Obviously the claim that God is good is an essential part of basically every purportedly revealed religion
Doesn’t seem so obvious to me. I suspect that “God is good” is an invention of the recent few thousand years. Previously, gods were simply supernatural beings, doing some random things, sometimes threatening people “I will punish you if you do X” or offering them trade “if you do X, I will (maybe) give you Y”.
Even the relatively recent Gods often seem only “good” in the sense “yeah, he does some unpleasant things, but if you call him evil, he will torture you, so it is better to call him good”. Essentially, a supernatural Stalin with omniscient secret service; of course you would only speak positively about him, regardless of what he does.
Even the relatively recent Gods often seem only “good” in the sense “yeah, he does some unpleasant things, but if you call him evil, he will torture you, so it is better to call him good”. Essentially, a supernatural Stalin with omniscient secret service; of course you would only speak positively about him, regardless of what he does.
It is fine to say that religious claims are false; it is not fine to substitute strawman claims and say they are the real claims.
The notion that God might be evil is not a mere “strawman”; it is in fact a feature of some actual religions, notably Gnostic Christianity. Of course, the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible seems to aim at refuting this very argument, since it freely admits that God often appears to be evil from our point of view; but since he is infinitely wise and knows so many things which are entirely beyond our understanding, and has done plenty of nice things for us besides (such as laying the foundations of our very world), how can we argue against his goodness?
(All this in response to the anguished questioning of a man who, in-story, has had almost everything taken away from him by—or at least with the express permission of—God … for a bet.)
Viliam’s account of a “supernatural Stalin” was in fact a strawman. It is not even equivalent to the evil God in gnosticism. The gnostics thought you were supposed to reject that God and not do what he says; you definitely would not say that he was good. In contrast, no one believes Viliam’s theory, and so it was definitely a strawman.
It is also strawmanning, although less indefensibly, to imply that modern religious beliefs are equivalent to ancient extinct ones.
My own reading of Job was not that god’s goodness is undeniable, it’s that god really needs nothing from us and is entirely indifferent to human beings choosing to damn themselves or not, in contradiction to “your God is a jealous God”.
If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him?
And if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to him?
If you are righteous, what do you give to him?
Or what does he receive from your hand?
Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself,
and your righteousness a son of man.
This seems to me like the most sane piece of theological reasoning I’ve found in any religious text whatever—casting God as an entirely amotivational agent ( which is strangely in contradiction to the premise of the story of Job ).
Not for the change of mind from “I completely don’t care about humans” to “I’ll make my only Son a human (to start with) and let other humans crucify him so that they could wash off the original sin”.
It’s not smoking-gun obvious to me that this second formulation is what the pre-Pauline Christians believed in. Jesus’s divinity certainly wasn’t settled even after Paul. Consider for example the Arian “heresy”.
My reading of Job is that Leviathan is more awesome than humans, and Job is forced to admit this, therefore God optimizes this world for Leviathan instead of humans. It’s not that humans are completely irrelevant; but they are merely a rounding error compared with Leviathan, the utility monster.
Doesn’t seem so obvious to me. I suspect that “God is good” is an invention of the recent few thousand years. Previously, gods were simply supernatural beings, doing some random things, sometimes threatening people “I will punish you if you do X” or offering them trade “if you do X, I will (maybe) give you Y”.
Even the relatively recent Gods often seem only “good” in the sense “yeah, he does some unpleasant things, but if you call him evil, he will torture you, so it is better to call him good”. Essentially, a supernatural Stalin with omniscient secret service; of course you would only speak positively about him, regardless of what he does.
It is fine to say that religious claims are false; it is not fine to substitute strawman claims and say they are the real claims.
The notion that God might be evil is not a mere “strawman”; it is in fact a feature of some actual religions, notably Gnostic Christianity. Of course, the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible seems to aim at refuting this very argument, since it freely admits that God often appears to be evil from our point of view; but since he is infinitely wise and knows so many things which are entirely beyond our understanding, and has done plenty of nice things for us besides (such as laying the foundations of our very world), how can we argue against his goodness?
(All this in response to the anguished questioning of a man who, in-story, has had almost everything taken away from him by—or at least with the express permission of—God … for a bet.)
And a bet with Satan, no less.
Yup. (Though that bit isn’t quite as bad as it sounds: “Satan” in Job isn’t at all the same figure as in present-day Christianity.)
Viliam’s account of a “supernatural Stalin” was in fact a strawman. It is not even equivalent to the evil God in gnosticism. The gnostics thought you were supposed to reject that God and not do what he says; you definitely would not say that he was good. In contrast, no one believes Viliam’s theory, and so it was definitely a strawman.
It is also strawmanning, although less indefensibly, to imply that modern religious beliefs are equivalent to ancient extinct ones.
My own reading of Job was not that god’s goodness is undeniable, it’s that god really needs nothing from us and is entirely indifferent to human beings choosing to damn themselves or not, in contradiction to “your God is a jealous God”.
This seems to me like the most sane piece of theological reasoning I’ve found in any religious text whatever—casting God as an entirely amotivational agent ( which is strangely in contradiction to the premise of the story of Job ).
And then God says “j/k, just kidding” and does the whole New Testament thing :-)
Either God, Jesus or St. Paul—that all depends entirely on which sect you ask.
Got to be someone from the Holy Trinity—Paul isn’t going to cut it.
Paul might cut it if you’re Thomas Jeffson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible “Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”
Not for the change of mind from “I completely don’t care about humans” to “I’ll make my only Son a human (to start with) and let other humans crucify him so that they could wash off the original sin”.
It’s not smoking-gun obvious to me that this second formulation is what the pre-Pauline Christians believed in. Jesus’s divinity certainly wasn’t settled even after Paul. Consider for example the Arian “heresy”.
My reading of Job is that Leviathan is more awesome than humans, and Job is forced to admit this, therefore God optimizes this world for Leviathan instead of humans. It’s not that humans are completely irrelevant; but they are merely a rounding error compared with Leviathan, the utility monster.
?