Why Did You Do This, God?

[otseng]

Faiths Ask of Quake: 'Why Did You Do This, God?'

It is one of the oldest, most profound questions, posed by some of the most learned minds of every faith throughout the course of human history.

It was put eloquently this week by an old woman in a devastated village in southern India's Tamil Nadu state. "Why did you do this to us, God?" she wailed. "What did we do to upset you?" Perhaps no event in living memory has confronted so many of the world's great religions with such a basic test of faith as this week's tsunami, which indiscriminately slaughtered Indonesian Muslims, Indian Hindus, Thai and Sri Lankan Buddhists and tourists who were Christians and Jews.

What was the role of god and the asian earthquake disaster?
How could a benevolent god visit such horror on ordinary people?
Was the disaster an "expression of God's great ire with the world"?

[Dilettante]

Here we go again:

proposition 1: God is omnibenevolent (all good)
proposition 2: God is omnipotent (all powerful)
proposition 3: Evil exists.

This is probably the oldest theological riddle, and so far I haven't read a plausible solution to it, other than to say that God isn't really omnipotent or that there are things that even an omnipotent being can't do or can't stop. Of course the traditional atheist answer is "God doesn't exist", which seems the most plausible alternative when these horrible disasters happen. I am quite confused. I don't know whether the atheists are simply right or whether the three propositions above can be reconciled in some as yet undiscovered way. Can anyone offer a logical explanation?

[ST88]

Here we go again:

proposition 1: God is omnibenevolent (all good)
proposition 2: God is omnipotent (all powerful)
proposition 3: Evil exists.

This is probably the oldest theological riddle, and so far I haven't read a plausible solution to it, other than to say that God isn't really omnipotent or that there are things that even an omnipotent being can't do or can't stop. Of course the traditional atheist answer is "God doesn't exist", which seems the most plausible alternative when these horrible disasters happen. I am quite confused. I don't know whether the atheists are simply right or whether the three propositions above can be reconciled in some as yet undiscovered way. Can anyone offer a logical explanation?

I think these propositions confuse the deific sense of "good" with the human sense of "good". We tend to think of good as something the benefits us, but God's sense of good would have to be different from ours, wouldn't it? If you accept God as Christian, then everything God does is good. We may not understand it when "evil" happens, but because God is responsible for everything, there must be a good in some particular evil that we just can't see. Whoa! Faith!

Assuming the existence of God as God there is nothing wrong with assuming that this God's good is not the same as human notions of good, though it may overlap. I think there are some Jewish sects that believe humans receive earthly punishment for going against God. Though I don't think this idea exists in Christianity, it does show that God has a purpose, and this purpose is de facto good.

[Zoot]

I think these propositions confuse the deific sense of "good" with the human sense of "good". We tend to think of good as something the benefits us, but God's sense of good would have to be different from ours, wouldn't it? If you accept God as Christian, then everything God does is good. We may not understand it when "evil" happens, but because God is responsible for everything, there must be a good in some particular evil that we just can't see. Whoa! Faith!

You're right. I was foolishly assuming that God was "good" in a way that even remotely approximates what humans mean by the word "good".

Assuming the existence of God as God there is nothing wrong with assuming that this God's good is not the same as human notions of good, though it may overlap. I think there are some Jewish sects that believe humans receive earthly punishment for going against God. Though I don't think this idea exists in Christianity, it does show that God has a purpose, and this purpose is de facto good.

Very nice, but the problem is that it's humans describing God as good. Certainly, the inconsistent triad is solved by saying that God isn't good in the way that we mean by "good", but is rather good in a way that we mean by "evil". The thing is, usually God's goodness is presented as a selling point.

So, what do you mean by "good" when you describe God as "good"?

[keltzkroz]

So, what do you mean by "good" when you describe God as "good"?

If I am to think of an answer to this question, it would be that ‘God is good in a sense that God is a good parent’.

One way of looking at God’s relationship with man is like that of a parent and his or her child. The child would want what seems to be beneficial to him or her, but of course, the parent would know better than to yield to his or her child’s every whim. How would man know if what God is doing is for their (man) own good? In a way, that question is similar to what is going on in a child's mind, a child wondering if what his or her parent is doing is for their own good.

[ST88]

So, what do you mean by "good" when you describe God as "good"?

Though I must state for clarity that I do not believe in God, from what I understand, the concept of Good as if applies to God is whatever God wants it to be. That is, because God does something, that is what makes it good. I think this translation of deific Good to human Good is responsible for many false attitudes about the Judeo-Christian God; done largely by evangelists looking for converts. By saying God is Good, they are using a code word, intended to mean whatever the listener thinks it means, but using mental reservation to make it mean what it actually means.

I don't wonder that there is congitive dissonance when people try and reconcile God's goodness and the fact of natural disasters. But if you look at it in the terms that pre-18th century Europeans looked at it, it makes sense. God calls you to Heaven whenever he wants and for whatever purpose he has; to question this is to maintain arrogance against God and to become a self-idolator.

[Dilettante]

The answers given by ST88 and Zoot only confuse me further. If the word "good" does not mean the same to God as it means to us, then we cannot say "God is good" in any meaningful sense. We are totally in the dark. The proposition "God is all good" must be abandoned or rephrased as "Good is all good, but in a sense wholly unknown to us, and which may appear as completely evil". It seems to me that in that case we cannot tell for certain whether, say, Osama Bin Laden is serving God or the Devil, whether he is a saint or a sinner. It means that we cannot know anything about God, let alone how to worship him. In that case there seems to be no point in religion at all. Of course, it could also mean that morality rests on divine command, but this view was shown to be absurd by Plato in the "Euthyphro" as well as by many other philosophers. I just read an article by the late Australian philosopher J. L. Mackie entitled "Evil and Omnipotence". In this brilliant article Mackie argues that the only way out for theists is to admit limits to what an omnipotent being can do, that is, to restrict the meaning of "omnipotent". This reminds me of the paradox of omnipotence, where God can, because he is all-powerful, create such a thing as a rock which no amount of force could vere lift. Can God himself lift it? Of course not, by definition no one can. So it follows that there are limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

[Zoot]

If I am to think of an answer to this question, it would be that ‘God is good in a sense that God is a good parent’.

One way of looking at God’s relationship with man is like that of a parent and his or her child. The child would want what seems to be beneficial to him or her, but of course, the parent would know better than to yield to his or her child’s every whim. How would man know if what God is doing is for their (man) own good? In a way, that question is similar to what is going on in a child's mind, a child wondering if what his or her parent is doing is for their own good.

And how does the child distinguish between a good parent and an abusive one? I mean, if I saw a parent killing or maiming its child, or 150,000 of its children, with a tsunami, I'd be inclined to call the authorities.

[Zoot]

Though I must state for clarity that I do not believe in God, from what I understand, the concept of Good as if applies to God is whatever God wants it to be. That is, because God does something, that is what makes it good.

In other words, "good" means nothing more than "done by God". It's obviously then not a standard by which one can evaluate God's actions. Saying "what God does is good" then means nothing more than "God does what God does".

I think this translation of deific Good to human Good is responsible for many false attitudes about the Judeo-Christian God; done largely by evangelists looking for converts. By saying God is Good, they are using a code word, intended to mean whatever the listener thinks it means, but using mental reservation to make it mean what it actually means.

Yes, by using the same word for what's here being called "human good" (like refraining from killing 150,000 people with a tsunami) and for "God good" (meaning, whatever God does), it creates the illusion that there's some kind of connection between God and not being a mass murderer.

[ST88]

The answers given by ST88 and Zoot only confuse me further. If the word "good" does not mean the same to God as it means to us, then we cannot say "God is good" in any meaningful sense. We are totally in the dark.

Welcome to agnosticism.

The proposition "God is all good" must be abandoned or rephrased as "Good is all good, but in a sense wholly unknown to us, and which may appear as completely evil".

I find it curious that there are people who are willing to hate God because bad things happen in the world. This I don't get. According to what I understand about Christianity -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- life is not a right, it's a privilege. So if we understand an act of God to be evil, we are not asserting our right to our own life, we are denying ourselves the privilege of being in God's grace. Hating God is a corruption of belief because God is all-good, and to hate Him is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Salvation and actively renounce it. This is irrational. Assuming for the moment the existence of God, which Christians do, it must be the case that whatever God does has meaning and is somehow a good thing. To deny this is crazy.

It seems to me that in that case we cannot tell for certain whether, say, Osama Bin Laden is serving God or the Devil, whether he is a saint or a sinner. It means that we cannot know anything about God, let alone how to worship him.

Don't forget that by all accounts OBL thinks he's doing God's work.

In that case there seems to be no point in religion at all.

Quite the contrary. If it is counter-intuitive to believe that whatever God does is good because it may appear to be evil, then we would need a constant religious reminder about God's goodness in order to keep us from straying.

Of course, it could also mean that morality rests on divine command, but this view was shown to be absurd by Plato in the "Euthyphro" as well as by many other philosophers.

Just to be contrary, perhaps, I would state that the Euthyphro doesn't exactly say it is absurd to accept divine command as morality. It says that it is absurd to an observer when someone else acts on this divine command. Plato does not seem to come to any conclusions with Euthyphro, and, in fact, he can't. At one point Socrates says, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" There is no answer.

I just read an article by the late Australian philosopher J. L. Mackie entitled "Evil and Omnipotence". In this brilliant article Mackie argues that the only way out for theists is to admit limits to what an omnipotent being can do, that is, to restrict the meaning of "omnipotent". This reminds me of the paradox of omnipotence, where God can, because he is all-powerful, create such a thing as a rock which no amount of force could vere lift. Can God himself lift it? Of course not, by definition no one can. So it follows that there are limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

Such arguments are easily dismissed as logic traps -- simple language tricks akin to an Escher drawing: imagistically conceivable but without meaning in the real world.

[Zoot]

I have yet to see someone explain how God is "good" in any way that is remotely meaningful. Saying "God's goodness is a different kind of goodness" doesn't solve the problem, it just pretends there isn't one.

Is God good? In what way?