Maybe you've heard this argument. There is no god. Proof? Evil exists in the world. Now, if there was a god, there would be no evil. You see, god is supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. So if there is evil, either he is unable to stop it (and not omnipotent) or he is unwilling to stop it (not omnibenevolent). Ipso facto -- no god.
Lots of people have taken on this argument. Lots have done a decent job. Some have questioned the actual existence of evil. Is it a thing, or is it the absence of good? If it is simply the absence of good, then it does not exist and the argument falls apart. Another approach is that there is a presumption in the argument that such a god would necessarily stop evil. What makes that true? That's a problem. In other words, the premise, "if there was a god, there would be no evil", is faulty, and the argument collapses. But I'm wondering about this whole "omnibenevolent" thing. So I had to go look it up.
Dictionary.com defines "benevolence" as "desire to do good to others". Now, if you're a thinking person, that would have to be necessarily vague because "How, exactly, do you define 'good' in that definition?" By "good" do you mean "nice", "pleasant", "comfortable", or do you mean "moral", "right", that sort of thing? The Oxford English Dictionary defines "omnibenevolence" as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Wiktionary says that omnibenevolent refers to that which is "all-loving, or infinitely good". Again, I need a definition of "good" here. You see, "good" can be moral excellence, virtue, of satisfactory amounts, high quality, fitting, well-behaved, kind ... well, you see, it can get a bit difficult. You see, "good" is, by its nature, a relative term. It is in comparison to something. A "good dog" is not the same as a "good man". Further, it is defined by the user. A rainstorm might be considered "good" by the farmer whose crops were watered, but "bad" by the guy downstream who got the flash flood that resulted from it. And both would be accurate. My wife thinks spinach and liver are both good and I don't. Is one of us incorrect? Good is a relative concept.
So, when we're talking about God with an unlimited desire to do good to others, who gets to evaluate what He does to determine if it was indeed good? I mean, just as a bad example, when He ordered Israel to smite the Amalekites, I'd bet that the Israelites were good with that, but the Amalekites likely wouldn't have called it "good". Who gets to decide? Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man dies and ends up in Sheol, a place of fire and torment. Lazarus ends up in a place called Abraham's Bosom and he's quite comfortable. Now the rich man doesn't consider his condition a good thing, but Abraham doesn't seem to think it's a bad thing. Who gets to decide?
It begs the question. Is God actually omnibenevolent? I wonder if this isn't where part of the problem lies. We know that God is good all the time, but we also know that what God considers good isn't always what His creation considers good. We know that God defines love by His character, but it's really hard to see His love as "infinite" (as it is so often described) when you factor in the wrath that is throughout the biblical record. I really don't think that "omnibenevolent" is a good description.
Look, here's where it really boils down. If we claim there is a God, and God is omnipotent and good (despite our inability to recognize "good" all the time), then there are two possibilities. Either we are wrong about this God and no such being exists, or everyone who complains about evil is wrong and, in ways we may not fully understand, God uses that evil for good (since, if He does exist, we've already said that He is good). Interestingly, this is the claim of Scripture. God works all things together for good. But I still really doubt that "omnibenevolent" is an accurate description of God's character. I think it's a dodge intended to put God under our scrutiny to see if He measures up to our standards ... and He doesn't. Now that is arrogant.
3 comments:
Stan,
Perhaps another part of the equation is the question, benevolent to whom? Is God motivated to do good things to, or for, mankind; or is He motivated only by His own good pleasure for His glory?
If it is the latter, then the statement would read something like, "God is infinitely good to Himself." Seems to me it is sort of like the scripture so often misapplied where God says He will give us the desires of our heart. That statement is contingent on some things, ultimately coming down to how closely we are aligned with His will. The idea being, if we are completely in line with God's will on an issue, the desire of our heart will be to see things happen exactly as God would have it, our prayers would match God's will and so we are given the desires of our heart. Not because God is obligated to do what we say, but because He does according to His good pleasure and we have aligned ourselves with His plan.
It's interesting, i'm reading through The Cross of Christ by John R.W. Stott and this is his reasoning on sacrifice and Jesus' substitute status. He points out that believers mistakenly assume that the Old Testament animal sacrifices were something humans did to appease God's wrath that He chose to accept; so the belief in that thinking is that we are atoning for our own sins by offering up something of our own invention that God accepts. He presents the actual text that shows instead that God provided the sacrificial system for man because He determined that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. That subtle difference in reasoning makes all the difference in the world.
Same way with omnibenevolence, it seems to me.
I'm thinking out loud here as I haven't given serious thought to the issue. Your thoughts?
That's actually one of my reasons for denying the concept of "omnibenevolence". God's first priority is to Himself ... because that's as it should be. Our problem continues to be anthropocentrism. It has always been the problem of Man at the center. "I will be like the Most High."
Don't know if you've read it or not, but here's a quote from John R.W. Stott from "The Cross of Christ":
"The concept of substitution may be said, then, to lie at the heart of both sin and salvation. For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and puts himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives that belong to God alone; God accepts penalties that belong to man alone."
The approximately 150 page development leading to that summary statement was just as intriguing.
You are right, we do like thinking first and foremost of ourselves, and even daring to think that God thinks of us first as well. Thanks again for presenting the opportunity to think on this.
Post a Comment