Is God A Moral Monster?

[Guest]

Has anyone read this? Is it good?

[LittleWaySoul]

Haven't read it, but a quick search to Wikipedia reveals that his solution is likely something called "divine command morality," which, in my understanding, is something we Catholics reject. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Papist]

No. 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Haven't read it, but a quick search to Wikipedia reveals that his solution is likely something called "divine command morality," which, in my understanding, is something we Catholics reject. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

It's the type of nonsense William of Ockham reasoned. Essentially, something is the way it is because God dictates it to be. Something is not moral because it is inherently good, it is moral and considered good because God has decided it so. But he could have made what we consider immoral to be moral if he wanted to -- he is not bound to anything (including reason or that which is logical) and is essentially divine dictator.

A simplistic answer to Old Testament issues that quickly leads to very big problems, as I'm sure you can figure out pretty easily.

[Anomaly]

7 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

It's the type of nonsense William of Ockham reasoned. Essentially, something is the way it is because God dictates it to be. Something is not moral because it is inherently good, it is moral and considered good because God has decided it so. But he could have made what we consider immoral to be moral if he wanted to -- he is not bound to anything (including reason or that which is logical) and is essentially divine dictator.

A simplistic answer to Old Testament issues that quickly leads to very big problems, as I'm sure you can figure out pretty easily.

Whoa now.    Don't start spouting Enlightenment that morality can be reasoned out.  Morality is determined by God and you can reasonably know it. 

[Guest]

That's odd saw this book recommended on Catholic Answers. Maybe I will skip it then.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

It's the type of nonsense William of Ockham reasoned. Essentially, something is the way it is because God dictates it to be. Something is not moral because it is inherently good, it is moral and considered good because God has decided it so. But he could have made what we consider immoral to be moral if he wanted to -- he is not bound to anything (including reason or that which is logical) and is essentially divine dictator.

A simplistic answer to Old Testament issues that quickly leads to very big problems, as I'm sure you can figure out pretty easily.

Hmm. Do you have some Church document condemning that view? In a sense I would tend to agree with it.

If you read Genesis literally (for the sake of argument) it is not as if there is anything intrinsically evil about eating an apple. People eat apples every day. It seems that eating one particular apple was "evil" only because God forbade it.

To conclude otherwise, I think, you would be able to define "good" and "evil" independently of God's Will. One might say "Assisted suicide? It is good that a person should not have to suffer against his own will. Sounds good to me!" Numerous other examples would abound. I don't know if you can define good or evil based solely on natural concepts, but I have not fully thought about it.

On the other hand, there does seem to be some high degree of consistency between what God permits / disallows, and what is "good" or "bad" for us in a purely natural sense. Murder, rape, abortion, theft, etc. being obvious examples.

I dunno what the answer here would be, honestly, but I would be interested in seeing something that discusses the issue in depth if you have anything.

[PhuturePriest]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Hmm. Do you have some Church document condemning that view? In a sense I would tend to agree with it.

If you read Genesis literally (for the sake of argument) it is not as if there is anything intrinsically evil about eating an apple. People eat apples every day. It seems that eating one particular apple was "evil" only because God forbade it.

To conclude otherwise, I think, you would be able to define "good" and "evil" independently of God's Will. One might say "Assisted suicide? It is good that a person should not have to suffer against his own will. Sounds good to me!" Numerous other examples would abound. I don't know if you can define good or evil based solely on natural concepts, but I have not fully thought about it.

On the other hand, there does seem to be some high degree of consistency between what God permits / disallows, and what is "good" or "bad" for us in a purely natural sense. Murder, rape, abortion, theft, etc. being obvious examples.

I dunno what the answer here would be, honestly, but I would be interested in seeing something that discusses the issue in depth if you have anything.

I think this is possibly a case of the both/and. God of course made the world in a certain way, but also those things which are moral are inherently good and not good simply because that's what God decided. It's an interesting question I'd certainly like to explore. I can see issues with ascribing to just one view in an absolute way, as it becomes problematic.

We do know that God cannot do that which is illogical or bad, which suggests some things are inherently bad not because God decided they are, but because they are in and of themselves. But I think we need to go more fundamental and ask "Why are they bad in and of themselves?"

[LittleWaySoul]

Hi I have reasons I don't like DCT but I don't have time to explain now so I'll be back later. 

[Guest]

A stumbling attempt with the conviction that there is a God and our creator revealed in Jesus and that God is Good and Goodness:  

I think of it as God having created us, knows what is good for His creation and what is not good.  Also, to me God looks not only at this life but at once also our eternal life - and 'both' as destined (called) to be with Him.  We are created in our very being for God and eternity, which is why "our souls are restless, Lord, until they rest in Thee" (St Augustine) and this to my experience is true. Within our humanity, our being, is a yearning that cannot be quite identified, a restless yearning for something "not yet" other than possibly in extraordinarily fleeting moments - for some and probably most. God sees (as it were) eternity as a whole, not in two stages as we tend to do.  He not only sees us as we are now, but at once as we are destined to be.  We are gifted, however, with free will to make the choice insofar as we are this side of death and God has fully revealed how to go about making that choice in His Son, Jesus. The Incarnation is truly stunning and amazing as is our baptism.

Obviously, if we are created for God, we could not live with Him eternally if we were contrary to His Nature i.e. Love and Goodness.  All that is good here has an ultimate destiny in God (St Paul tells us) or The Infinite Ultimate Destiny of what is good and finite here.  My sometime problem morally can be what exactly is Love, good and goodness?  Throughout our long history, The Father has gradually led mankind in various ways to His Full Revelation in the Incarnation of His Son and our fulfilment here and hereafter"  "I am The Resurrection and The Life" 

Quote

John Ch11 " Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die."

 Jesus founded The Church which grows in insight down the ages:

Quote

 

John Ch14 " Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.

Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.I have told you this while I am with you.The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

Peace ¹² I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid."

 

 

 

[LittleWaySoul]

Okay so this is getting pretty philosophical, but that's what we're going to have to do to discuss this. We talked about it in several Philosophy classes I took last fall.

So the reasons I don't like Divine Command Theory are that it not only (1) undermines a stable objective morality for the universe, but that (2) it paints God as a being who could change His mind, which He can't (divine immutability). 

(1) If morality is determined only based upon what He says is moral, we can't fully be aware of what is moral in any given situation without checking to see whether God said it was or not. We can look to Scripture, sure, but not every moral/immoral thing is explicitly outlined by God or Jesus in Scripture (see: birth control, abortion, etc). We live in an inherently rational universe and were made to be rational creatures. The Church upholds the idea of "natural law," which essentially means that there's order to the morality in the universe which is natural and intelligible. DCT undermines this because it allows God to set the morality of a thing based upon His will.

(2) God is immutable. He is constant. He cannot change. DCT would have you believe that in some situations He permits certain actions and in some situations He does not. This is impossible as He cannot deny Himself. He is unchanging good. While morality stems from God's inherent goodness, it does not stem from an arbitrary command God gives.

Now to address @Peace's examples:

(A) Garden of Eden. Setting aside the fact that the fruit eaten was not necessarily an apple, I would argue that because God didn't say, "Eating apples is sinful," but rather, "Do not eat from that tree," disobeying him wasn't something to do with that particular fruit, but rather had to do with Adam and Eve's disobedience to God. This all still sounds like a Divine Command, however. But it's good to keep in mind that the Genesis story is not held to be historical or scientific by the Church, but poetic. There are certain things we must believe about this story, like the fact that there were an original man and woman and there was a "Fall" of sorts (see Pius XII, Humani Generis), but the exact details are not necessarily factually set-in-stone. 

(B) Defining good by natural means. I'm not sure it's possible to define what's good by entirely natural means alone, but I think it's possible to get pretty close. However, we Christians use Revelation through Scripture and Sacred Tradition to learn from God what is good and what isn't. This isn't the same as DCT, because we assert that morality is not tied to God's commands, but to God's essence as Goodness Itself. Thus it is immutable and objective. Any morality commanded by God in Scripture or through the Church is done so because it exists beforehand in Him, not because He commanded it. It seems like a subtle difference, but it is actually a huge distinction.

I could potentially argue this much better with more research and time spent laying out the logical form and/or rebutting points of DCT individually, but I really don't have time for that, so you'll have to take my relatively quick speculations as they are. Let me know if you have questions and I'll do my best to answer them.