Go(o)d
I recently came across this paper about the viability of a rational proof of God's existence. It was written by Eric Wielenberg, a professor of philosophy from DePauw University.
Mr. Wielenberg argues that the "Moral Argument" offered by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity is flawed. Essentially, as I understand it, the "Moral Argument" is a logical argument that, because there is an existence of good and evil (moral law), God must exist. Personally, I have found the argument persuasive, and it has augmented my faith. For a detailed description of the argument, I would refer one to the first book of Mere Christianity.
Mr. Wielenberg, drawing on work from Bertrand Russell, writes that if God is to be understood as the author of moral law, then he cannot be subject to moral law. In his words, "No single being can be the complete author of the moral law and also subject to that moral law."
The point at which I think Mr. Wielenberg's argument falls apart is where he seperates God from goodness; the point where he assumes that God is the author of goodness. Whereas Mr. Wielenberg interprets the Moral Argument as insisting that God created goodness, I believe the Moral Argument to insist that God is goodness. In other words, instead of "good" being an adjective to describe God, or a noun that is a standard to measure God, I believe that it is a noun that is synonymous with God. God and goodness, to me, are one in the same.
Mr. Wielenberg argues that the "Moral Argument" offered by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity is flawed. Essentially, as I understand it, the "Moral Argument" is a logical argument that, because there is an existence of good and evil (moral law), God must exist. Personally, I have found the argument persuasive, and it has augmented my faith. For a detailed description of the argument, I would refer one to the first book of Mere Christianity.
Mr. Wielenberg, drawing on work from Bertrand Russell, writes that if God is to be understood as the author of moral law, then he cannot be subject to moral law. In his words, "No single being can be the complete author of the moral law and also subject to that moral law."
The point at which I think Mr. Wielenberg's argument falls apart is where he seperates God from goodness; the point where he assumes that God is the author of goodness. Whereas Mr. Wielenberg interprets the Moral Argument as insisting that God created goodness, I believe the Moral Argument to insist that God is goodness. In other words, instead of "good" being an adjective to describe God, or a noun that is a standard to measure God, I believe that it is a noun that is synonymous with God. God and goodness, to me, are one in the same.
Comments