poolosophy
i had thought of something cool, but i forgot it, so i'll tackle a nice ivory tower question that plagued me my first year of university. it goes like this:
“Are 1)morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they 2)morally good because they are willed by God?”
this is a dilemma, it leaves two undesirable options for one who gets their morality from God.
1)good exists apart from God, meaning God is not the ultimate 'Good'
2)acts are good not because of their intrinsic quality, but simply because God wants them to
to answer this problem by saying, 'but God is good,' is on the right track, but it leaves a problem. what good are you appealing to? are you thinking of a quality outside God? well then you hit the first option.
we need to demonstrate that God really is good, without appealing to outside criteria (1st prob), nor making up some arbitrary criteria (2nd prob)... whew... ok, so.. here goes:
the answer is 2.
ha, yeh since God is the Creator God, it means God created morality, meaning it is completely arbitrary, but not. why not? because the only criteria God could've looked at when creating morality is God's self, nothing else existed, including a conception of "good," and if it did, it was created by God..
So yes, things are good because God wills them, but it's not the same as things being good because WE will them. That's different, because we were created under the authority of this God's morality, and thus have several moralities to choose from.
Finally, this may breed a distrust of God. What if God really is just out to create suffering and call that "good." We don't like that good. Here's how I solve that,
"But Christ demonstrates his love for us in this, while we were sinners, Christ died for us."
it isn't perfect philosophy (yet), but who's got anything better? (seriously, anyone got anything better for or against this solution?)
posted by amac @ 8:57 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
mmm...deep...let me finish my exam today then I'll think about it...all the best with yours...
God is good because He is God. I think this is what you were saying anyway. Our definition of "good" is based on our morality, but if that's fallen then us pondering "goodness" is like a slug doing calculus: sticky and prone to dissolving on application of salt.
sweet Chris.. i think it's more like good is good b/c it was created by God...
mmmm, salty slugs..
The salty slugs pretty much cleared everthing up for me...I don't think I need to comment now.
yo, i'm validating circular logic and you guys are all excited bout salty slugs
"Here's how I solve that,
"But Christ demonstrates his love for us in this, while we were sinners, Christ died for us."
- i certainly hope this does not come across as mean or anything... but using a fallacious argument (appeal to authority) doesn't really help in solving the problem. you're defending your argument by using the very Book that the followers of the Being you question have written themselves. By using the Bible to solve your problem, aren't you basically appealing to the arbitrary criterias that you so wanted to avoid in the first place? and say you do resolve that issue with the use of arbitrary ideas and maybe the use of the Bible to placate your philosophy is okay, how then do you deal with the issue of subjective bias?
Can one really solve the argument with no appeal to outside criterias AND arbitrary criterias. What criterias are we left to play with then if those two are eliminated?
p.s. i can't believe you didn't tell meeh u had a blog!!! :( wo hen nan guo.
yo yo, that ain't an appeal to the bible, it's an appeal to history. if Christ really did die and rise again, then boi yah, we got evidence that there's a God who is seeking our good, or is a very good liar (who is willing to suffer extradornarily to see us suffer).
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html
assuming that the Resurrection did occur (which it did, i'm not saying it didn't), that event pretty much states how powerful God is and that He can do anything He wants to do. To say though that this was an act of His goodness... well that would be the interpretation of the fact of the resurrection. we know that this is a good thing because Christ died for the sins of the world. but if we added this layer of information to the fact of resurrection, is that not an appeal to arbitrary ideas. the concept of sin and the whole Christ dying for our sins and the way that it is portrayed in the Bible is very specific to Christianity... and the case could probly be argued, with Judaism, as well.
the resurrection is necessary to understand God's goodness, but would you say that the resurrection is sufficient in proving God's goodness (without any reference to arbitrary ideas)
actually first things first: how do you definite "outside criterias" and "arbitrary criterias"?
the resurrection doesn't prove God's goodness, but i think it does prove, or strongly suggest His existence.
His goodness is proved by His willingness to suffer for our joy.
arbitrary/outside criteria doing something without arguing for it, but just doing it cause you want to. those in power get away with it.
BUT, who says it's a BAD thing.. it usually is cause humans get corrupted by power. but if God demonstrates that He cares for us, then we have reason to trust His 'arbitrarieness.' (this is theoretical... not sure if i actually believe this.. in the words of Josh, "all i ask is that you forgive my heresy."
Post a Comment
<< Home