Critiquing: Is God Good?

October 19, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

God’s Goodness — Moral Argument — Cultural Relativism — Evangelism Tips — Apathetic Responses

---

Introduction

The content titled Is God Good? from the October 19, 2023 episode of #STRask by Stand to Reason, addresses various questions about God’s goodness, effective responses to non-believers, and strategies for evangelism. In this critique, we will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlighting logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases. We will also suggest potential methods to test the alleged promises of God and discuss the importance of aligning one’s degree of belief with the available evidence.

Claims About God’s Goodness

Foundational Argument

The argument begins with a foundational claim:

“Well, the simple response is, if God isn’t good, then nothing is good. There is no goodness.”

This assertion relies on the presupposition that God is the sole standard of goodness. The content then builds on this idea by suggesting that if God is not good, there can be no objective morality.

Logical Inconsistencies

Circular Reasoning: The argument that “if God isn’t good, then nothing is good” is a form of circular reasoning. It presupposes what it attempts to prove—that God is the standard of goodness. Without independent evidence for this claim, it lacks logical coherence.

“Therefore, there can be no goodness.”

This conclusion is derived directly from the initial presupposition without independent justification, making it logically unsound.

False Dilemma: The content presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the absence of God as a moral standard leads directly to moral relativism or nihilism.

“If there is no transcendent standard, then there is no good and evil. Relativism is true.”

This ignores other potential sources of moral standards, such as secular humanism or ethical naturalism, which can provide objective frameworks for morality without invoking a deity.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Strawman Argument: The content simplifies and misrepresents the opposing viewpoint:

“Why is he not good? Because he doesn’t let me do whatever I want to do, especially sexually.”

This is a strawman argument, reducing complex objections to God’s goodness to mere personal grievances about moral restrictions, which oversimplifies and distorts the actual philosophical and ethical challenges posed by critics.

Ad Hominem: The content implicitly attacks the character of those who question God’s goodness by attributing their doubts to selfishness or a lack of understanding:

“But they haven’t thought it through that much. All right, they just advanced narcissism.”

This ad hominem approach dismisses valid critiques by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims within the content are unsubstantiated and dubious, lacking empirical evidence or logical justification.

“If God isn’t good, then there is no goodness because there’s no other standard for goodness that’s available.”

This statement is presented without evidence or consideration of alternative moral frameworks. The obligation to substantiate such a sweeping claim is ignored, leaving it unsupported and speculative.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate the promises of God, we could propose potential methods of empirical investigation, such as:

1. Empirical Studies: Conduct longitudinal studies on the outcomes of individuals who follow specific religious teachings versus those who do not, controlling for various confounding variables.
2. Historical Analysis: Examine historical instances where divine intervention is claimed and seek corroborative evidence from independent sources.
3. Psychological Research: Study the psychological effects of religious belief on well-being and moral behavior, comparing believers with non-believers in similar contexts.

Importance of Evidence-Based Belief

The content implies a high degree of certainty about God’s goodness without providing proportional evidence. It is crucial to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. This principle of epistemic humility ensures that beliefs are held tentatively and revised in light of new evidence.

Concluding Thoughts: In summary, the content presents arguments about God’s goodness that suffer from logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and a lack of substantiation. Addressing these issues requires a commitment to logical rigor, empirical evidence, and an openness to alternative moral frameworks.

---

If you have any further thoughts or questions about these arguments, feel free to discuss them in the comments section.