Does Evil Point to God’s Perfection?

Monday, April 27th, 2009 | Doctrine, God

**Part of The Nature of God: A Quick and Dirty Guide series.**

Did you know that your recognition of evil suggests there’s an ultimate standard for evil?

In other words, you have to know what is imperfect to know what is perfect.

So then, what is perfect? And how do we define perfect?

More to the point–and a little harder–what is good? And how do we define good? 

What Is Good?

Good as an adjective means kind, adequate, convenient, useful, valuable, suitable, competent and safe.

Goodness in human beings means something admirable, attractive, praiseworthy or generous.

Think acting in good conscience.

When we are happy we are always good, but when we are good we are not always happy. Oscar Wilde 

Good as a noun means “to diminish or reduce pain or increase happiness or prosperity.” Reminds me of Bentham’s utilitarian view

The Jeremy Bentham Guide to Morality

If there is no objective standard for good, then we have nothing to go on that would define good outside of man. We only have ourselves to go by.

Jeremy Bentham, who was a moral hedonist, said morality should be based on “the greatest happiness of the greatest good.” (Moral relativism is inevitable, by the way.) 

To discover the degree or amount of pleasure any one action would cause, Bentham suggested a utility calculus. Variables consist of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. 

Here’s a couplet to help you remember:

Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure–
Such marks in pleasure and in pains endure. 

In the case of a car accident with multiple injuries, the utility calculus amounts to triage. In the case of pleasure, it amounts to something totally different.

The Parable of a Sex Affair

Imagine you are a married journalist visiting India. You take a swim in a nearby pool. You see a half-naked woman in the water moving toward you. It’s obvious she’s a prostitute. You have two possible solutions: 

1. You have sex with the prostitute. 

2. You avoid sex with the prostitute.  

Sleeping with her would provide certain and immediate pleasure. But it’d be short-lived. Plus, you risk catching a venereal disease. Or getting the woman pregnant. Or getting caught. And if you get caught, your wife gets hurt.

The utility calculus might tell you not to have sex with her. But there’s a twist.

Not sleeping with her would provide certain, short term pain. But the pain would not last, nor would it haunt you. Yet, there still remains a value judgment: would you get caught?

Because you are in India and your wife is not, India provides the perfect scenario: you are a stranger in a remote land and the likelihood of punishment is low. It really just depends on how sensitive you are. And depends on motive.  

That’s why we must dig deeper and seek a different standard–a standard outside of ourselves.  We can’t determine what is good for ourselves, otherwise we have to allow Stalin or Hugh Hefner or child rapists to stand in our company. The child rapists says, “I raped her to increase my happiness.” If you are a relativist, can you argue with that?

See, we know outrageous moral degradation is wrong. It’s the subtle nuances that get overlooked. 

Can We Know What Good Is Without Someone Telling Us?

We can’t use statistical outcomes to determine morality because at any point a society could still be dead wrong with their assumptions. Overwhelming majority vote doesn’t make child prostitution right. We must look for something outside of ourselves. 

But how do we find it? And how do we know what it is once we’ve found it? How do we know it is good and not evil? 

My argument is we can’t know what is good without the Law, that is, the Word of God. Paul said, “On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.”

God planted consciences in us so that when we sin we sink into secrecy and shame. We are defensive and aggressive when in sin. So when we are not shameful and defensive, we must be doing good, right? Close. 

The core issue comes down to “what is sin?” Because when we know what sin is, we can then know what good is: the opposite of sin.

Here’s How to Know What Sin Is

We all sense we know what is wrong with the world. We can sense child abuse is wrong. Genocide is appalling. Cyclone Nargis barreling through 250,000 people, bad. 

We know that diseases that ravage the body into a corpse is wrong. An earthquake snatching a hundred thousand women and children and men, wrong. Terrorists butchering people alive for their faith, wrong.

We know all this is wrong. 

But how do we know it’s wrong? We know what is imperfect…but not what is perfect. Why is that? Why do we have this sense of imperfection? Of something gone wrong? 

Here’s why: We cannot know the imperfect unless we know the perfect. Thus, there must be a perfect standard. Could this perfect standard be the ultimate Moral Lawgiver? 

Anselm argued that since we know things that are more or less perfect, there must be a most Perfect by which we know this. 

In the Bible we learn God is morally impeccable:

The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. Deuteronomy 32:4 

His perfection follows from his infinity: he is an infinitely perfect Being. Flawless and excellent. 

Now think of God as the just judge.

The Biblical judge is expected to love justice and fair play–and to loathe all ill treatment of one person by another.

On the other hand, an unjust judge is one who has no interest in seeing right triumph over wrong. This person is by biblical standards a monstrosity.

Evil That Offends God

We all agree what repulsive evil is. What we disagree on is the evil that offends God because it ends up being very subtle.

Let me show you what I mean.  

God posses a holy jealousy and a morally perfect character. The former is what gives God zeal to protect and preserve his own holiness. The latter is the absolute moral perfection that pervades the character of God.  

Thus, offending a holy God is not hard. We do not need to murder or rape to offend God. Merely ignoring him will do the trick. Sin–moral rejection of God–can happen easily.

Why should he not love us unconditionally–and just back off? Good question. But who said God has to love the way we love? 

The Unchanging Standard of Goodness

Theism affirms that God is an unchanging Being. So, he must love in an unchanging way. That means God can be perfectly just and perfectly loving at the same time–provided it is not on the same person at the same time. In other words, his wrath rests on all unrepentant sinners and his love on all repentant sinners. 

This does not mean there is a change in God.

In his Systematic Theology Norman Geisler says that God always manifests wrath on unrepentant sinners and always manifests love on the repentant. The only thing that changes is that the person–by repentance–moves from under one attribute to under another. 

To say God changes, is a category mistake–comparing a changing thing with an unchanging being.

Besides, for God to change is to admit some imperfection in his being. And to admit that there is some imperfection in his being is to suggest a perfect standard to judge his imperfection by.

So then, what is that standard, if not God himself? 

Conclusion

The unjust implies the Just. Evil implies good. We get our sense of evil because we have a sense of good. We can bring that sense of good into sharper focus by studying God, since he is the ultimate standard of good. And once we do this, we can learn two things:

1. Pleasing a holy and just God is a whole lot safer than alienating him. 

2. God will one day defeat evil. 

When we learn about the ultimate standard–the perfection of good–we discover that God can’t let evil prevail. He is both omnipotent and holy: he cares that evil exists and he has the power to do something about it. 

And as hard as it sounds, we have to trust his reasons for not vanquishing it now. That is what it means to surrender.

No related posts.

Tags: , , ,

12 Comments to Does Evil Point to God’s Perfection?

Matthew
April 27, 2009

Hi Demian, Somewhere in me there is a long and detailed response to this post involving frames of reference, external observers (think physics) etc, etc. But I’ll just say that you’ve articulated an idea I’ve been mulling over for a long time, or at least a very closely related idea. That is, if you start with the agreement that there is a difference between right and wrong, then you analyze that difference by simply asking “why?” at every step (like a 4 year old), you’ll ultimately have one proof for the existence of God. Put another way, if you deny the existence of God, then you will be left with no way of arguing for a difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, are really part of God’s revelation. You’ve said it well, and I’ve said enough.

Demian Farnworth
April 27, 2009

Thank you Matthew…man, at first I was thinking you were politely correcting me until that pen-ultimate sentence. ;-) Shew, that was close.

The 4-year-old is arguably the best philosopher. Ever.

Matthew
April 27, 2009

Yes, I was subtly paying you a compliment :) Furthermore, on the subject of good and evil – when God finished aspects of His creation he pronounced them Good (see Genesis). I doubt He was merely complimenting himself on his own handiwork. He made a sovereign pronouncement, a definitive declaration. Would God have done that if there were no Evil? If everything were Good the then would he have bothered to point out to us what is Good, and by contrast what is Evil?

James
April 27, 2009

Matthew,

Do you think after that first moment of creation where God pronounced the world “good”, that there were no carnivorous animals, and that weather patterns were stable, such that there was never any “nasty weather” (I’m thinking of those watchtower tracts) :) .
And after sin etc, that animals morphed into clawed beasts who hunt each other, and the weather model somehow became prone to hurricanes and earthquakes?

I am just curious about how this idea of a perfect environment here on earth works practically.

Demian,

If, by morally impeccable, you include not planting your field with two kinds of seeds, or wearing clothing woven from two kinds of material and not cutting the hair at the side of your head or trimming your beard, then why have those moral standards fallen by the wayside in modern churches?

Richard DeVeau
April 27, 2009

Demian,
Well articulated post. I like how your mind works.
~
I’ve recently been thinking about these very things, but in terms of art, faith and culture. (Big surprise, huh?)
~
In our popular culture, goodness is usually equated with sentimentality, truth is reduced to a subjective experience, and beauty has become a superficial obsession with physical perfection and completely disconnected from truth and goodness.
~
But, because of Christ’s willing sacrifice, death is now life, pain is the door to healing, and a weakened and broken body is now the image of transcendent beauty. Brokenness, pain and blood are now the source of beauty, goodness and truth.
~
In a very real and tangible way, many things that were once “evil” are now the very definition of what is “good” through the Incarnation and God’s plan for our redemption.

While this is all a bit tangential from the pure intent of your post, I thought it would be okay to share these related thoughts.

And I agree, all philosophers should either be
4 years-old, or at least think like one!

Robert Madewell
April 28, 2009

God posses a holy jealousy and a morally perfect character. The former is what gives God zeal to protect and preserve his own holiness. The latter is the absolute moral perfection that pervades the character of God.

.
I’m not sure that jealous and morally perfect are compatible. The way that I describe jealousy in my own character is that it is irrational thinking. Would a morally perfect creature think irrationally? Or is human jealousy and holy jealousy different? This is somewhat confusing to me.
.
Why would God need to preserve his holiness? Is his holiness under attack by mere humans? If so, how would humans be able to damage a perfectly moral being’s holiness? Btw, what is holiness in the first place?

Robert Madewell
April 28, 2009

1. Pleasing a holy and just God is a whole lot safer than alienating him.

.
Actually, this reminds me of Pascal’s Wager. Take the chance that God exists and that he is holy and just. Just to be on the safe side. Just in case.
.

2. God will one day defeat evil.

.
The only proof you have of this is in the Bible. Am I correct?

Demian Farnworth
April 28, 2009

James: Your dragging out a red herring. Your examples don’t apply to God…my original statement was that God was morally impeccable. Your examples were decrees God gave to Israel–whether to preserve ceremony or cleanliness.

Robert, starting from the top: I’m assuming you don’t approve of Pascal’s Wager. Am I correct? Why not? Also, yes, the proof that God will one day defeat evil is only found in the Bible. You described human jealousy well but trip over God’s jealousy, like we all do, by thinking anthropomorphically, so, human and Godly jealousy are different…and I was probably wrong to say that God NEEDS to preserve his holiness, so no, mere humans aren’t attacking it nor could they damage it…it being morally spotless in character, motives, thoughts, words and actions…the source and standard of what is right…totally and utterly set apart from all creation. Hm, smells like a future post. ;-)

James
April 28, 2009

Demian,

Your examples don’t apply to God…my original statement was that God was morally impeccable. Your examples were decrees God gave to Israel–whether to preserve ceremony or cleanliness.

I had assumed, given the context that these were things that god considered the right thing to do.
God even starts out the list by saying ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.’ and finishes by saying ‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.’. Some of the items here later make the ten commandments.

I suppose there is a less provocative example from that chapter in verse 32: ‘Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD’.
That definately looks like a moral decree rather than ceremonial one, yet nobody rises in the presence of the aged, unless you count giving them a seat on the bus.
:)

Demian Farnworth
April 29, 2009

James, you are correct, these are things God considered the right thing to do…I thought you meant they were about him. And by the way, I do try to give the aged my seat on the bus. And women. ;-)

James
April 29, 2009

Likewise, but because I tend to zone out a lot on buses, I worry that I won’t notice.
So unless the bus is rather empty I tend to just stand anyway, and zone out in mental comfort. And in my line of work (software), any time doing something other than sitting is time well spent.

Demian Farnworth
April 30, 2009

James, I actually don’t ride that bus or Metro much at all but when I do…I’m like you…zoning out…whether in a book, laptop or diary…so I don’t always notice either. In fact, at times, I do notice and pretend I don’t, cause, well just a tad selfish and self-centered at times. ;-)

Leave a comment

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes