Irishbrutha

Several months ago there was a thread regarding the fear of God that I took part in, but didn’t have the time to remain a part of (due to papers, homework, job, wife, etc.). I was reviewing the idea internally today though and thought I’d start a new discussion. In my post I attempted to relate a personal account of how fear works in the context of Christianity, and in response was accused of trying way too hard to try to justify my position, and that after all of the personal explanation and detail, it was in the end a black and white matter. Fear was evil, and that’s that. I’ve only recently read this response so did not have a chance to respond cuz the thread was buried. A direct response to that is merited, particularly that the individual did nothing to answer the perfectly legitimate questions I raised. Rather than rehash an old discussion I will present the issue in a new light. To do so I must first present a sufficient account of the atheologian’s argument.

(At the outset I’ll just make it clear that I will not be promoting the standard Christian response that fear is not really fear, it’s awe, respect, etc. I do feel the standard response is a copout, not a deliberate one usually, but more importantly I feel that it misses a deeply personal application of the idea that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.)

From what I gather the main difficulty, among those who have expressed it, is the inherent distastefulness of a God who is worthy of fear. The atheist seems to be claiming (I fully realize this is a generalization and am open to particular correction) that he/she would never want to worship such a god, and that the believer is foolish for doing so. Particularly a God who demands that we are constantly in a state of fear. While others have gone so far as to claim that a being could not consistently be All-Good and justifiably cause fear. My aim is to establish that the second claim is in no way a necessary conclusion, and the first claim will be better answered with this in mind.

The accusation that the two statements “God is Good” and “God is worthy of fear”, are contradictory is not one of implicit contradiction. (Those who have studied the Problem of Evil can already understand where I’m going). The only implicit contradiction of the statement “God is Good” would be “God is Evil”. Therefore the only claim that can be made is one of explicit contradiction, where further definitions of the concepts must be involved which make the contradiction apparent. Look at the Problem of Evil for illustration:
1) God is All-Good, All-Powerful, and Omniscient
2) God exists
3) Evil exists

The Logical Problem of Evil states that these 3 statements cannot all be asserted without breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction. Yet there is no implicit (implicit meaning obvious) sense in which this law has been violated. The following statement must added to result in this conclusion.

4) An All-Good Being would attempt to eliminate evil as far as possible, and an Omnipotent Being would be able to do so completely.

If we accept that premise #4 is true then we have no choice but to conclude that either #2 or #3 must be false. Evil obviously exists, therefore God cannot. The other way to go is to conclude that God does not have the attributes of #1. There is a multitude of literature regarding this argument, and the responses to this are wide and far (I should note that the Logical Problem has been widely accepted as a failure, the Evidential Argument is the current locus of the discussion), but I use it merely as an illustration and let the argument drop here. Now I’ll attempt to make our own syllogism and look at the argument in the same manner, with a slight semantic change to #1, and #2.

1) God is All-Good
2) God is worthy of fear.

As we have said there is no implicit contradiction among this set of statements To determine what added propositions must be added to produce an implicit contradiction (the necessary condition to claim the defeat of a set of proposition’s rational consistency), we must inspect the concept of justified fear and its relationship to All-Goodness. Justified fear subsists in two ideas.

One, that God is capable of producing circumstances which are fear-worthy. Second, that He has the will to produce those circumstances. Next we look at what it means to be All-Good. An All-Good being would never cause circumstances which result in fear. Also we need a statement that God’s attributes are consistent with the laws of reason. We look at a sub argument to establish this.

a) The attributes of a being must conform to the laws of reason
b) God is a being
Therefore,
c) God’s attributes must conform to the laws of reason
This is not a necessary statement in our set, rather it is a presumption of the entire method, for if the statements are logically contradictory, then we assume that God cannot have both attributes. We leave it in though to add further clarity to our method.

So #1 stays the same, we re-write #2 and add a couple of other propositions.

1) God is All-Good.
2) God is a being who has both the capability and the desire to enact circumstances that result in human fear.
3) An All Good being would never desire, nor cause circumstances which result in fear.
4) God’s attributes conform to the laws of reason. (particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction)

So if we accept #3, then either God’s attributes don’t conform to the laws of reason, He is All-Good but not Fear-Worthy, or He is Fear-Worthy but not all-Good. The entire argument hinges upon #3. In an effort to avoid straw men I’m being extremely careful in my wording and trying to give the arguments you guys have presented the “best reading” as it’s called in philosophy, so feel free to correct me if I’ve read you wrong, and we’ll revisit my presentation of your argument.

As to my response, I’ll take the propositions one at a time. As a Christian Theist I agree with proposition #1, and I also accept proposition #2’s interpretation of fear (having written it). I also agree with premise #4. So in terms of methodology the only avenue I have available to me is #3. I’ll preface by saying that this was the most difficult premise to come up with in determining conditions that entailed this set’s logical contradiction. As such I realize that there may be better methods and I invite them; this is just my take on what the atheologians on this site are saying when they talk about fearing God.

Anyway, my argument. I don’t understand particularly why #3 must be a necessary conclusion about Moral Perfection. I must turn to the idea of justice and moral consequences. I’ll use a neutral moral language, that of ethical intuitionism, to establish my discussion. Imagine the following state of affairs:
1) Bob murders John.
This is, by its very definition, an evil state of affairs. Also imagine the following state of affairs.
2) Bob is a free man. This statement void of any other content would intuitively be a positive statement.

Therefore if we attempt to combine the two statements in a sort of moral calculus where Statement #1 is -10 and statement #2 is a +2 we could conclude that the state of affairs in which Bob murders John but does not go to jail would be a –8. It’s actually better than the state of affairs in which Bob murders John by itself. This seems intuitively to be an improper account of the situation. Intuitively we have the idea that evil acts deserve punishment. Taking our cue from our intuition, we’d say that the state of affairs that includes both #1 and #2 is a worse off state of affairs than #1 alone. This again is borrowed from the discussion of the Problem of Evil, but don’t despair, I am not aiming at the same place. I’m really just attempting to assert that we all pretty much agree with the principle of justice; that evil acts deserve proportionately reactionary consequences.

This was for the benefit of the opposing argument, though. In reality I do not have to present an agreed upon definition of good at all. Because the Logical Problem of Fear as I’m calling it, like the Logical Problem of Evil, is an attack on the consistency of the theist’s belief set.

Having established that justice is a good thing, several more things relevant to this conversation can be said. God demands moral goodness from his creatures. Ought implies can, so when they fail to achieve such goodness justice demands that they receive punishment. It is morally correct for evil to be punished. Punishment is a state of affairs which humans are justified in fearing. Therefore the logical contradiction has been avoided, and #3 has been refuted. The second claim then fails. Now that was a lot of verbage to simply say this. God can be both Good and Fear-Worthy, in fact it is due to His Goodness (as an all-powerful being) that He is worthy of fear.
Set of Propositions:
1) God is All-Good
2) God is Fear-Worthy
3) An all-Good being would never enact circumstances that caused human fear unless they were morally justified or necessary for moral good to result.
4) God's attributes conform to the Laws of Reason.

Forgive its likeness to the answer to the Logical Problem of Evil, I just thought it had a good application here.

But what of the first statement? I think that this argument answers whether such a God is distasteful in a resounding no. He is, in fact, all-Good. More later on why the actual outcomes of God's goodness should also warrant our praise of Him. Before that I want to look at the specific call to fear God continually, which we most definitely are encouraged to do. As an answer to this I will use an example.

Imagine a fenced dog who has been trained to bite only intruders. As long as I remain outside of the defined parameters of his willingness to bite me (those being me the limits of his yard and my invasion of that), then I will not be bitten. Yet even in a state of affairs where I have no fear of actually being bitten, I can contemplate the possible state of affairs in which the dog does bite me, and so I say that I fear the dog. I fear the dog’s willingness, provided that certain circumstances are met, to bite me. I may actually have an affection for the dog and be a friend to his owner and so be able to interact with the dog on good terms when I’m invited into the yard by the owner. So it is with God. I fear His willingness, provided that certain circumstances are met, to punish me (remember that this punishment is morally justified). It is of the potential state of affairs in which God punishes me that I am afraid. Yet the fear of that situation can obtain whether that state of affairs does or not. We always should fear the potential situation of God’s punishment and thus the statement that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” is justified. Because in fearing that punishment we are motivated to satisfy God’s moral code. We are motivated to obtain the circumstances where that punishment does not occur.

Now, can we actually obtain the circumstances of moral perfection, the standard necessary to avoid punishment? As a Christian I would say of course not. Our attempt to adhere will bring about the recognition that we cannot achieve the moral code and thereby we will come to be in a state of mind to secure the only means to do so. That is through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (achievement of the moral code) that is given to us as a covering through his death and resurrection. (I am simply illustrating the manner in which this issue works itself out for us as Christians, I do not wish to have a debate about the particulars of the theology).

To this there will be some who will say, but what of you Christians (if they can be heard above the shouts of “Intolerance” that I can already here from the present crowd)? I mean, if you’ve achieved the necessary conditions of the moral code then why do you still fear Him? That is best answered from Hebrews 12:6-11

“For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives." It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness.” (NAS).

In short, now that we are called righteous we are also given the means to be righteous. And it is to this end that we are called. Sanctification. This discipline is for our good so that we may become, of our own nature which is habituated into bad activity, righteous. Really important part, we very much respect human fathers as we grow older for the discipline they provided (when they did it correctly and for the right reasons) and the wisdom and character that it produced in us. So it is as Christians with the discipline of God, and He always disciplines us correctly and always for the right reasons. It is by no means an evil thing, in fact it is much like the principle that certain goods cannot be achieved without certain “perceived” evils that we get from the discussion of the Problem of Evil. It is a good thing. In fact it is the highest good that humans can obtain, their fulfillment.

Thus it is no use arguing that humans don’t need this good and God could have bypassed it because this is a logically necessary characteristic of his Goodness. Also what this attribute achieves is the highest good of humanity, fulfillment of our function. It is also no use saying that humans didn’t need to exist, and that their non-existence would have predicated a better universe for the lack of that fear. There is no category by which to measure morality in non-existence to morality within existence. Therefore the two cannot be compared. Whether you find this situation appealing, or convincing does not concern the relevance of this argument. For it passes the test of explanatory power. It provides a rationally sound system in which fear of God can be predicated as a good.

Now back to the appeal of such a Being. I think the human fulfillment is the answer to that. This is a God who desires our fulfillment and whose fear-worthiness makes this fulfillment possible methodologically. This Being has provided a way to satisfy the conditions of the moral code where it was once impossible, and then once this has been done He enacts a method by which we personally obtain that moral goodness ourselves.

Conclusion Summary: Being worthy of fear is a necessary attribute of a Perfectly Good Being because Goodness must favor justice. It is self-explanatory why a Perfectly Good Being should be the object of our love and worship. Because He’s perfectly Good. Perfect Goodness alone merits our praise/love/adoration, etc. But if this is not enough, then the fulfillment of purpose that we obtain through the outgrowth of His justice should be enough to consider Him praiseworthy.

emotional

A competent leader can make people obey him out of fear. A perfectly good leader can make people obey him out of love and respect. This is why I submit to you that Christianity (and Islam), with its system of heaven-bribe-reward and hell-blackmail-punishment, is "human, all too human". Commanding by fear would make God an astute politician; but commanding by respect and love would make Him really the Perfectly Good Leader.

DoubleDutchy

You may have this idea intuitively but that doesn't mean that it necessarily makes sense. At least God should know better.

'No man treats a motorcar as foolishly as he treats another human being. When the car will not go, he does not attribute its annoying behaviour to sin; he does not say, "You are a wicked motorcar, and I shall not give you any more petrol until you go." He attempts to find out what is wrong and to set it right. An analogous way of treating human beings is, however, considered to be contrary to the truths of our holy religion.'

(Bertrand Russell: Has religion made useful contributions to civilisation ?)
full text

Irishbrutha

Note that I did not say God chose to make people fear Him. The resulting fear is a component of what a Perfectly Good Being must be. It is the result of a necessary attribute of a Perfect Being. Notice also that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the middle, or the end. This discussion purposely avoids our other motivations. Like love and gratitude. As I said in another post He does motivate us to follow Him in other ways. If you cannot understand the death of Christ as being something utterly undeserved, sacrificial, and humbling, then of course you won't understand that gratitude is the main motivation in the Christian life. I'm not saying you specifically, I'm saying in general I feel that's why many atheists attack the "fear of God", as if it is the only valid motivator. I should clarify too that it is not necessarily that fear is our present motivator. It is that fear of bad consequences experienced that we want to avoid in the future will motivate us to create a lifestyle in which this outcome will not occur. And this is something simply human. You ask for God to motivate only through persuasion and positive factors, etc., but unfortunately this is how we are wired. The onus is on you to show that such a practice is only human and that the human practice of "carrot and stick" motivation is not simply a reflection of the divine. And please don't claim that God should have wired us differently unless you can present a rational account of the human package that makes any sense without this important psychological factor (fear is necessary component of our existence, rightly ordered fears protect us from excess dangers, etc.) If it is right to be afraid in these situations then why is it not for us to be afraid in reaction to a Just God's punishment? Again he did not enact fear to be the sole motivator. He is not endorsing it as the best way to motivate oneself. He simply says hey, all you guys that are afraid with what happens when my justice is served, let it teach you. It's necessary that I impart justice otherwise I wouldn't be good. But in the meanwhile I'll draw you to myself through it, and also I'll give you something more perfect. That perfection, of course, is love.
-Shaun

Irishbrutha

Then human justice makes no sense either, including our legal system. We are wrong to punish humans when they break laws (shrug). The difference between a motorcar and humans is moral culpability. As an atheist you may view wrong actions as morally vaccuous, but then you have no ground by which to condemn a God who asks for fear. If you do have a moral compass and that compass condemns God, then what is wrong with God condemning people?

emotional

I can demonstrate quite clearly that there is another way. When I was in yeshivah I was taught two ways to obeying God: one is called sur mera' "avoid evil", which is the way of fear -- out of fear of God you avoid transgressing His commandments. The other way is ase tov "do good", which is the way of love and respect -- out of sheer love and respect for God you do not have to avoid doing evil, you are simply so immersed in your love for God that you cannot help but do good.

spurly

The Bible does talk about three motivators for us to live our life in relationship with God. Those are fear, reward, and love. In my opinion, fear is the most elementary motivator. It is the same way with a child. We try to convince them to fear running out into the middle of a street or sticking a fork in a socket because it is not good for them.

Eventually, as children grow up parents will motivate them with rewards. I.E., good grades will get you money that you can save for a car, etc.

But those two motivators eventually give way to the best motivator of all - love. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" - that's what Jesus said, and that's the example he left for us as he did the same thing for his Father in heaven - see John 15.

I hope every Christian eventually grows from the "fear of the Lord" which is the beginning of wisdom, to acting out of a deep love for their creator.

Kevin

mike_decock

Which is simply emotional bribery and you don't even get any candy or money for your good deeds. Do you tell your girlfriend or wife "if you love me, you'll do X"? I sure hope not!

I hope every Christian eventually grows out of being the victim of fear, reward or emotional bribery. It's called maturity.

-Mike...

spurly

I do everything I can to please those who I love, whether they be parents, other loved ones, or friends.

As an example, when I was a teenager I stopped dipping snuff for no other reason than I didn't want to break my mother's heart. I loved her too much to do that.

It is the same way with my heavenly Father. I love him too much to do anything that will break his heart.

Kevin

DoubleDutchy

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy