Dude, that's deep.

How do I know God is good? Well, without delving into the complexities of revelation, I'd say, to quote the children's song, because "the Bible tells me so."

Also, because He has been good to me and because the alternative leads to more despair than faith and "not knowing."

---
Oftentimes, I think the idea of theodicy needs to be unpacked. Most folks when they say, "Why does God allow such-and-such to happen?" aren't looking so much for an explanation as they are a comfort or a freedom from pain or grief. In a song he wrote but never fully recorded because of his death, Rich Mullins says, "It would not hurt any less even if it could be explained."
I think that's a great truth. For one thing, we won't fully understand everything God is doing: we are finite beings with limited minds on the fleshly side of eternity; but even if we did understand, it wouldn't make the pain or loss we humans often experience any "less."

We hurt not because we don't understand, but because we are human.

How did I know that Jared would phrase my answer better than I could?

...because He has been good to me and because the alternative leads to more despair than faith and "not knowing."

Great post, Bird. I never quite finished The Problem of Pain (same with Mere Christianity--flog me now!), but I did devour his later work, A Grief Observed, a personal account of grief that he wrote after his wife's death. It's interesting to compare the head knowledge of the first book with the heart experience of the second. Taken together, they're the perfect antidote for pain ;) ...seriously though, it's cool how he goes from the theoretical to the experiential, and ultimately comes to the same conclusion.

My own thoughts on pain are that it shows us our need for God and brings us closer to him (if we let it) and that God works all things for good (Romans 8:28).

it shows us our need for God and brings us closer to him

Wasn't it Lewis who wrote "Pain is God's megaphone"?

genesis puts suffering and death in the context of a punishment from god for being too inquisitive (and/or circuming to the serpent's temptation).
salvation is an interesting point. it's like god is just, is somehow bound to reek justice; but at the same time wants to be merciful, so where he can he lets jesus take the blame on our behalf. i'd never noticed that internal tension before.

jared:
'...because He has been good to me and because the alternative leads to more despair than faith and "not knowing"'
is not an answer to the question 'how do you know god is good'. That answers the question 'why do you want to believe god is good'. the second half of you comment rocks though.

Q. How do you know God is good?
A. Because He has been good to me.

I am satisfied that that answers the question sufficiently.
However, I did offer two other responses: because revelation shows Him to be good and because believing God is not good is a hopeless alternative.

Jared,

I have to back up jez here, at least on your third answer. Saying "because believing God is not good is a hopeless alternative." is not an answer to the question of why you know that God is good. It tells why the alternative - God is not good - is not attractive to you (or az jex said why you want to believe He is) but it does not speak to the evidence you have of His goodness.

It's an important distinction because I think it's easy to mistake the desire to believe something (many times because the alternatives are unattractive) with evidence of its truth. The desire to believe can be a powerful thing and can easily lead us to avoid exploring uncomfortable alternitves.

I'm not saying that you are doing that here, your other responses address the question dircetly and speak to your poersonal evidence of the goodness of God. It's just that I find that the power of the 'desire to believe' is an interesting phenomenon, and quite common when people feel strongly about something.

In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis said, “ . . . the very strength and facility of the pessimists’ case at once poses us a problem. If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it the activity of a wise and good Creator?”

On their own, they don't. We (Christians) attribute universe to a wise and good creator because He revealed himself to us through the Bible and his actions recorded in the Bible.

I was thinking about this. Isn't it interesting that in most man-made pagan religions, the gods are just as bad, selfish and sinful as we are? This is what happens when you make up your own view of God just based on looking around, without special revelation.

I thought this idea was quite profound, then it dawned on me that Romans 1:20 says "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being undesrtood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Which leaves me with this question: Does general revelation alone (i.e. creation) lead man to the conclusion that God is good or that he is bad?

I know God is good because of the Aaronic blessing. There in Numbers chapter 6, in the midst of all this practical preperation for a very hard journey, God gives them something else that is practical. At certain times, probably when those times were particularly hard, Aaron would come out and bless the people with words of comfort straight from God.

"The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face shine upon you. The Lord lift His countenance to you and give you peace."

Makes me shudder thinking about it.

As for what does general revelation of creation do? i think it shows the power of God and the idea that there is a God. I think the perfection of the system and the intricacies at which it works together attests to ths divine being adhering to perfection even when that perfection consists of death and dying for the perfection to be complete. I would see in my own personal self, in my creation a contrast to the perfection around me and wonder why I'm different. Within me I would even probably acknowledge a set of rules by which I see something as wrong or right and where I land within those rules. Of course, I wouldn't know the love that's offered in the Aaronic blessing or on the cross, but I would have enough pointers attesting to that aforementioned power and divinity and what such a concept of divinity would mean.

Therefore I would say yes, it would lead to the conclusion that God is a good god if the man doesn't suppress the data before him and within him.

Jez write: salvation is an interesting point. it's like god is just, is somehow bound to reek justice; but at the same time wants to be merciful, so where he can he lets jesus take the blame on our behalf. i'd never noticed that internal tension before.

Yes! There is a tension between justice and mercy, that's true. So that is why it is so amazing that God's perfect justice and his perfect mercy were both perfectly satisfied at the cross.

Good job, Jez! I'm so glad you got that!

Great post, Bird. I never quite finished The Problem of Pain (same with Mere Christianity--flog me now!),

And Jen recently admitted never reading the Chronicles of Narnia! What's up with our chick fans slacking on the Lewis stuff? ;-)

Shrode said, Which leaves me with this question: Does general revelation alone (i.e. creation) lead man to the conclusion that God is good or that he is bad?

Good question. I don't know the answer.

i don't think creation is evidence enough for either the existence of a personal god, or the goodness of such a god should it exist.
i think that postulating a god poses as many difficulties as it solves. there are godless explanations for death, pain, morality, love and even religion.
i've spent some time thinking about it, and my considered opinion is i don't know anything. if there is a god, i don't have the faintest clue about whether he cares about me, whether he's good or whether i want to worship him.
a more tentative conclusion is that, given the generally available data it is not reasonable to commit to any idea of god without some special, personal revelation. I might be wrong about that... but either way, i strongly disagree with romans 1:20 because it certainly is not "clearly seen". there's plenty of room for honest doubt.

Romans only points to two things that are seen...Power and Divinity...thre rest is based on drawing conclusions on those things that are evident. You can't deny that all of nature is there by some tremendous working of power...be it a theistic source or a materialistic source. Scientist's themselves will agree with this point that the basis of the natural world came to be by a tremendous power...be it God or an Explosion.

The idea of an Unseen Author, a Divine being is formulated by looking at the way these things (made with tremendous power) work together. You go into a restaurant, pick up a menu, see how it was put together, you have an idea that there must've been a Menu-Designer.

Like I said, these things can be suppressed, and Romans goes on to explain this. The compass is pointing due North, you decide the direction.

jez,
first let me say that I'm really glad for your presence here (on the site). And I very much appreciate the spirit in which you are discussing and dialoguing. Thank you.

Jez wrote:
"a more tentative conclusion is that, given the generally available data it is not reasonable to commit to any idea of god without some special, personal revelation."

I think I tend to agree with you on this Jez. (Though there is a book I like very much called "Unshakable Foundations" by Geisler and Bocchino that demonstrates how you can come to the conclusion of the Christian God of the Bible by starting with Reason and Science.)

But still, without special, personal revelation, we really wouldn't know God. I think you are right. And so I admit that the only reason that I have a particular specific idea of God, that I'm committed to is because of special revelation. For me it all comes down to Jesus.

What you believe about Jesus, I think, determines whether or not you believe that the God of the Bible is real or not.

I'm reading The Magician's Nephew right now.

I'm reading The Magician's Nephew right now.

Jen, I fear you've bought one of the "modern" Narnia sets that puts the Magician's Nephew as Book One! NO! Stop that madness right now!

The proper, canonical order is this:

1. The Lion ...
2. Prince Caspian
3. Dawn Treader
4. Silver Chair
5. Horse and Boy
6. Magician's Nephew
7. Last Battle

I strongly urge you to read the books in that order, the order Lewis meant them to be read in. ;-)

I concur. The new order was arranged by Lewis's stepson, Douglas Gresham, and in my opinion, it was more a marketing gimmick than anything else.

Saying "because believing God is not good is a hopeless alternative." is not an answer to the question of why you know that God is good.

Sure it is. I'm answering personally for myself, how I know that God is good. One of the reasons why is because life apart from believing God is not-good. I believe God set this up, making life apart from him ultimately fruitless and hopeless. As Augustine says, "Our souls are not at rest until they are at rest with Thee." Or, was it Pascal who said every man has a God-shaped vacuum.
I think this sense of longing for God is a combination of our sinful state of separation from God and in some part the imago dei in us. But in any event, that my life apart from God is hopeless is actually a sign of God's mercy and goodness. He wants what is best for me, and so He sets up the road away and apart from Him full of despair and "badness." That He would do such a thing to better alert me that life in His presence is preferable is an act of grace, and therefore an act of goodness.

(But as you mentioned, that wasn't my only answer anyway. ;-)

I meant to add a summation to my ramble above along the lines of:
I know that God is good because He makes life apart from Himself bad.

Hope that makes better sense.

Bird and Jared,
Regarding reading the Chronicles of Narnia in the order they were published OR in chronological order... Lewis himself weighed in on this. Bird urged you to read them in the order Lewis intended. I used to prefer the published order also (since this was how I read them), meaning LW&W first. But then I came across this tidbit from the great one himself:

Dear Laurence,
I think I agree with your order for reading the books more than with your mother's.* The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe I did not know I was going to write any more. Ten I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done "The Voyage" I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone reads them. I'm not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published. I never keep notes and never remember dates.
Well, I can't say I have had a happy Easter, for I have lately got married and my wife is very, very ill. I am sure Aslan knows best and whether He leaves her with me or takes her to His own coungry, He will do what is right. But of course it makes me very sad. I am sure you and your mother will pray for us. All good wishes to you both.
yours
C.S. Lewis - April 23rd, 1957

*Editors' Footnote: Laurence's mother felt that the seven "Chronicles of Narnia" should be read in the order in which they were published, since she assumed that this sequence was intentional. Laurence, however, believed taht the stories should be read chronologically according to the Narnian Time: Magician's Nephew, L,W&W, Horse & boy, P.Caspian, Dawn Treader, Silver chair, and Last battle. Lewis later reaffirmed his preference for Laurence's sequence. See Walter Hooper, "Past Watchful Dragons" (New York: Collier Books/Macmillian Publishing Co., 1979), p.32.

So there you have it folks. I haven't yet decided in what order I will read them to my own children. I read them in the order of the original. (lion first) I now own them with Magician first in Hardcover. But when in doubt, I say, go with the intent of the author, so even though I didn't read them that way, I think my children will first hear them as Lewis preferred - Magician first!

Oh, I almost forgot. The above citation came from C.S. Lewis, Letters To Children. Edited by Lyle W. Dorsett and Marjorie Lamp Mead.

Well, now that we've settled the order of the Narnia books, I can go finish the Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity...but which one first? ;)

(the sad truth is that I shall have to reread them because too many years have passed in between--it's weird too because I remember being totally absorbed those books, so I don't know what threw me off track...it makes no sense considering I read all 900 pages of The Brothers Karamazov in my final semester of grad school...for fun)

Jack's intent aside, I still think LWW should be read first because it introduces Narnia as if for the first time. The wonder of the entry is presented new there. And even though TMN takes place chronologically first, it is written with the sense that the reader is already somewhat familiar with Narnia. I prefer the published order because I think Lucy's (and then the rest of the children's) entry into Narnia is a better initiation into the mystery and wonder for the first-time reader.
When I read the books again, I'll probably read the chronological order, though, just to get a taste for it.
Hate to side against the author, but . . .

. . . It's a bit like siding against George Lucas in his decision to re-edit Han Solo's meeting with Greedo in the cantina on Tatooine. In the original, Solo shoots first and kills Greedo. In the "new" version, Lucas made it so Greedo fires first and misses to better justify Solo's wasting of the bounty hunter. Meh.

. . . Or Spielberg's decision to edit "E.T." to take the guns out of the hands of the government dudes chasing Elliot and the gang and replace them digitally with walkie talkies. Eh.

I like Coke Classic.

Jared,

I tend to agree. But it did take some of the dudge out of my high dudgeon when I realized Lewis himself wanted the MN first.

I'm reading them (sporadically) to Blake in the new order

i think i read LW&W first, i think it's the best intro. I then proceeded in chronological (wrt narnia) order.
i liked horse and his boy best, as it doesn't have any annoying public school children in it! although, i quite enjoyed the eustace character, demanding to be taken to the british consul! the evil ape character livened up the last battle a good bit too.

and the universe:
i think that the universe is imperfect. If we want to take the delecate balance of life on earth as evidence of design, one has to ask, why design so many lifeless planets which fall short of the perfection required to support life? are these mistakes, or does god have some purpose for cubic light-years of empty space and dead rock? if *they* are perfect, then how is the existence of life evidence of perfection?
many of the appeals to a designer that i've seen can be understood as the result of natural selection. It's not that phenomenon X has been designed perfectly for me, but rather my species has adapted to exploit phenomenon X.
As far as I can tell Romans goes on to explain how folks who don't infer a creator from the world are doing it deliberately, and it's all a cunning excuse to engage in homosexual orgies and all kinds of other wickedness. in fact, i've done a crossword with a friend and had a quiet evening in. :)

jared:
if the path apart from god is only hopeless because god made it that way, then that would seem to me an example of god being a bit naughty. it gets a bit circular because god is the authority who assigns rightness and wrongness; it doesn't make linguistic sense to judge him. and of course, we're not supposed to do that.
this difficulty plays right into the hands of an evil god :)

Jez,
If you re-read that portion in Romans it in no way implies that man is doing this suppression to give way to commit sin. The sins mentioned in the passage (not only homosexuality as you pointed out) are dependant upon man first upholding the creation and creature as higher than the creator. The suppression became something which resulted in God's letting go and that letting go resulted in the wanton disregard of any morality.

Secondly, I think your Stephen Hawking would suggest that these empty planets and star systems do have an effect on the delicate balance of the universe (black matter, gravity, anti-gravity, and quarks and all those things that he spoke about in A Brief History of Time)

Thirdly, Biologists and Natural Selectionists are amazed at the way life developed on this planet. It is no small thing, they would say, that every single element was just the right way to make this thing happen. Sure they'll attest to Natural Selection, but that's exactly my point. The compass points in a certain direction and yet folks come up with a materialistic reason for these things being in place. Two people point at a Woodpecker and are amazed by the creature. One talks about how amazing it is that by means of Natural Selection and chance, the creature developed a tongue that wraps around its brain, a strong beak and an amazingly strong neck to help it survive the pecking manuever. Another points out what an amazing design that someone Other and Higher came up with.

Your making the presumption that God decides what's good and evil. Almost as if he arbitraly decides "Eating tapioca is Good. Eating Gogurt is Evil." He does no such thing. If this being, by His very nature IS Good, he doesn't sit there and decide what is good...He IS Good. Evil, inevitably defines itself in light of that Ultimate Good. By being other than Good it defines itself as Bad.

Jez

It's great to have you on the blog. Just wanted to let you know that I'm enjoying the conversation, and the way it's progressing with respect and good humor.

You wrote: why design so many lifeless planets which fall short of the perfection required to support life? are these mistakes, or does god have some purpose for cubic light-years of empty space and dead rock? if *they* are perfect, then how is the existence of life evidence of perfection?

I'm not sure that the existence of life is considered to the the evidence of perfection. If God had chosen to, he could have created the vast universe with no living beings, simply for His good pleasure. It would have been "good" (and would have cost His son a lot less)

You've read some C.S. Lewis - have you ever read The Space Trilogy? If not, I highly recommend it. He talks quite a bit (especially in the 2nd book - Perelandra) about the importance of all the created universe - even the parts that we in our self-centered view consider a waste (like empty space (or "deep Heaven" in the ST) and those dead rocks).

Regarding your take on natural selection. Yes - I believe that's called the "anthropic principle" (or something like that) - the observation that we observe a perfectly calibrated universe because if it wasn't perfectly calibrated we wouldn't be able to have developed enough to live and observe it. I can understand the logic behind that, although I don't believe that the perfectly calibrated universe came about by chance.

bill: i read one of that series some years ago, absolutely loved it. in fact, it's only now that i realise it was part of a series. i'll have to check the others out.
perhaps i should have said "...evidence for design". if you don't think "perfect callibration of the universe" is a chance occurence, do you take it as evidence for design?
The anthropic principle is quite a strong idea, but actually i was thinking more about the way evolution converges on "perfect" solutions to our problems. It's not that the atmosphere is mixed perfectly, at just the right density and with just the right amount of moisture etc. to support life on earth; the life on earth adapted gradually to take maximum advantage of the atmosphere. The fact that life itself altered the mixture of gasses does not matter too much; it just continues to change gradually to exploit the new mix fully.
rey: but doesn't romans say that the woodpecker's creator is obvious? or have i entirely misunderstood?
i find natural selection a more powerful explanation than simply pointing to a creator, because not only can it explain things like strong beaks and long tongues, but also appendixes and back trouble.

Yes, Jez - I recommend the Space Trilogy heartily!

About natural selection - I'm not equipped to debate evolution and I'm sure Bird probably doesn't want this thread to devolve into an evolution debate (although that would certainly pad his comments - which is always a plus w Bird :-) - but I believe that when discussing unguided Natural Selection a key objection generally is the amount of time it would take - even under optimal circumstances.

And while the appendix and back pain might be to you a sign of anomolies that random chance would produce, it seems like you run into problems regarding a lack of designer when considering, say, the eye. The eye contains numerous parts that would have had to evolve independently even thought on their own they would be useless (a lense without a retina, retina without an optic nerve, etc). Particularly when you consider that the eye has appeared on widely different branches of the species family tree (the eye in humans doesn't differ all that much from the eye in squids, even though their common ancestor was sightless). When you look at the eye, can you not see an amazing design there?

Hey Jez,
I gotta say I love your approach to this discussion. It teaches me a few things about myself, I must say. ::raises glass::

As to your question:

rey: but doesn't romans say that the woodpecker's creator is obvious? or have i entirely misunderstood?

Romans chapter one says a few things about what is evident about God, but it doesn't say that everything of God is known.

Romans says that there is something known of God within every one of us. Almost as if there is a certain thing inside each of us which can hint at there being a God. Then Romans goes onto say that there are certain attributes evident since the creation of the world--but not all of His attributes. Certain attributes that are not seen, in the sense that we see an arm or a leg, for they're labeled as invisible. Certain given attributes, which point towards Him but man has decided to suppress that knowledge within himself.

Then what would be evident within mankind. It would have to be something that attests to something outside of ourselves yet is within ourselves. A sense of the eternal may be one of those things evident in us. Morality may be another one of those things evident within us. In creation, only two attributes are evident (as mentioned by the Romans writer)--specifically God's Power and His Divine Nature...His Otherness. The internal sense of the eternal and morality would be the casing on the compass which points towards the Divine nature whereas our eyes would be the conduit for the Power of the creation above, under, around and in us.

So many may suppress the internal component that attests to something Other outside of themselves but this first step is resultant in that Other letting those persons have what they want. So they don't want to know of Him, He lets them not know of Him. Thinking loses an edge and man in His weakness of thinking raises the material creation to a level above a Creator. I don't want to head down the evolution battle path, I find the subject intriguing. I'm merely trying to point out what is evident of God is known of God but is also, sadly, suppressed within many of their own volition.

So no, the Woodpecker's Creator isn't obvious but there are certain aspects of that Creator which are obvious but suppressed.

bill: i'll try and keep this short.
i have no problem imagining the eye developing gradually. First, light sensitive cells (a primitive retina) appear on the face, allowing their owner to distinguish light from dark. this has advantages, perhaps only for timing purposes. The number of cells grows, along with the connection with the brain (optic nerve) -- a preditor starts to be able to make out shapes, or to tell what direction his prey is running in. Meanwhile, the prey's developing sight is helping it run away. Because at this stage no species has sight as we know it now, this primative sight is sufficient to avoid enough predators or catch enough prey. But it's competition that drives the growing number of cells, then the development of lenses for focussing.
that's just one way it could have happened, but that at least shows that it could have happened.

rey: i'm not sure i have understood all that you have written. is it i or god who has supressed my inborne knowledge of god? if there is a god, i do want to know about it! i'm not idealogically attatched to the notion of atheism.

Why is my second toe longer than my big toe?

Sorry Jez if I waxed a bit too philosophical.

God has not suppressed the knowledge of Himself...that would be contrary to an Ultimately Good nature. God showed what part of Himself which is in the Natural and Ourselves. We ourselves take the initial step of ignoring the attributes or refuting the attributes or rejecting the attributes. Our rejecting and suppression gives way to God's letting go. Almost as if to say "Allright, you go along now."

What's immensely awesome is that when questions start being asked God has no problem revealing Himself...and not just in Creation. Look at the scriptures where a certain man who called himself a believer of God realized what it really meant to believe God. God has decided to present Himself in the person of Jesus, the Son of Man, here in our own finite world. Astounding!

How do I know God is good and He loves me?

Taste Buds.

Interesting comment, Hank - it was Benjamin Franklin who said that beer is evidence that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
...or was "Taste Buds" not imperative but simply nominative?