Originally posted, 26 Aug 11.
We’ve all seen this argument: ‘Science can’t define what ‘good’ is. Religion does define it. Therefore we need religion.’ Well, as you may already suspect, I have several problems with that…
Firstly, let’s look at how religion defines it. Is it a ‘good’ definition?
Religion doesn’t, it seems to me, give any real definition of good. Something is good, says religion, because God says so. But that doesn’t really answer the question of ‘what is good’; it merely shifts it to a higher stage. (For now, let’s ignore the fact that gods have never been shown to exist, and take that existence as a given.)
Is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it’s good? If the latter, then God is not the all-powerful free agent he’s usually made out to be; he’s constricted to making only ‘good’ pronouncements. If the former, then invoking God does nothing to define good unless we presuppose that God would never lie or make self-serving pronouncements (and if you believe that, I urge you to check out the first four of the ten commandments).
Both ways of stating the problem, therefore, make presuppositions about the nature of God that aren’t supported by fact, or even by religious text. More importantly, for this discussion, neither actually defines ‘good’; rather they leave that definition for God to sort out—if he can—and tell us to do nothing but submit to his authority. Anyone wishing to do so, I’d advise reading the Old Testament before deciding. Don’t know about you, but the actions of the god portrayed therein don’t strike me as being particularly good.
Secondly, does the want of, or even the emotional need for, the existence of gods, mean that they exist? Don’t be silly. Just because some people want a heavenly authority to tell them how to behave correctly doesn’t magically conjure that being into existence, any more than my ardent wish for a Brough Superior will make one suddenly appear in my garage. (There wouldn’t be room, anyway; Carl Sagan left his bloody dragon in there. I wouldn’t mind, but it’s getting hard to find enough princesses to feed the damn thing on.)
And thirdly, it should be bloody obvious that the whole thing is a false dichotomy. ‘Good’ is a word, and it’s not a scientific principle but a philosophical one, so the people to ask aren’t scientists, but linguists and philosophers. It’s a concept, not an object; like politeness or egotism. And, to be honest, it’s not even a difficult word to define.
An action which is morally good is one which promotes happiness and/or health. It’s as simple as that. And the converse, a bad action, would be one which promoted unnecessary pain or other suffering. Of course, the application can be complicated, with much weighing up of relative outcomes—which is where the grey areas of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ slip into the discussion—but the basic principle is simple and clear-cut.
Clear-cut, that is, to those adults among us who’ve actually thought about it but not clear-cut, maybe, to those who prefer to stay in perpetual childhood, and want a father-figure to hand down rules so that they don’t have to think for themselves on the consequences of their own actions.
—Daz
Comments
Hey Daz. It’s good to have you back.
As to “An action which is morally good is one which promotes happiness and/or health. It’s as simple as that. And the converse, a bad action, would be one which promoted unnecessary pain or other suffering.” perfect definition for morality and even sin. Perfect for us secularists. But as you are well aware when one needs to defends every random crazy-assed notion in the old testament such a objective definition is untenable. Yahweh’s random acts and blood thirsty butchery constantly throw off any objective look. Justifying Yahweh’s morality is like trying to ride a bucking bronco, you try to hold on but that son-of-a-bitch keeps lunging around and throwing you off.
The solution here, of course, is to just assume that whatever God does is right. God = morality. Goodness is defined by what God does. It’s not what promotes our happiness. It’s what promotes his.
My view of religious morality is a bit jaded, I admit. It an be summed up succinctly by the simple phrase, “God is a dick.” See ya. KKBundy
BTW, have you seen Amy? I haven’t heard from her for a while and miss her biting commentary
“God is a dick.”
Yep, you’re getting no argument from me on that score!
No I’ve not seen Amy, or Alice Sprinklings for that matter. Could be school holidays are impinging on internet time?
Damn, these women just drop out of sight. They don’t call. Don’t write. I’ve been waiting up all night… Well, I hope to hear from them soon.
rustiguzzi
From Amy’s post, 28th July:
p.p.s.– posting will probably be light for August, due to summer break. I’m required to be a good Japanese-Make-Your-Kids-Study-As-Much-As-Possible-During-Vacation-Mama for the next couple of weeks. That’s another post:-))
Reckon that explains all.
Leave a Comment