Meta-ethical argument for atheism

[Captain Scarlet]

If the statement god is good has any value, then morality must be independent of god. If morality is independent of god, then god is not the source of morality and therefore god as envisaged by Christianity does not exist. Therefore chrsitianity is false.

How? This argument doesn't seem well thought out.
Are you trying to imply that humans give god the good attribute and therefore own their morality?

No. It is a standard argument for atheism, I couldn't lay claim to it myself. It essentially points out the logical inconsistency of the concept of a moral god. Human morality is not discussed in it's premises nor conclusions. How can god both be the source of morality and be good, seeing as he is judging himself against his own standards.

[fr0d0]

e it, this argument is not so much an argument against Christianity's truth, as against its being moral. Basically, the difficulty can be phrased like this: 'Is something good because God commands it, or does he command it because it's good?' If the former, morality is arbitrary. God could command the torture of babies, and that'd be considered 'good'. If the latter, then morality is independent of God, and we don't need a god for morality.

Ah, I see what you're saying OO.

God doesn't "command" that we see him as good, We _deduce_ that he is good. If we take what the OT says that seems contrary to our understanding of 'good', then we have to rationalise that from our previous assumption: that we don't know the mind of God, and he, being all knowing, can make decisions that are good, which won't look that way to us.

If someone claimed to be enacting the will of God then that would need to be tested before we could confirm it.

[Captain Scarlet]

@frodo. This does not blunt the force of the meta-ethical argument. Whether god commands, or allows us to deduce it from him radiating out his morality into the universe, or simply writing into the fabric of nature; he has either commanded/allowed it/written it and it is therefore arbitrary or indepedent of good if it is objectively moral. God is hoisted by his own petard.

[fr0d0]

God hasn't commanded, allowed or written that he is good, he simply is supremely good. Morality is judged against the best model. As we've already defined what is supremely good, then we can have a benchmark for ultimate morality.

Morality was never an attribute of God. As an ultimately perfect being we can deduce that he would be ultimately moral.

[Captain Scarlet]

God hasn't commanded, allowed or written that he is good, he simply is supremely good. Morality is judged against the best model. As we've already defined what is supremely good, then we can have a benchmark for ultimate morality.

Morality was never an attribute of God. As an ultimately perfect being we can deduce that he would be ultimately moral.

I'm struggling with the nuance of this. What does it mean to simply be good? Can you offer a sketch or analogy? What causal mechanisms are in place to invoke morality in us? In this model could god describe himself as good, because he is not objective of himself.

[The Omnissiunt One]

God hasn't commanded, allowed or written that he is good, he simply is supremely good.

By whose standards? His own?

If we take what the OT says that seems contrary to our understanding of 'good', then we have to rationalise that from our previous assumption: that we don't know the mind of God, and he, being all knowing, can make decisions that are good, which won't look that way to us.

In other words, God can say whatever the hell he likes, and it's good by definition. Or have I misunderstood you? Certainly, I doubt that you intended to imply this.

[fr0d0]

God hasn't commanded, allowed or written that he is good, he simply is supremely good. Morality is judged against the best model. As we've already defined what is supremely good, then we can have a benchmark for ultimate morality.

Morality was never an attribute of God. As an ultimately perfect being we can deduce that he would be ultimately moral.

I'm struggling with the nuance of this. What does it mean to simply be good? Can you offer a sketch or analogy? What causal mechanisms are in place to invoke morality in us? In this model could god describe himself as good, because he is not objective of himself.

I'm drawing from the Summa there Captain : http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm

God is reasoned to be ultimately good in our construct. That is, the model of God we've ended up with makes him supremely good. Our causal mechanisms would evolve from naturally selected traits beneficial to the species. I assume those to be moralistic to an extent as that is what would be most beneficial to us. Our desire for betterment is seen in the aspirations toward God. Complete freedom from guilt = a more confident and therefore better functioning person.

Does God know that he is good? I would think yes.

(OO - I hope I addressed your points too there)

[Captain Scarlet]

@frodo. You are a bright guy, with extra lashings of brightness. Whilst you can argue as you are doing don't you pay a heavy intellectual price for doing so. There is nothing analagous to this concept. It makes god seem like he occupies whatever funny shape gap you can squeeze him in, and when our knowledge advances the gap changes shape and so does god. You are taking god to a place where most of theism won't recognize him. Clever. I'll smoke you out yet frodo ;-)

[fr0d0]

No the gap only exists in scientific understanding which some religious people mistakenly think is where God resides, when of course he doesn't. God is still the full shape he started out with if you look at it as I believe you have to, and how it was always intended to be looked at.

I've seen those who doggedly hold to the Philosophy of Science and consider their POV to be a severe intellectual compromise. I'd like to see how that applies to me.

[Entropist]

Giving the benefit of the doubt that any god exists and that there is such a thing as "goodness" in an objective sense of the word, there are two options:

(A) Is such a god good because this god defines what is good?

Or:

(B) Is such a god good because he measures perfectly with such goodness?

If the answer is (A), then morality truly is then entirely arbitrary, based on the whims of a supernatural being. Such a god could just as easily say "Thou shalt murder" just as well as "Thou shalt not murder." There is no such thing as morality-- what is "good" merely comes down to following the orders of this particular god. Of course there are many believers who debate exactly what such orders really are...

If the answer is (B) then there is a standard external to god by which we can judge this god to be "morally perfect." Assuming such an objective moral standard exists, this fact would do away with the need for a god in connection to morality, since it exists external to said god anyway. A god is therefore superfluous.

But why should I concern myself with such metaphysical hand wringing?