Traditionalists' Muddled Thinking About God and the Good: A Bit of
Philosophy

By Andrew Bard Schmookler
Created Nov 30 2006 - 11:41am

In my article, "Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on
America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis," I describe how
traditionalists

"assume that people who do not believe in their firm moral structures -who
do not believe in God, or in the Ten Commandments, or in inviolable and
absolute rules of moral conduct- must be living lives of sin and debauchery.
They cannot understand -and often seem unwilling even to believe- that
people like Unitarians might be living the well-ordered lives -as
hard-working and law-abiding citizens, as responsible and dedicated family
people- that they themselves strive to do."

Of course, when the evidence contradicts one's assumptions, it's time to
re-examine one's assumptions. But that assumes one reaches ones conclusions
based on evidence. And, of course, the evidence suggests that not everyone
adheres to this empirical approach to knowledge.

But it isn't only evidence with which the traditionalists' thinking is at
odds. There are some problems with the logic, too. And it is an important
piece of the logic that I want to delineate here.

What Makes the Good Good?

In discussing the issue of moral absolutes --in the sense of fixed and
invariable rules of conduct-- I will often raise with traditionalists the
question, what are the criteria that determines whether or not something is
right or moral or good?

A typical answer is: "If God says its right or moral or good, then it is."

That's where a logical problem arises.

One might challenge such a position (and I have) by asking: "What if God,
the Creator of the Universe, were an evil God? What if He had the character
of a cruel tyrant? What if His commandments were that we should torture
babies and to do in our neighbor before he can do us in. Would you still
believe that whatever such a God says we should do would define the Good?"

My interlocutor is likely to say: "But God isn't that kind of God."

I can point out that it is not absurd to posit an evil God, as there have
been many cultures who have imagined God to be morally problematic. I could
also point out, though this is likely to be too much of a distraction, that
in fact the God of the Bible does in fact present us on occasion with just
such problems: if God commands his followers to commit genocide --what
nowadays is considered a crime against humanity-- (as indeed he commanded
Saul, and was very angry when Saul didn't carry out the order 100 percent,
to the very last man, woman and child), goes that make genocide right and
good?

More important at that juncture in the conversation than either of those two
lines is for me to ask my interlocutor: "When you say your God isn't that
kind of God, are you saying that the God you believe in is not an evil God
but rather a good God, and that the things He says are good are
indeed --unlike torturing babies-- good things?"

And my interlocutor will say that yes, the God he believes in is good, and
His guidance is truly moral guidance.

At that point, it doesn't really matter whether the conduct of the God of
the Bible conforms to any standard of goodness or not, even His own. The
important point here is that my interlocutor has apparently made a judgment
of the moral nature of God.

So I might say: "Well, if you are able to say that the God you believe in is
good, then clearly you have some idea of goodness that exists independently
of the God you are judging. Otherwise, it would be just a tautology --it
would be true by definition, and would not convey anything of substance--
for you to declare that God is good."

And that then enables me to go on to my concluding point in the whole
exercise, which is: "And if you have some independent standard by which you
can assess the goodness of God, then it isn't really the case that God
defines the Good. And, indeed, you are in the same position as someone who
does not believe in God in having to think through just what it is that
makes the Good, good."

The inescapable conclusion is that whether one believes in God or not, one
still has to be able to be able to possess a set of criteria for making
moral evaluations.

Dangers in the Traditionalist Mind-set

My point is not that there is no God. Nor that there is a God but that he is
evil. On that question, my position is --at one level-- I really don't know.
But actually, at another level, I have had experiences that have pointed me
toward a belief that is at least akin to the traditionalists-- experiences
that seemed to give me a glimpse of Something transcendent, Something good
and beautiful. Those have been important moments for me, and indeed a few
such moments are at the root of what I have been doing these past two years
in battling the evil forces now ruling this country.

My point, rather, is that we human beings do not have any acceptable
shortcuts out of the responsibility to think clearly and deeply about moral
matters.

The traditionalists I am talking about, however, cling to a mind-set by
which they seek to escape from that responsibility.

After an exchange such as that described above, for example, it is
definitely NOT as though my interlocutor will adjust his or her thinking to
take into account the indefensibility and incoherence that has been
demonstrated about the "God defines the good" position. They'll just cling
to that position, and pretend that the problems --either they're willing to
obey the Creator of the Universe on moral matters even if He's a moral
monster, or they must have some other idea about the Good by which to
determine that they God they obey is not evil-- do not exist.

To the extent that they refuse to take on the burden of actually thinking
critically about morality, they show their moral universe not to be moral at
all. It is not about what's right or good, it is about obedience to
authority. It is not on the basis of God's moral qualities, but on the basis
of his rulership --the presumed Almightiness of the Creator-- that they are
obedient. It is a bowing down to power that amounts, essentially, to "might
makes right."

When I have discussed with such traditionalists the moral problems involved
in having this Moral Authority command his followers to commit genocide, it
is never the case that they will question their core assumptions: never do
they wonder if it is really true that God commanded that, as the Bible says;
never do they wonder if perhaps in that instance what God commanded was
wrong. No, the conclusions are foregone, and so the only direction they will
go is to provide justifications why --in those instances-- genocide was
morally right.

It's interesting to hear the same people who condemn with great disdain
those people who think in terms of situational ethics come up with
situational justifications for God.

What does it matter? Why should one care about how traditionalist believers
think about morality?

Well, take a look at America today. These Bible-believing traditionalists
form a substantial part of the base of the political base for a president
who is, as clearly as anything like this has been in American history, a
channel through which what I have been calling "evil forces"(see
www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?page_id=26 [1]) have been tearing the country
apart.

Once George W. Bush established himself with these people as a Trusted
Authority, it appears that nothing can sway them away from their loyalty,
their obedience, their support. Not day after day of evidence of lies. Not
the defects of the logic of the president's arguments to explain away his
crimes and his failures. The people with this mind-set-- in which circular
logic and foregone conclusion reign, in which any conduct can be excused and
justified-- make up a substantial part of that 1/3 of the American public
who seem unable or unwilling to allow an ever more frightening reality to
get them to re-evaluate whether this Authority in the White House should be
trusted.

Habits of thought have consequences.

In some situations, the consequences of loyalty and of obedience and of
steadfastness in the face of difficulty are heroic and beneficial.

But not in Bushite America. Not in an America where the ruling powers
disdain those who are reality-based. Not in an America in which lies are the
staple of power, and in which only investigation and critical thinking can
save us from the dismantling of our birthright. Not in an America where evil
has donned the cloak of a false righteousness to hide its true nature.

These traditionalists are mostly good people, now caught in a situation in
which their sometime virtues have been made into dangerous flaws.

There's a danger in giving over one's power and one's moral judgment to an
authority, however exalted. What if that authority turns out to be evil?

We cannot escape the responsibility to learn how to make good moral
judgments. I'm reminded of the book written by Erich Fromm many years ago to
try to explain the psychology of nation that chose to follow Hitler: it was
called ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM.

***
Postscript:

With respect to the question, "What makes the Good, good?" major components
of the left have problems of their own. I have in mind the idea,
increasingly widespread in America over the past couple generations, that
the good isn't REALLY good, but is just a matter of opinion; one thing may
seem "good" to one person, and another thing good to another, with their
being no valid vantage point from which to judge the one view more right
than another.

This point of view, this kind of moral relativism, is one factor --I have
argued-- that has helped weaken the moral structures of American culture and
thus helped clear the way for the rise of these evil Bushite forces to
power.

Some might object that declaring this moral relativism to be one of the
enablers of this Bushite evil constitutes no refutation of the validity of
the relativistic argument. I grant that point: it's no refutation, and I
will not undertake any refutation here-- the issue being difficult and
complex.

But if one were to truly buy into this relativistic argument --dismissing
the reality of good and evil, right and wrong-- it would follow, would it
not, that one needn't be concerned about whether or not it is true that such
moral relativism can lead to developments like the rise of the Bushites.
After all, if nothing is REALLY good or evil, then the rise of the Bushites
isn't really such a bad thing. Just something that some people like and some
people don't. Just a matter of opinion.
_______



--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson