[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hi Grand Nudger,

I know I’m a day late and a dollar short so ignore me if you want.

TL;DR: (Though I hope you do read it) God wants and commands what is best for us. It is good for us because it fits with how He made us. He can’t command something that violates His reason because His intellect is perfect.

The Grand Nudger’s question is trying to get at why something is good? Let’s be honest and say that while Plato may have honestly asked the question, I’d be very surprised if the Grand Nudger is doing it for any other reason than as a trap. But no worries, it’s a good question. Interesting to think about.

I'll end up as the sole moral realist in thread.  Do it all the time, lol.

Following theologian and apologist, Karlo Broussard, I think we can summarize what the Big Nudge :-) is trying to say with three premises.

First, he says, “Are these things worthy because they shine out of gods wherever, or do they shine out of gods wherever because they are worthy?” The word “worthy” here is being used as a substitute for the word “good.” The statement is usually stated as “Is an action good because God commands it, or does God command an action because it’s already good?” Thus I would state the first premise as

1) Either an action is good because God commands it, or God commands an action because it’s already good.

Then he plays the gotcha and says “if badness, hate, falsity, ugliness, vacuity, and cowardice were what was shining out of gods wherever.. those things would be the set of the worthwhile.” He wants us to say, "well, I guess they would be worthwhile." It’s a gotcha because it makes the goodness of God into an arbitrary thing. To a theist it’s a logical contradiction, which is what Confused-by-christianity was pointing out. Let’s say the second premise as

You're wrong.  I expect a functioning moral agent to say "no, no, that's wrong, I misspoke".

2) If an action is good because God commands it, then God could arbitrarily command any evil act (like “curbstomping infants”), and that act would be good, which is absurd.

He also “wins” if we say that it’s not worthwhile just because God commands it. That means (at the surface) that there is a criteria for goodness independent of God, which a theist would not hold. Let’s say the third premise as

Why is it absurd?  Are logical consequences to purported conditionals absurd?  No.  It's absurd because it's what no one believes about right and wrong.  Least of all the people who say it - like fucking idiots.

3) If God commands an action because it’s already good, then there is a standard of goodness independent of God, in which case God is not necessary for morality.

Conclusion: Since a theist can hold neither option, it follows that a theist’s claim that God is necessary for morality is undermined.

A theist can hold either option..and I'd say that a theist who doesn't want to be immediately identified as a loon, a charlatan, or a sociopath..must.  That there are standards apart from god is manifestly obvious, regardless of whether you agree with those standards. You invoke them....yourself..when you babble on about the horrors of a post christian america.

[Grand Nudger, if I have stated these wrong, please correct. Don’t rant yet, though. Give me time to update my logic.]

Since this post is long, we’ll only look at the third premise. If someone wants to consider the second, let me know.

I do not have any problem affirming that God commands an action because it’s good. The fallacy here is in the way of thinking what good is.

What fallacy?  If there's a good for a god to be then there's good.  End of.  I don't give a shit about a god.  I seek the good for it's own sake.  God could blip into or out of existence and it doesn't matter a single iota, to the good.

Because what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the ends set for us by nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of our natural ends is considered good. If it frustrates those ends, then it is considered bad. For example, the way we were created/evolved says that drinking water is a good because it preserves our life. Procreation and rearing kittens are good for cats because they preserve the species.

It's precious when the faithful say this not realizing that their gods goods and bads must..then..be equally set by our nature.  I'm over here saying maybe don't do everything that's natural to you.  Especially if you're a goddamned sociopath.  I know sociopaths can't really understand moral instruction so consider it practical.  

And so, yes! God commands all actions that facilitate the achievement of our natural ends. Those actions he is commanding are good. He prohibits actions that frustrate those ends, “bad things, man.”

In summary, for premise 3, since human nature determines what is good and bad for us, and since God is the author of our nature, affirming that God commands something because it is good does not imply a standard of goodness independent of God.

Like I said, I'll end up the only realist in the thread.  You're describing theological subjectivism.  Through biological subjectivism, no less. What is good or bad is what is natural to us. Naturalness is the good-making property. I disagree. We do all sorts of..oh, what was the term..."devil stuff". Don't you think? I'm pretty sure it's natural to us. What do you think. What would that say about the author of human nature, if that were true? Does it not know better, or is there just no better?