Christians often get upset when they are told that aspects of their faith are unreasonable. One such example is the idea that their god is perfect. Often god is defined as perfection, but a definition does not impart either existence or consequent defining qualities on a concept.
The entire foundations of Christianity is based on the idea that mankind is definitely not perfect. How then can a non perfect being speak rationally about perfection? He has no concept of it! It has to be taken on faith that god is indeed perfect. The bible even tells the believer that he can not understand god:
The entire foundations of Christianity is based on the idea that mankind is definitely not perfect. How then can a non perfect being speak rationally about perfection? He has no concept of it! It has to be taken on faith that god is indeed perfect. The bible even tells the believer that he can not understand god:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts " (Isaiah 55:8-9)
Concepts of perfection are subjective. I’m pretty sure that if we all defined our ideas of our perfect partner, there would be considerable disagreement. So it is with god – some Christians think that punishing sinners and an intolerance of sin is a requirement for perfection, others that forgiveness is a requirement of perfection. Yet others that love is a sign of perfection – or justice – or beauty. This subjectivity concerning perfection is also a problem for Anselm’s ontological argument where existence is supposedly derived from ideas of perfection. Apart from the unsound logic of this circular argument, everyone by using their own ideas of perfection , is essentially “providing evidence” for a myriad of different entities. To someone suffering, perfection may entail relieving suffering, to Bart Simpson, perfection may require being a robot with laser eyes. Surely, god would be an absolute, so, is anyone actually deriving this perfect being at all?
The trouble is that these are human ideas of perfection, and if you allow your thinking to be restricted by Isaiah 55:8-9, you are just in no position to comment on perfection; it is purely a matter of faith. This leads to the problem that what ever argument someone uses can be countered by substituting “imperfect” for “perfect”. It is like the idea that god is good. If you can’t understand or clearly define good, then the idea of an evil god, that works to the greater bad in ways that you can not understand can be just as valid. There is no way to choose between these options – let alone define the options.
Finally, if a being is perfect, then what does the act of creation do for that being? It can add nothing to its perfection. If that creation is imperfect, it can only lessen that being's perfection. If for example, that being happens to create an evil (imperfect) being, surely that act is imperfect. If a perfect being can only act in a perfect way, then that also means that being is restrained by something outwith itself, and is therefore not perfect.
Naturally, perfection is not defined but assumed for the sake of the above argument.
Any comments?
Any comments?
12 comments:
In a similar sense, the argument that God's creation was perfect until humans ruined it also falls down. For humans to be able to ruin it means that they were created imperfect. Not to mention the talking snake- hardly a perfect creature there. So it was never perfect to begin with.
I've heard it said that God has to be perfect, otherwise what's the point of worshipping him? Sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. Plus, it's a lot easier to explain away bad things happening by saying you don't understand a perfect God, than face the possibility that bad things happen because an imperfect God screwed up.
So it was never perfect to begin with.
Good point,you have reminded me of something here. Two things in genesis identify man as being less perfect that god - the lack of the knowlegde of good and evil - and what ever it was that the tree of life would provide (gen 3:22)
Plus, it's a lot easier to explain away bad things happening by saying you don't understand a perfect God, than face the possibility that bad things happen because an imperfect God screwed up.
Or indeed just because shit happens
Hi Billy
Any comments?
Of course :)
The problem all comes down to definitions as always – a common response from a Christian is that ‘God is perfect by definition’ – this seems to work if you don’t dig very deep.
Yet it fails, for me, for the reasons you have given (especially the part from Isaiah stating God is ‘unknowable’ - a bit of a contradiction that to say you know God is perfect and unknowable at the same time – the bible is funny like that sometimes)
However, once you point out the ‘error’ in defining God as ‘perfect by definition’ – the definition changes… whatever that new definition is, if attacked it will again change.
Unless the Christian is rather ‘clever’ to define an ‘unknowable’ God of course, as per Isaiah, but this creates the problem of how do you know anything about an ‘unknowable’ God, including how we should worship him (or her) and even if worship is required since why would a god who created the universe require worship from me - I don’t know, it is like me demanding worship from the ants in my garden.
(Well, I hate the ants, and ‘enjoy’ killing them in nasty ways, I could be a god to the ants in a way.)
Lee
I think of it this way, any God that puts so much effort into proving that he doesn't exist or that he hides behind the unfindable is not the perfect being that so many people want to credit him with.
The Christian God is rubbish, he even had to flood the entire world because he was hacked off with it - "Ahhh Bugger that, there we go flooded perfectly! Satan, be a good Devil and stop playing with the fossils...oh ok, just a few then, yes put them in layers where it makes the most sense to find them - especially that Tiktaalik.
He also screwed up so badly he had to send his son/himself on a suicide mission to make up for the creation balls up at the start?
This whole God being perfect simply does not wash with me, completely bloody complex and highly impossible yes, but not perfect! :)
(Well, I hate the ants, and ‘enjoy’ killing them in nasty ways, I could be a god to the ants in a way.)
I now have this image of you frying one with a magnifying glass and the other ants loving you for it.
He also screwed up so badly he had to send his son/himself on a suicide mission to make up for the creation balls up at the start?
Yes, that is messed up and no mistake
Hi Billy,
I now have this image of you frying one with a magnifying glass and the other ants loving you for it.
Not thought of that – but I’ve got something better… sweet, sweet poison.
They love it… can’t eat enough of it – they go crazy on it, then go back to their nest and die – killing the whole nest.
What a bastard I am :)
But an Englishman’s home is his castle, and if they come into my house it is fair game… come into my garden, then I know they are thinking about coming into my house and they are still fair game.
This is only in the summer time of course… nearly winter now so not so many ants around – quiet time
Australia is great – so much wild life, and most of it wants to kill you.
Lee
I've always (well, for the last few months, when I've known and cared) about how the "made in his image" thing, which is usually taken to mean conscious, rational and moral now that Yahweh is immaterial, squares with the idea that we can't understand the big guy.
If our faculties are of a similar kind to the big guys, then surely it's like me comparing myself to Hawking. He's way smarter than me, but given some time, I can understand the same stuff. I'll never be as quick, but it doesn't mean what he knows is unknowable to me. Is tehre some slippery theistic "get out of jail free" card for this?
Is tehre some slippery theistic "get out of jail free" card for this?
I'd like to hear it. I have heard them say it is the moral image or the spiritual image. Neither can be true if man was made without the knowlegde of good an evil though
Billy: Neither can be true if man was made without the knowlegde of good an evil though
Can a being which is the definition good have knowledge of evil?
Can a being which is the definition good have knowledge of evil?
Cann a being who is the definition of good create evil?
If evil is some how necessary for good, then good is not perfect - it is not a self contained entity
Related to the point that a perfect being would not need anything, and therefore would not need to create us. William Lane Craig seems to think that Yahweh created man for man's sake, not his own.
It seems to barely dodge the "that which has desires is not perfect" argument. It does still seem to leave you with a god which had desires, simply one level removed.
It seems to barely dodge the "that which has desires is not perfect" argument.
I hadn't come across that one before. It's a good one.
It is totally puzzling that god would create something for its own sake, when that thing does not exist. Surely to do something for the sake of something else requires existence.
The only logical conclusion then is that god did not create man, because to do something for man implies man already existed. No wonder theology is considered a non subject by many.
in a biblical sense, all that the creation of man has done is condemn most to hell - not exactly for man's good is it?
Theology hurts my head!
Post a Comment