God is Love, God is Good

Carl Sagan addressed this very clearly in his book, Varieties of Scientific Experience, a compendium of his 1985 Gifford lectures. When challenged by a questioner with the assertion, "in reality He is there. God is love", Sagan replied "Well, if we say that the definition of God is reality, or the definition of God is love, I have no quarrel with the existence of reality or the existence of love. In fact, I’m in favor of both of them. However, it does not follow that God defined in that way has anything to do with the creation of the world or of any events in human history. It does not follow that there’s anything that is omnipotent or omniscient and so on about God defined in such a manner. So all I’m saying is, we must look at the logical consistency of the various definitions. If you say God is love, clearly love exists in the world. But love is not the only thing that exists in the world. The idea that love dominates everything else, I deeply hope is true, but there are arguments that can very well be proposed, from a mere glance at the daily newspapers, to suggest that love is not in the ascendant in contemporary political affairs. And I don’t see that it helps to say, forgive me, that God is love, because there are all those other definitions of God, that mean quite different things. If we muddle up all the definitions of God, then it’s very confusing what’s being talked about. There is a great opportunity for error in that case. So my proposal is that we call reality “reality,” that we call love “love,” and not call either of them God, which has, while an enormous number of other meanings, not exactly those meanings."

So, to assert that "god is love" is rather arbitrary. Why not say "god is beauty" or "god is hate" or "god is pizza". There is no particular reason to equate the term "god" and "love" above any other associations.When Christians say "God is love" I know what they mean - I have read their explanation. They are saying that god's essence is synonoymous with "good". God could not issue immoral commands. His essential goodness and loving character] would keep him from issuing any unsuitable commands. This is just begging the question again - assuming that there is a good and a bad prior to god, and that god would not do bad things.

But further, "good" is an adjective. "Goodness" and "Badness" are nouns, but not physical objects, not like a ball or a cloud. They are human-generated categories, abstractions into which we place behaviors, thoughts, actions, intents. We measure things by our conceptions of good and bad, and assign those attributes to the things we judge. To say god is good, in the sense of actually equating those two concepts, is just incoherent wordplay - stringing subject and predicate together with the word "is" in between, and hoping that some kind of meaning will emerge. Lexically, "god is good" parses fine. It just doesn't happen to mean anything.

Last - it is obvious that we have our own conception of good and bad prior to anything having to do with god or the bible. When we read the numerous atrocities in the bible, we are appalled. Our innate sense of good and bad causes Christians to (1) deny that those things actually happened, or (2) claim that it is just a misreading of the bible, or (3) argue that god had a good reason for doing horrible things that we just don't understand, or (4) say that with the New Testament, all that torture and murder in the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore. None of those arguments can deal with the simple fact of recognition - that we, as humans using our innate sense of "reflective equilibrium" can tell right from wrong. We know that there is no way to justify the genocide of entire races of people, as god commands more than once. We already know that is wrong - it is bad. Anything god has to say about it in the bible is just an afterthought.