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"?

[ST88]

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?

Why, necessarily? It would certainly be a more refined, informed, idealized version of what we profess as morality, but you seem to be saying His sense of right and wrong would be at odds with ours. But what does that say about Absolute Goodness?

Christianity puts humans down as sinners, unable to redeem themselves without intervention from God. In this sense, though God is able to produce and wallow in Absolute Good, humans are not. We mortal beings are not equipped to be able to act with Absolute Good, though we may try. Striving is what it's all about, not some kind of Buddhist notion of attainment.

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.

Except that, again, it defies the doctrine of Absolute Goodness. At least, I assume that there is such a doctrine, because we atheists are always getting hit in the face with "moral relativism." Seems to me that if God has a different standard of behavior, that things that are no-nos for us are OK for him, then this is merely another form of moral relativism: As I said elsewhere, "morality is relative to whether or not you are God."

Except that humans can't compare themselves to God without getting into philosophical trouble. That God has a different standard does not imply moral relativism because of what I pointed out above. That there is one single standard should not imply that everyone is able to achieve it. And even if we were to throw out the notion of Absolute Good, and ascribe different versions of good to both God and humanity, the Good that aplies to God can be more good than the human version and still not be moral relativism. Humans have one Absolute standard, and God, to whom human standards do not and will never apply has His. Humans can't become Godlike, and there was only one human who ever walked the Earth that was able to even approach this level of Goodness (depending on what you believe). Even if there are two standards this can't be relativism because there is no standard besides our own that we can possibly hope to achieve.

[Zoot]

Which begs the question, "preferable" to whom? And...in terms of what value? - as you noted in your very good article.

Preferable to whoever is making the evaluation. Evaluation is an experience - something that happens to us. We experience an option as preferable or unpreferable by various criteria, and that includes our experience of moral goodness. The only difference is that while we experience various other options for reasons that are foundationlessly preferable to us - such as sensual pleasure - options experienced as morally good are foundationlessly preferable in themselves.

In other words, I prefer the option of eating chocolate because it will afford me sensual pleasure. I prefer sensual pleasure because... I just do.

Moral goodness has just one step instead of two. If I experience fidelity as morally good, I experience it as simply preferable because... I just do.

[The Happy Humanist]

Except that, again, it defies the doctrine of Absolute Goodness. At least, I assume that there is such a doctrine, because we atheists are always getting hit in the face with "moral relativism." Seems to me that if God has a different standard of behavior, that things that are no-nos for us are OK for him, then this is merely another form of moral relativism: As I said elsewhere, "morality is relative to whether or not you are God."

Except that humans can't compare themselves to God without getting into philosophical trouble. That God has a different standard does not imply moral relativism because of what I pointed out above. That there is one single standard should not imply that everyone is able to achieve it. And even if we were to throw out the notion of Absolute Good, and ascribe different versions of good to both God and humanity, the Good that aplies to God can be more good than the human version and still not be moral relativism. Humans have one Absolute standard, and God, to whom human standards do not and will never apply has His. Humans can't become Godlike, and there was only one human who ever walked the Earth that was able to even approach this level of Goodness (depending on what you believe). Even if there are two standards this can't be relativism because there is no standard besides our own that we can possibly hope to achieve.

I understand what you are expressing here (and I take it you are playing "God's Advocate," to coin a phrase). In a technical, explanatory sense, it is probably philosophically sound, but it is useless in terms of achieving the real-world goal of "making us moral." We have our intuitive feelings of what is moral, and then we have this guy "God" telling us what is moral. When those two moral imperatives conflict, it would help if we could have some evidence of God's goodness, if he could present some defense for his commandments. Not only does he not provide it - nor any evidence that even he himself exists - he goes against those commandments himself. So we are left with:

1) A moral imperative that is in conflict with our own, from
2) a logically contradictory being who
3) refuses to provide any evidence for his own existence,
4) refuses to provide any clue as to why the conflict exists,
5) refuses to provide any details of his alleged "master plan for humanity," something that might help us resolve the conflict ourselves,
6) violates these same imperatives himself, and in any event,
7) created the need for morality in the first place by creating us with the capacity to sin.

In the words of Rev. Jim from Taxi, "Welp....Okey-dokey."

[RevJP]

Jim, your conclusions are incorrect, or unsupported.

We have our intuitive feelings of what is moral, and then we have this guy "God" telling us what is moral.

Your order is reversed here. First we have God telling us what is moral, then we have fallen man altering that innate sense of right and wrong.

Moral impertative was given to us by the creator and later corrupted by sin.

When those two moral imperatives conflict, it would help if we could have some evidence of God's goodness, if he could present some defense for his commandments.

Defend His commandments? Again we have a conflict in primacy. The creator made the game, and set the rules. When you open the Monopoly game do you ask for the makers of the game to defend the rules they established? No. You play the game as presented. Either that or you change the rules to your liking, but then you are not playing Monopoly anymore, but a twisted version of it.

Not only does he not provide it - nor any evidence that even he himself exists - he goes against those commandments himself.

Support for this? He goes against which commandments?.

As far as evidence that He exists, look around you. Scriptures tell us that this very world is testament to His existence. The glory of His creation is more than enough evidence.

[Zoot]

Defend His commandments? Again we have a conflict in primacy. The creator made the game, and set the rules.

And is there a rule saying to follow the rules?

And is there a rule saying to follow the rule saying to follow the rules?

And is there a rule saying to follow the rule saying to follow the rule saying to follow the rules?

Eventually, the answer has to be no. And so we're left with God, a fellow who made some rules, differing from the makers of Monopoly only in the amount of pain he inflicts when he sends you directly to jail.

[The Happy Humanist]

Jim, your conclusions are incorrect, or unsupported.

We have our intuitive feelings of what is moral, and then we have this guy "God" telling us what is moral.

Your order is reversed here. First we have God telling us what is moral, then we have fallen man altering that innate sense of right and wrong.

I wasn't implying a chronology, but I won't dispute yours. It doesn't matter.

Moral impertative was given to us by the creator and later corrupted by sin.

But the point is, we have no way to determine whether or not they were corrupt to begin with.

When those two moral imperatives conflict, it would help if we could have some evidence of God's goodness, if he could present some defense for his commandments.

Defend His commandments? Again we have a conflict in primacy. The creator made the game, and set the rules. When you open the Monopoly game do you ask for the makers of the game to defend the rules they established? No. You play the game as presented. Either that or you change the rules to your liking, but then you are not playing Monopoly anymore, but a twisted version of it.

In the case of Monopoly, I have a third choice: Don't buy the game. In the case of God, we don't have that option. It is (allegedly) forced on us from birth, a "unilateral contract." And even with Monopoly, it is theoretically possible to contact the game's maker and ask for the justification behind certain rules. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are permutations of the rules that were adopted by Parker Bros. as "official" due to widespread useage - the custom of distributing all the property before the start of the game, for instance. Any chance of His Lordship allowing us to alter the rules?

Not only does he not provide it - nor any evidence that even he himself exists - he goes against those commandments himself.

Support for this? He goes against which commandments?.

Need I spell this one out? #6 of course is the biggie, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." And how about "Do Unto Others"? Would God like to be sent to hell?

As far as evidence that He exists, look around you. Scriptures tell us that this very world is testament to His existence. The glory of His creation is more than enough evidence.

Please try to remember that it is the Scriptures, and the Word of God, we are attempting to evaluate. The untestable statements contained therein are not admissible as evidence of its own truthfulness. As to the "Glory of Creation," I'm looking for something a little less subjective than what someone may find "Glorious."

Here is the main point we should be focused on: You have accepted the Word of God as being True, Good, Fair, Just, all of that stuff. This involves a judgement on your part. On what basis did you make that judgement? On the basis of your own innate "morality detector"? The one which you have already stated above is flawed?

[ST88]

I understand what you are expressing here (and I take it you are playing "God's Advocate," to coin a phrase). In a technical, explanatory sense, it is probably philosophically sound, but it is useless in terms of achieving the real-world goal of "making us moral."

You have a point there, but I don't think that was at issue in the topic of this thread. What God does is de facto moral and good because He's God and this is His game. "Making us moral" is strictly our own personal choice, isn't it?

We have our intuitive feelings of what is moral, and then we have this guy "God" telling us what is moral. When those two moral imperatives conflict, it would help if we could have some evidence of God's goodness, if he could present some defense for his commandments.

Foolish mortal! All you have to do is follow the rules. Don't you realize that your internal compass is exactly what God warned you about?

1) A moral imperative that is in conflict with our own, from
2) a logically contradictory being who
3) refuses to provide any evidence for his own existence,
4) refuses to provide any clue as to why the conflict exists,
5) refuses to provide any details of his alleged "master plan for humanity," something that might help us resolve the conflict ourselves,
6) violates these same imperatives himself, and in any event,
7) created the need for morality in the first place by creating us with the capacity to sin.

And?

[The Happy Humanist]

1) A moral imperative that is in conflict with our own, from
2) a logically contradictory being who
3) refuses to provide any evidence for his own existence,
4) refuses to provide any clue as to why the conflict exists,
5) refuses to provide any details of his alleged "master plan for humanity," something that might help us resolve the conflict ourselves,
6) violates these same imperatives himself, and in any event,
7) created the need for morality in the first place by creating us with the capacity to sin.

And?

And so I ain't buyin' it.

[otseng]

I came across this article and just wanted to note it here.

Why the giant waves were acts of a benevolent God

The true theological or philosophical point to be made about the Indian Ocean wave — if, indeed, there is one — is that it is a timely reminder of the fragility of our existence in this world, the ease with which life on a sunny holiday beach can be snuffed out in a few torrential seconds, and the awesome power which nature still wields, and will always wield, in a world where science and engineering make such boastful strides in subduing her. And any reminder of the ultimate and total powerlessness of human beings, made always necessary by our arrogance and boasting, must be an act of God, and a very sensible and benevolent one too. It can also be argued — and this is what our bishops, if they had any sense, would be arguing — that such events make us think about transience and death, and our own preparedness for our extinction and the life to come. So the calamity — so distressing for those individually involved — was for humanity as a whole a profoundly moral occurrence, and an act of God performed for our benefit.

[The Happy Humanist]

I came across this article and just wanted to note it here.

Why the giant waves were acts of a benevolent God

...So the calamity — so distressing for those individually involved — was for humanity as a whole a profoundly moral occurrence, and an act of God performed for our benefit.

If the tsunami can be called a benevolent act, then any act of God can be called benevolent with this same flourish of sophistry. Proof: name one that couldn't be.