3.2: What Type of God is it Rational to Believe in? (Noah Levin)

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 30059

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

17 What Type of God is it Rational to Believe in?
Noah Levin^²⁷

God can take many forms and have many traits. It is entirely rational to believe that a limited God exists, that is, one that can only do things that are rationally possible and is capable of being understood, as there is nothing about this God’s traits that are inherently irrational. It is when infinite traits are ascribed to a deity that we run into problems maintaining a rationally consistent understanding of the God and the universe. The goal of many religious philosophers has been to describe a system that understands the traits of God as both internally consistent and consistent with what we understand about ourselves and the world. I will argue that for the sake of consistency, one can only maintain a single infinite trait that is traditionally ascribed to God, for if others are introduced, the result is a contradiction between the traits themselves or serious difficulties for what we understand to be the reality of the universe. Believing in more than one infinite trait would thus be irrational; this isn’t to say that people shouldn’t hold such beliefs, but being irrational is a very strong reason to be said against keeping them.

St. Anslem, in his Ontological Argument, describes God as the “Greatest Conceivable Being,” the being beyond which we cannot conceive of anything greater. He uses this definition to prove God’s existence (how can he not existence if he’s the greatest thing and existing is something that is a part of being great?) which I will not discuss here, but the description that Anselm uses for God is apt. He is seen as the greatest possible thing, and this mindset captures the conception of God (fittingly called the “Anselmian God”) that is currently widely held and is the one I will focus on.

The “traditional” (I will label it traditional, but an understanding along these lines developed over many centuries, with Anselm being perhaps the first to articulate it clearly) view on the Abrahamic God (the God of any religion that finds its roots in Abraham, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that “he” (masculine pronouns are usually used but God is generally considered to be non-gendered, which could mean all-gendered or ungendered) is an eternal being of infinite power. God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). He is timeless. God is infinitely merciful, kind, and loving; but also wrathful, vengeful, and will punish those who go against his teachings. Yet, God is perfect. He knows everything that has happened and all that will come to pass, but we have free will. He is all-good, but bad things happen (and he punishes those that sin). But does it make sense for God to be able to do all of these things and be all of these things? The primary problem for an infinite God will come from some version of the “Problem of Evil” since the fact that bad things happen creates serious problems for an infinite God.

God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, but if God is more than one of these, then contradictory conditions are created that make believing in him irrational. I will work through each of these pairings to illustrate how they both can’t be true at the same time.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence: If God is all-powerful and all-good, then there arises an issue known as the “Problem of Evil.” The problem is rather simple: there appears to be evil in the world, and if God is all-good and all-powerful, then he ought to prevent it. There are both man-made (we do bad things to each other) and natural (such as a fawn that painfully burns to death in a forest fire) evils, and God would seem to be able to prevent these things from happening, but he doesn’t. Thus, while God could potentially be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, this is incompatible with what know about the world, as bad things (that are seemingly avoidable) happen. So, God cannot be both of these, as it is inconsistent with what we observe.

Omniscience and omnibenevolence: If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, God would know everything bad that will happen. If he has any power whatsoever (even just the power to communicate), then there shouldn’t be as much evil in the world as there is. He would know what is going to happen that is bad, and, being all-good, should have the desire to help others. This is an argument very similar to the “Problem of Evil” mentioned above. It’s not that God can’t be both of these things, but that his being both omniscient and omnibenevolent is incompatible with what we observe in the world.

Omnibenevolence and omnipresence: If God is all-good and all-present, then it would seem odd that there are bad things in the world. An all-good presence in everything should remove any hint of bad or evil, yet evil things happen. This is subtly different than the Problem of Evil since it has nothing to do with God’s ability to do anything about bad things; in some ways, it cuts deeper, as the problem is that an all-good God is present in everything, yet non-good things happen. It would seem odd for me to say (as I should be able to if God is omnibenevolent and omnipresent), “there’s a little bit of an infinitely good God in what I’m about to do,” just before I pinch a 3-year-old’s hand and steal her candy.

Omniscience and omnipotence: If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, God could think of things that he wouldn’t be able to do, thus being limited in power. Or he would be able to do things that he couldn’t think of, being limited in knowledge. If he could know everything he was powerful enough to do, then it would mean he is limited in knowledge by not knowing something he couldn’t do; or if he can do everything he knows how to do, then he is limited in power since he is incapable of doing what he doesn’t know about. This might just be what God is and how we can understand the most powerful and knowledgeable being out there. But it’s important to note that he is not infinitely both of these things on this view.

Omnipotence and omnipresence: If God is all-powerful and everywhere, then it would seem that anything and everything would be the action of God. This isn’t really a problem, but it removes us from having any significant existence: everything simply is God. Thus, if there is any point or value in our existence as independent creatures, then these two traits cannot both be true. If someone wants to bite that bullet and say we are literally only a part of God, then that would be fine. I suspect most people would find this unpalatable.

Omniscience and omnipresence: I have saved this pairing for last since I don’t think that the combination of these two leads to a contradiction in the ways the others do. It seems possible for God to be both all-knowing and everywhere – and, indeed, the two would seem to have to go together, since God would have to, in some sense, be everywhere to be all-knowing. However, if God just has these two infinite traits, then it would be an interesting sort of God: a God that knows everything and can see everything and be everything, but just sits there and is incapable of behaving or acting in a way that is normally ascribed to him. What is the value in knowing everything and being everywhere if you can’t do anything about it? Both of these traits often seem to take a back seat to omnipotence anyway, as unlimited power is part of the reason we like to think of God as a Supreme Being. Thus, while these two traits can be rationally ascribed to God at the same time, the resultant God is not the God that we’re talking about.

Now, I must illustrate that God having any one of these is not irrational to hold:

Omniscience: A God that is all-knowing merely knows everything that has, and will ever, happen. This isn’t to say that he is capable or even willing to act on it, but he just knows everything. Free will might not existent if God knows everything we will do, but this isn’t a problem for him existing, and not necessarily a contradiction with existence (unless one is absolutely certain that we have free will).

Omnibenevolence: A God that is all-good is quite nice. He cares about us and everything there is, and might even want to do something about bad things, but is incapable or otherwise unwilling to act. This is not irrational or contradictory, and is consistent with our observed existence.

Omnipotence: A God that is just all-powerful can do anything he pleases. There could be conceptual issues with this, as if God is truly all-powerful, then he might be able to do the impossible, even the logically impossible. But, as far as being maximally powerful goes, as long as he is not infinite in another way, there doesn’t seem to be a problem with this. Except, once again, for free will. If God is all-powerful, then maybe we are only acting if he makes us or allows us to. Again, this isn’t a problem for God, it’s a potential problem for us.

Omnipresence: There is no problem with God being all-present. Albert Einstein espoused the interesting view that God is the laws of physics and the order in the universe. In this sense, God is in everything and everywhere. If God is simply in everything, but has no other infinite traits, I don’t see how anything is impacted by this. This might lead to a less-traditional version of God, but it is not logically impossible or incoherent.

Thus, it turns out that God can be infinite, but only in one way. If God is infinite in more than one way, then a contradiction emerges for either his existence or our existence. However, there is one more response that can be made to my claims: if God is infinite in any one way, then he is infinite in every way; that having any one of these traits automatically entails the others. I can’t deny the appeal of this, but I’m not sure how this would work. Regardless, this is still consistent with my main claim: God can only be one type of infinite to be rationally consistent.

For Review and Discussion

1. Which infinite traits of God do you think are most important for God to have? Why are these more important than others?

2. Do you agree with the argument made here that God cannot have more than one infinite trait at the same time? Why or why not?

3. One counterargument that is not mentioned is rather simple: God is beyond our understanding, so there aren’t any contradictions; we are just incapable of appreciating how everything can work together. Is this a good response?