The current theologian view of God is a Being who is perfect in all aspects. With this understanding, followers of the main monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam lead their lives in service of a Being who is powerful enough to create the universe, knowledgeable enough to share His wisdom with prophets, and good enough to love and accept all who devote themselves to Him. Throughout the years, however, as scientific, economic, artistic, and philosophical thought have progressed, a distrust in the validity of God has arisen. One of the critics of the theologian view was David Hume, who objected to the view of God as a Being who is morally good. I will first explain Hume’s view, then support it, and finally refute some objections to it. Hume’s conclusion that we are mistaken in our current theologian view of God is true, and its supporting argument for it is sound, leaving us with an alternative way of understanding God.
The central problem that Hume presents in his dialogue, God and Evil (Clark, 211-212), is that we have an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, yet suffering in the world exists. An all-knowing God would be able to know when evil is occurring and know how to stop it; an all-good God would want to prevent this evil from occurring; an all-powerful God would be able to prevent the evil. This leaves us with what I believe Hume’s argument is to work through this dilemma:
P1: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good in the traditional theologian perspective.
P2: God made humans in the image of Himself. God is anthropomorphic.
P3: Humans cannot be truly happy for extended periods of time and will turn towards evil and suffering if they see fit.
P4: Since God is:
- all-powerful, He should be able to prevent suffering;
- all-knowing, He should know an ideal world without suffering;
- all-good, He should want a world with no suffering.
C: God is either letting there be evil and suffering in the world, meaning He matches human malevolence (not all-good), or is unable to prevent evil from occurring (not all-powerful), or cannot see that there is evil/does not know how to stop evil (not all-knowing). Our current view of God is mistaken, and His attributes are in fact closer to humans than previously thought (He is not perfect).
Looking at Hume’s argument, I believe that it is valid in that the premises connect well to the conclusion. First, we have the main idea of God presented (P1), then the connection between God and humans (P2), then the connection of humans to actions (P3), then the connection of actions to God (P4; we are now full-circle), and finally the realization of what this connection entails for the conclusion. These connections, therefore, make sure that it is impossible for the scenario of the premises being true with the conclusion being false to occur: a valid argument.
Next, it is necessary to see if the premises themselves are individually true to allow for that combined with the previous discussion to result in a sound argument. P1 is true as this is a part of the definition of the theologian perspective of God. P2 is true as God is anthropomorphic in the three main monotheistic teachings. P3 is true as no human is without evil or suffering in their life. P4 is true as these “perfect” characteristics must follow their definitions, especially since they describe a Being who is “perfect.” Therefore, with all the premises being true and them connecting well to the conclusion, we can say that Hume’s argument is sound and his conclusion is true.
Even though it is now proven that God is less than perfect in at least one way, making His qualities closer to humans than originally thought, there are a few objections to this argument that need to be addressed. Many of the critiques are against P4, as though it is true in the sense of the definitions applied, arguers will point out alternative ways of interpreting those definitions, mainly the “all-good” one, though, as changing the other two would diminish the influence of God. One critique is that God may allow suffering to see who can overcome, endure, and oppose it with sinless thought and action; suffering is thereby necessary to prove one’s love and devotion to God. Another attack on the “all-good” attribute is the fact that it makes sense for there to be suffering because, without it, we would not have any relative information to attribute to what the word “good” means. A third complaint is that of Satan. It can be rightfully deduced from the Holy Books that the fallen angel Satan introduces the temptations of sin and evil into the minds of all. So it is the will of Satan that is the reason for the evil and suffering of the world, not God.
To address the first objection, testing individuals by applying suffering for them to “prove” their worth is cruel for an all-good God. If God is indeed adding suffering to everyone as a test, what about those throughout history who did not know about our current theologian God? For example, a Chinese farmer in 100 BCE would know nothing about the Christian God as that religion was not even around yet. How would he know to push through his suffering or repent his “sins” with no information on what God wants? If God was truly good and just with suffering, He would make it known to all the parameters for which one needs to prove their love to Him directly. This is not the case, so God is not all-good and instead has a level of evil in Him that makes Him closer to us humans than a perfect being.
As for the “good needing to be relative” criticism, it makes sense for some suffering to be involved in life for one to achieve meaning and self-improvement, but the suffering that exists in the world is excessive. There is indeed unnecessary suffering that occurs to both humans and animals where no lesson or improvement occurs. There is also natural suffering that although can help build one up, is not necessary when our own mistakes suffice for the amount of suffering needed for one to find improvement in life. William Rowe’s famous example brings up a combination of these two sufferings: “Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Clark, 247). The fawn learns no lessons or improves in any way from this suffering. Regarding the Satan counter argument for the reason that there is suffering, this is an indictment of God being all-powerful and all-knowing. For if God really is infinitely powerful, then He should have absolute power over Satan and should theoretically be able to remove his existence entirely, and if God is infinitely knowledgeable, He should have known that this angel that He created would rebel against Him.
To further deliberate, to what reasoning is it bad if God has evil within Him to give us suffering? We still suffer every day, so recognizing that God does this on purpose would not change the suffering we face. Accepting this information would allow us to feel closer to God as it reveals how we are more like Him than previously thought. Christians want people to live like Christ as much as possible, but that level of perfection is impossible and leaves people feeling dejected or that they are inadequate religious followers. As said in Luke 2:52, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (American Standard Version). This means that although we know Christ was sinless His whole life, even He made mistakes in His childhood which would enable Him to increase in wisdom and stature as time progressed. Knowing that God is supposed to be “all-everything” in a sense, He should have some evil in Him too.
Understanding that God is not correctly defined brings the question of “what does this mean for God?” I believe that it is not wrong for God to have a neutral morality. Hume asks, “And is it possible… that… you can still preserve in your Anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures?” (Clark, 211-212). I believe that the answer to this is yes in the way that God and humans are not so far from each other. As stated in the objections, suffering can make us better people, and since God is anthropomorphic, perhaps it can make God better too. It seems that “good” does not need to be the “perfect” attribute.
Perhaps we can use Hume’s conclusion to support an alternative way of understanding God, a way in which neutrality in morality is instead closer to perfection than complete goodness. A neutrally moral God makes for a worse religious story but a more accurate interpretation of reality. The view of who God is has changed over the centuries, and although the current view of God in the three major monotheistic religions has Him as all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, we can use logic and new points of view from philosophers like David Hume to reach a more accurate version Him and what He represents.
Works Cited:
American Standard Version. BibleStudyTools, www.biblestudytools.com/asv/luke/2-52.html.
Clark, Kelly James. Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Broadview Press, 2017.