The Relative Goodness of God

While discussing the attributes of God, we came to realize that many of the things we call God are simply extensions of ourselves. We can only know God through that which we already know, and the only thing we know (and that which we know best) is ourselves. Therefore, when we call God just, wise, and merciful, it is only because we think of those attributes as good things, and we make God what we want to.

This is just to give you a very brief background to why I began thinking of these terms. If there was one way that people would like to describe God, or if there was only one word that could capture him (it), what would it be? The omni words (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) get too many people in trouble (the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift, for example, or any discussion as to God's foresight/determinism). One of the most popular words used to describe God is "good." God is good, right? I think that it is safe to say that most if not all (I would lean towards all) Christians (those whom I primarily address in general) would agree that God is good. Before I go any further, I must ask in brief what it means to be good.

One way to define "good" is "Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing." For example, I have heard bad jokes, and I have heard good jokes. I have seen bad artwork, and I have seen good artwork. But I may call one painting bad, when someone else would call it good. Which one of us is right? The obvious answer is neither. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? So if goodness is equated with beauty in art, then it would really be impossible to call something objectively good. Some jokes might make me laugh, and my friend yawn. What would make a good joke? There's no way to define a good joke. A good joke is only a good joke so far as it makes the intended audience amused. Is there anything that can be objectively good, then? Can there be anything that is good in a way that anybody could look at it and say that it was good? Goodness only exists as far as we believe it to be good. Calling something good actually says more about the one who describes the object as such than the object itself. If my favorite movies are Die Hard, Crank, The Punisher, and The Matrix, then that does not mean that those four movies are the best movies made, but it does say that I love action movies. If my friend's favorite movie is What Dreams May Come, that does in no way make that movie the best. It only means that my friend is a philosophical romantic. Good is so subjective that it appears that it is impossible for something to be objectively good by its own merit.

A second problem with using this definition of "good" is that it is not only completely subjective, but it is also comparative. What I mean, is that in the above examples of jokes, movies, and artwork, to call any one of them "good" is only when observed as one of many examples. If there only existed one painting in the world, then would it be good? It would be impossible to say. Aside from the fact that some people may like it or not, it would be impossible to realize whether or not the work was good. I think that Dream Theater's sixth album is good, but would I think that if the only music I had ever heard in my life was Beethoven's 5th? It may be easier to visualize this by using the adjective "tall."

Shaquille Oneil is tall.
The Empire State building is tall.

Everyone would agree that Shaq is tall, because what we are really saying is "Shaq is tall compared to most people." The Empire State building is tall, but we are really saying that the Empire State building is tall compared to other buildings. The word "good" as defined above is the same way. Therefore, it would be impossible to call God "good" unless we had other deities to compare him to. We could say "Zeus is alright, Baal is bad, but God is good." I would only know a good song because I've heard so many bad ones. If God is the only deity, then can we really call him good? It appears that we must modify our definition of "good" in order to clear up this mess. I will therefore offer another way of defining "good," and I believe this way to be the closer to how Christians would intend the word to be defined when God is the object.

The second way to think of "good" is in the way that you may call someone a "good person." You do not mean that they are a good person because they are stronger than others, or better looking, or have a fuller head of hair, but you mean that they are kind, generous, merciful, loving, friendly, cheerful, nice, etc. I think everyone can understand this way of thinking of "good" without further explanation. However, I must point something out. This definition of "good" is only relational. I will substitute the word "nice" for the word "good." "John is a kind man." This means that John is kind to other people. It means that when John is around other people, he is kind to them. Would we call John kind if he didn't slam his refrigerator in order to not disturb the food? Well, of course not. That has nothing to do with him being kind, because we define "kind" in relational senses. Can John be kind if he is locked in his house with no human contact? He wouldn't be unkind, but he would neither be kind. If someone is "polite," it means that when they are talking to other people, they say "please" and "thank you." It is impossible to be polite when there is no one to be polite to. So in this way we see the word "good."

We say that God is good because we apply our human concepts to him. We humans are kind some of the time. The best people (with the most "good" in them) are kind more than the worse people. God, therefore, must be the farthest extreme of kind that there could be. He must be more kind than any human can possibly imagine. I could love my family and friends, and this might be a good thing, so God must be capable of love, because he must be greater than me, and love is supposedly a good thing, so God must have it but in greater abundance. So it is with "good." God must be good because we see ourselves as good (on a "good" day).

The problem returns, however, in that this definition of "good" is only valid when there is a receiver of the good. Just as John was kind only because there were people to be kind to, so is God good because he is good to us. Christians may say that God is good because he loves us, cares for us, and watches over us. What then, I ask, would he be if he did not love us, did not care about us, and was altogether apathetic to our existence? Would we still call him good? Probably not. We may call him great and powerful, but we would not call him "good." Then is God really objectively good? If God is only good so far as he is good to us, then was God good before we were created? Before there existed anybody to be good to, could it be possible that God was "good" at all? If goodness is defined in relational terms and God is good only so far as he is good to us, then it would appear to be correct to say that Good was not good before there was anybody to recognize him. Is this objective goodness? I do not believe that it is.

It appears to me that at the very most, we can say that God is good to us. But even in that statement, no objectivity exists. If you asked your friend to buy you a drink because you were thirsty and he did, you may think he was good, while the next person who asks and gets denied will not think the same. You, however, did not know that he has said no to 9 other people before he said yes to you. Is he really all that generous then? He would be to you because of your ignorance. In this way, even if we say that God is good to us, we could not be saying anything beyond that as to the nature of God. We cannot speak of the objective goodness of God, because we would only be introducing a paradox. We can only project subjective and relative goodness on God in our ignorance.