears to me to be God must be good - otherwise what good is He?"

I would amend the question to "God must be good, otherwise what god is he? I don't believe it is circular to insist that God must be good in a definitional sense. Anymore than to insist that a fruit have seeds on the inside. I think it is more helpful to consider God to be a position or title rather than a name, provide a job description, and check for the existence of anyone who fulfills the description. In such a procedure it is not circular to insist that God is good. Nor would it be inconsistent to say that God is good, and that therefore there is no God.

Well, some of this depends on whether God DOES exist, independent of our beliefs in him. If he DOES exist he will have his own notion of what "good" is or whether it is a category that is of any interest in him whatsoever.

If however your question is directed at the God some of us choose to worship, I resubmit that those who so choose conflate "God" and goodness and nothing will ever shake them from that.

(Wow! For a moment there my screen turned an alarming scarlet, and I wondered if the Big Guy were saying Yea or Nay to what I said!)

[Whifflingpin]

"If however your question is directed at the God some of us choose to worship, I resubmit that those who so choose conflate "God" and goodness and nothing will ever shake them from that."

I guess that I am one of those who choose to conflate "God" and goodness. My second belief is that our conscience is the means by which God speaks directly to each of us, whereby we know what goodness is. (I think that's probably circular, but I don't care, it works for me.)

So, I tend to judge what is said or written about God against whether that squares with what my conscience tells me is good.

This approach is nonsensical at best to those who choose to conflate "God" and goodness and who believe that God is described in a book. Such people use what is said in the book to determine what is good.

Simply, if the book describes God to be what I consider not-good, then I say the book is wrong and the book believer says I am wrong.

[Whifflingpin]

"I think it is more helpful to consider God to be a position or title rather than a name, provide a job description, and check for the existence of anyone who fulfills the description."

That sounds totally arsyversy to me, as a believer.
I've never thought of a job description for God and then sought for some being fulfilling that description.

God seems to me self-evident - the game then is to attempt to describe him, or to determine his purposes, or, more importantly, to work out what he wants of me.

It's not like having a void in the stomach that needs to be filled by an orange. It's more like having an orange stuck up your nose, and trying to work out why and what to do with it.

[RichardHresko]

Prince Myshkin writes:
"Well, some of this depends on whether God DOES exist, independent of our beliefs in him. If he DOES exist he will have his own notion of what "good" is or whether it is a category that is of any interest in him whatsoever."

This raises a very important point -- the relation of words to reality. I agree entirely with the implication you make that there is an external reality that is entirely independent of whether or not we are aware of it.

My difficulty here (as far as I understand my difficulty) is that this is a case where we are wondering whether a particular entity exists or not, and the answer to that question depends every bit as much on what we are looking for as it does on what exists. For example, in the Abraham thread a thought experiment was offered where a space alien demanded total obedience since it created us. My answer there was that the space alien did not qualify as God because it failed in certain crucial aspects to match what would have to be true to claim divinity.

[RichardHresko]

WhifflingPin wrote:
"That sounds totally arsyversy to me, as a believer.
I've never thought of a job description for God and then sought for some being fulfilling that description.

God seems to me self-evident - the game then is to attempt to describe him, or to determine his purposes, or, more importantly, to work out what he wants of me."

Alas many things seem self-evident that are not true.

Secondly, it does not seem that that it is at all clear that people, even believers, can agree as to what is meant by God, and therefore there is room for much confusion between impressions, desires, and what would make sense in a belief system.

[Whifflingpin]

RichardHresko: "Alas many things seem self-evident that are not true.

Secondly, it does not seem that that it is at all clear that people, even believers, can agree as to what is meant by God, and therefore there is room for much confusion between impressions, desires, and what would make sense in a belief system."

I would not argue with that. And, when considering God, there is no way whatever of determining any kind of truth satisfactorily. The best anyone can do is to try to hold a set of beliefs that are consistent with his own experience, and consistent with each other. And as each person's experience is unique, and people have a great capacity for holding mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time without noticing, the confusion you mention is inevitable.

Which ties in easily with one of my beliefs about God, namely that She enjoys infinite variety. The fact (my assumption) that He invented sexual reproduction, and prefers it to other kinds, shows His pleasure in change and diversity - since each child of a sexual union is bound to be different fron its parents and unique in the universe. So, roll on confusion, welcome muddle - differences in belief, as in everything else, are a joy to God.

[RichardHresko]

Whifflingpin writes:
"And, when considering God, there is no way whatever of determining any kind of truth satisfactorily."

Of course that depends on what is meant by "satisfactorily." But assuming that "satisfactorily" need not mean 'absolutely' I don't think the claim is true. I think, for example, that certain things about the nature of God can be known from the nature of the natural world, given careful study and thought. I am open to the possibility of Revelation, and can make some judgments about it given that the message of God in the natural world cannot be in conflict with such revelation (See Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1b c.7.1).

One also can recall Augustine's teaching that faith must come before understanding (Enchiridion, v.)

Whifflingpin also writes:
"The fact (my assumption) that He invented sexual reproduction, and prefers it to other kinds, shows His pleasure in change and diversity - since each child of a sexual union is bound to be different fron its parents and unique in the universe."

But there are far more organisms that reproduce asexually (both by number of organisms, and by biomass). I recall Darwin's response to the question of what he had learned of God from studying natural philosophy: "He is inordinately fond of beetles." Hence my proviso above that we need to use caution in our thinking.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: "And, when considering God, there is no way whatever of determining any kind of truth satisfactorily."

RichardHresko: "Of course that depends on what is meant by "satisfactorily." "

What I meant by satisfactorily was "sufficiently well to convince someone who did not want to be convinced." Sufficient to suit oneself, and give oneself beliefs adequate to get through life, is much easier.

RichardHresko: "I think, for example, that certain things about the nature of God can be known from the nature of the natural world,"

As do I, in fact I had just used an example from the natural world to say something about God.

"But there are far more organisms that reproduce asexually (both by number of organisms, and by biomass)."

Well of course - but that doesn't affect my argument, or lack of it.

"I recall Darwin's response to the question of what he had learned of God from studying natural philosophy: "He is inordinately fond of beetles." "

I've heard the phrase before, but I don't think it was Darwin who said it. Not that that would afect your argument either.

[RichardHresko]

WhifflingPin writes:
"What I meant by satisfactorily was "sufficiently well to convince someone who did not want to be convinced." "

I have yet to meet someone who would be convinced against his will. But then, I am from Brooklyn...
""But there are far more organisms that reproduce asexually (both by number of organisms, and by biomass)."

Well of course - but that doesn't affect my argument, or lack of it. "
If more organisms reproduce asexually than sexually, how can you say that that sexual reproduction is preferred by God?

WhifflingPin writes:
""I recall Darwin's response to the question of what he had learned of God from studying natural philosophy: "He is inordinately fond of beetles." "

I've heard the phrase before, but I don't think it was Darwin who said it. Not that that would afect your argument either."

You are right. It was Haldane. I stand corrected. Thanks! :)

[Whifflingpin]

W: "Well of course - but that doesn't affect my argument, or lack of it. "
RH: If more organisms reproduce asexually than sexually, how can you say that that sexual reproduction is preferred by God?

By all means delete the phrase "and prefers it to other kinds." It does not matter to my argument whether God "prefers" it or not. Maybe the majority of species are in their finished form, so what? There is still enough sex around to show that He likes change and diversity, that creation itself is not a finished process. And humans are one of the ever-changing species, so, it seems to me, the hankering many of us have for stability and conformity goes against God's intentions for us. Amoebas can praise God for their uniformity -we should, I say, rejoice in our differences.

[RichardHresko]

"And humans are one of the ever-changing species, so, it seems to me, the hankering many of us have for stability and conformity goes against God's intentions for us."

But God is unchanging and simple, according to Aquinas. Perhaps our quest stability is a search for God and is thus a desire for him. I am sure Augustine would probably agree.

[Whifflingpin]

W: "And humans are one of the ever-changing species, so, it seems to me, the hankering many of us have for stability and conformity goes against God's intentions for us."

RH: "But God is unchanging and simple, according to Aquinas. Perhaps our quest [for] stability is a search for God and is thus a desire for him."

Aquinas may be right, although I don't see how he could know that. However, we are not created unchanging or simple, so I stick to my view that a quest for stability and simplicity is contrary to God's intention for us.

Back, however, to your original comment from Aquinas. I can understand that we are unable to comprehend the morality of God. If however, in our terms, He is amoral, whence do we get our ideas of and justification for morality? Put it differently, what is morality if God is not moral?

[RichardHresko]

WhifflingPin writes:
"Aquinas may be right, although I don't see how he could know that."
That is covered in Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae. I will try to start threads on those in the next few days.

WhifflingPin writes:
"If however, in our terms, He is amoral, whence do we get our ideas of and justification for morality? Put it differently, what is morality if God is not moral?"

These are excellent questions! Let me try to outline just a couple of points and we can discuss them as needed.
1) Humans are creatures, and thus have essences and existences that are dependent on others.
2) Because human essences are not identical with their existences (only God has Being as his Essence) it follows from Aristotelian logic that we are subject to the four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. What is relevant here is the final cause.
3) The final cause is what the object is in its perfected form.
4) Aquinas agrees with Aristotle in that he sees the final cause for humans to be happy, but concludes that happiness is the result of the beatific vision of God.
5) In order to achieve this goal (cause in this system is not identical with the word in common usage, in that it can be a goal as well as an impetus in our understanding of the term), humans need to act morally.

This is admittedly a stripped down version, and I fear the oversimplification may outweigh the presentation's virtues, but as Polonius says, "Brevity is the soul of wit" and the shortness may help direct the conversation more cleanly.

[Virgil]

:thumbs_up Wow, what a discussion. That was fabulous. Whiff and Rich H, you guys are heavyweights in this discussion. If now only Pendragon and Red Zep would join this, I would actually pay to listen to the four of you discuss this subject. :)

By the way Rich, I don't believe I've welcomed you to lit net. Welcome, and as a fellow New Yorker I hope you enjoy it here. :)

[Redzeppelin]

By your command, good Virgil:

The goodness of God is reflected - dimly and incompletely - in His creation and in His creations (i.e. us). Granted, the entrance of sin into this world (and the active campaign to destroy the image of God in creation and humanity by Satan) have highly compromised how we understand the goodness of God. Paul said we can only "see through a glass darkly" - meaning that our vision of God is obscured and opaque at best right now - and I think this holds true for how we understand His goodness. I think a pale shadow of the goodness of God is evident in the very best, and admirable of human behavior: when people choose to love the unlovable, sacrifice to help the less fortunate, stand up against oppression, rescue the abused and addicted, fight for what is just and right and risk life and limb for the good of humanity - these moments reveal in a small way, the goodness of God, because all true goodness is a reflection of the character of God. Ditto with nature - although it has taken on vicious characteristics, these were not originall intended; nonetheless, the beauty that nature is capable of, its breath-taking granduer and it's bewildering variety and complexly-designed structure also point to the goodness of God.

That's the short answer...

[Demian]

This has been a terrific thread. I don't have much to add to it at this time. I would like to reccommend Joshua Abraham Heschel's book The Prophets for anyone intersted in this topic as seen from a Biblical perspective. This book has been the most powerful piece of apologetics to me in explaining the mystery and meaning of wrath and the ultimate source and purpose of goodness. He was truly one of a kind.

[AngelEyes714]

What if Aquinas' definition is flawed?

Does goodness, indeed, mean that which is desirable?

If that is what good means, than goodness becomes relative, as we all desire something different. A five year old desiring a cookie before bed would construe his parents refusing said cookie as being "not good". But the parents desiring their child to sleep through the night would construe it as "good".

So, before we can debate if God is Good, what is our definition of good? Is there an absolute definition to good or is it only relative? And if it is only relative, than how can we define an absolute God (as I'm assuming we're discussing the Judeo/Christian God) with relative terms?

[Redzeppelin]

This is where the Gospels come in handy - because Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." As such, we should conclude that that which we would call "good" in terms of Jesus' behavior would be attributable to God. What we should not do is confuse "good" with the idea of "what pleases me" (which is the silly way we define "love").

[Demian]

I think goodness when applied to God is what is life affirming. This is a notion that most people stumble over in the Bible, however, when it comes to Judgment. I once had a philosophy teacher put it this way, "When natural evil occurs it is a chance for all of us to stop and think." So this can lead back to the cookie question. Do we derive what is ultimately good for us from us, (ie our own will) or can it be derived from a source other than us? What we deem as 'the good' may in fact be harmful to us.

[AngelEyes714]

So, then, could good be defined as what is desirable overall, not being confined to any particular moment or place except for the ultimate end?

Would good have to transcend time and space? So, a cookie might bring pleasure to the child at that particular moment in time, but at the ultimate end would he be in a more desirable place because his parents didn't give into his every whim and taught him that there is a time and place for everything?

[DeathAngel]

Good vs. Evil, light vs. dark, white n black

"I think goodness when applied to God is what is life affirming."

I would think everything living would be considered good, in a bible sense, anything that opposes/endangers the living, or god himself.

'Doing good for good is human nature;
Doing evil for evil is animal nature;
Doing evil for good is satanic nature; and
Doing good for evil is divine nature'

yin n yang in other words...

[blazeofglory]

In Abraham's Dilemma and in Existence of God we have run into the question of the Goodness of God. What do/can we mean by this?

Aquinas, for example, basically claims that goodness merely means desirable, and that God is Good because he is desirable. See Summa Theo. Ia, 6,1 and Summa Contra Gentiles I, 37-38.

Note that this doesn't have anything to do with God being nice or moral in any conventional sense of the word.

In fact Aquinas denies that morality can be applied to God, because morality implies an obligation to act in a certain way, and God is NOT obliged to anyone. He did not have any obligation to even create the universe, let alone create it in any particular way.

There is no goodness or badness of God at all, and the world runs through sets of laws, that are hardly discernible or perceivable. Every winter is followed by a month of spring and no spring lasts long.

Every tear has a kind of curability, that indicates there is some shades of joys in pains. If you beocomes too happy it pains.

That indicates that what we call God remains clean of goodness and badness. Why should God be good after all? After moments of badness goodness has no choice it has to follow the other entity, badness subsequently.

The world and the creation of it is highly intricate and understanding of this is not possible easily.

[amalia1985]

For me, "goodness" is tolerance. Perhaps, if we could claim that God is tolerant with us, with evil, the freedom of choice and action, which many have used and abused throughout the centuries. I agree with a friend's comment regarding morality, though. How can the idea of morality and goodness exist, unless created by someone else? And who created these terms?

[RichardHresko]

What if Aquinas' definition is flawed?

Does goodness, indeed, mean that which is desirable?

If that is what good means, than goodness becomes relative, as we all desire something different. A five year old desiring a cookie before bed would construe his parents refusing said cookie as being "not good". But the parents desiring their child to sleep through the night would construe it as "good".

So, before we can debate if God is Good, what is our definition of good? Is there an absolute definition to good or is it only relative? And if it is only relative, than how can we define an absolute God (as I'm assuming we're discussing the Judeo/Christian God) with relative terms?

While it is of course possible for Aquinas to have a flawed definition, I don't think that the flaw would be one of relativism.

Even given the definition that that which is good is that which is desirable, this still allows for there to be different degrees of goodness.

Therefore your question (an excellent one) can be recast as what constitutes the highest or best good?

Augustine's argument (which Aquinas accepts) is that the highest good is that which is eternal and unchanging, since it can not be lost or destroyed. Thus our true happiness lies in desiring that which is eternal. Thus God is the ultimate goodness and, equally, that which we, if our will is best-ordered, most desired. The Augustine material can be foundin Book II of de libero arbitrio "On Free Will".

[blazeofglory]

For me, "goodness" is tolerance. Perhaps, if we could claim that God is tolerant with us, with evil, the freedom of choice and action, which many have used and abused throughout the centuries. I agree with a friend's comment regarding morality, though. How can the idea of morality and goodness exist, unless created by someone else? And who created these terms?

In fact these terms were not invented by anyone else. It came through interactive processes and in fact it is a subjective approach. In nature there is no goodness and badness and these are in essence human attributes, and man has made use of them to justify his acts.

In struggle for existence one has to kill to survive, and if he abstains from killing he can not survive at all. But in religions, and particularly in some sections of Hinduism it is called a sin.

Fighting is also not an evil act or else speices van not survive. Therefore what we call good or bad are only matters that are relative truths not absolute truths.

[RichardHresko]

This is where the Gospels come in handy - because Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." As such, we should conclude that that which we would call "good" in terms of Jesus' behavior would be attributable to God. What we should not do is confuse "good" with the idea of "what pleases me" (which is the silly way we define "love").

Actually, among the people who would define "good" as "what pleases me" one would count Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, and that's just the A's. They would further define our attraction to our good as "love." See for example Books III and X of Augustine's Confessions and the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle.

What these men and others have noted is that loving an inferior good as though it were an eternal good is what leads us to misery. This act of improper love is explicitly called "sin" by Augustine.

One thing to bear in mind here is that it is certainly reasonable that there be a hierarchy of good, with some goods higher than others. This way we can acknowledge that there are many goods, and even conflicting goods without falling into relativism.

[RichardHresko]

In fact these terms were not invented by anyone else. It came through interactive processes and in fact it is a subjective approach. In nature there is no goodness and badness and these are in essence human attributes, and man has made use of them to justify his acts.

In struggle for existence one has to kill to survive, and if he abstains from killing he can not survive at all. But in religions, and particularly in some sections of Hinduism it is called a sin.

Fighting is also not an evil act or else speices van not survive. Therefore what we call good or bad are only matters that are relative truths not absolute truths.

Yes, but why should killing be a sin? What is it about killing that makes it sinful? When a lion kills a wildebeest, does it sin? Why or why not?

I think the problem here is that there has been a tendency to discuss examples of goodness and sin, rather than trying to understand the essence of goodness and sinfulness. Mere enumeration of examples will, I fear, only create "rules" rather than understanding.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, but why should killing be a sin? What is it about killing that makes it sinful? When a lion kills a wildebeest, does it sin? Why or why not?

I like the point you're making. For some reason, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, people (especially non-believers) seem to see the preservation of life as the highest ideal - even at the cost of justice. The sacrifices necessary to win WWII won't fly today; the psychotic and unrepentant killer gets a demonstration to protest his execution; atheists point to the killings sanctioned by God in the Bible as proof of His lack of "goodness." We mistake our values for God's and then judge His as inferior.