God is good. The statement has become a mantra for countless believers who happily assert it as incontrovertible fact, yet rarely seem to think seriously of what they're saying, or even bother to examine their proposition. Why is God good? Some Christians will bring up the crucifixion as evidence of God's love, some will quote scripture, others will offer anecdotes from their own lives, and still others may simply claim that if there is a supreme being, it must also be the ultimate source of goodness and morality. Sincere as such responses may be, it is important to remember that even drug addicts will swear on their lives that their drug of choice does no harm to them. Some people may believe in something with utmost conviction and still be dead wrong.

There are plenty of doubts about the reason Christ went to the cross, not to mention the growing doubt that he ever existed at all. To someone who is curious about the bible's claim that God is good, quoting more scripture would probably not persuade them of anything, since it would be circular reasoning. A personal experience may be meaningful to the individual giving their testimony, but the outsider often has little motivation to accept subjective evidence, especially from someone who they do not intimately know. Lastly, the idea that a supreme being would, by definition, be 'the greatest good' is not evident at all, and requires a lot of support.

When someone suggests that God is good, they profess to have moral knowledge beyond the scope of subjective human experience. This must be approached very skeptically, because such moral knowledge is itself just as uncertain and lacking in evidence as the existence of God. There are many things which cast doubt upon our moral knowledge and the goodness of God.

I. The Greeks on God

The Greek philosopher Socrates posed one of the most challenging questions to those who believe God is a worthy standard of morality. For a more relevant impact on today's monotheisms, the challenge can be rephrased as follows: does God command something because it is good, or is something good because God commands it? If God commands that we do good because it is good, then morality appears to be independent of God, and so God would be subject to it just as we are. But if something is good because God commands it, then morality is merely whatever God defines it to be. This would mean that 'God is good' is a senseless statement, since God's idea of morality (or what is good) could change at any second.

Some religious believers have attempted to resolve the dilemma by claiming that good is just a part of God's nature that is only expressed through his commands. However, this runs into another problem. Can God not act against his own nature? What if acting against one part of his nature would lead to the accomplishment of a greater good? Even if he might choose to abide by certain restrictions, he is still being limited and is therefore not all-powerful. About a century after Socrates, another Greek philosopher posed a new dilemma on the nature of God.

The Epicurean Paradox is a powerful argument because it disputes the compatibility of an omnipotent, benevolent, and moral god with the evil that exists and seems to thrive in our world. If good is truly part of God's nature, why does he not put an end to evil? Christians may argue that he will do just that on judgement day, but their defense falls short of explaining why God sees fit to tolerate evil and suffering for the time being. One of the most common responses to the problem of evil is to claim that evil is simply the absence of good (or God). Again, this hardly solves the dilemma, since one must then wonder why God would permit such absences of good or of himself among his creation.

II. Evidence in 'The Good Book'

If the Christian god is really as loving and good as his followers proclaim, it should be fairly evident to us from his teachings and past interactions recorded in 'The Good Book'. Yet the bible clearly details how Yahweh ordered his people to slaughter the Canaanites (Numbers 21:3), how he drowned most of humanity in a flood (Genesis 7:11-24), and how he killed the firstborn child of every Egyptian (Exodus 12:29), even though he was actually the one responsible for 'hardening Pharaoh's heart' against the Jews (Exodus 11:9-10). No matter how you try to spin it, these acts are not good or moral acts, especially not for a god who is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.

Now although the god in the Old Testament is allegedly the same god in the New Testament according to Christians, many a believer has ignored the Old Testament like it is obsolete or somehow not applicable to Christianity. So for the inattentive, let's dive into the questionable morality offered by the New Testament.

Here in Jesus' own words, he expresses the divisiveness inherent to his religion. Turning family against family, coming with a sword instead of peace... does that sound like a good or moral god?

In the parable of the ten minas, Jesus tells us of a ruler who is hated by his subjects, crowned without their consent, and who reaps what he does not sow (Luke 19:14,21). The ruler actually admits to these accusations and still passes judgement on his servants:

You can guess who the ruler represents in the parable. Certainly seems like an unjust and immoral dictator.

Paul states that God struck down 23,000 people for sexual immorality. This seems to be a precursor to similar claims that have been made by the late Jerry Falwell. The New Testament mostly reserves its violent language for parables and warnings, but there are certainly plenty of verses that teach highly questionable moral values which seem contrary to the common proclamation that God is good.

III. Faith and Subjectivity

Faced with these difficult issues, most Christians will retreat behind their favorite excuses. 'The Lord works in mysterious ways', 'His ways are beyond our comprehension', and so forth. These replies are basically alternative ways of saying, 'I just have faith that God is good'. Such an admission is not easy to argue with, but if God is above our understanding, it seems curious that some of us would be able to comprehend the love he allegedly expresses to us. I can't speak for others, but if I were to have faith in a deity, I would want to know that it is a god worthy of my respect and veneration.

Some religious believers have attempted to avoid problems of good and evil altogether, by asserting that the terms are subjective and apply only to us humans. They might argue that God doesn't care how his actions appear to us, because he is above human concepts like good and bad, right and wrong. In this case, God must not care about who believes in him either, since one would imagine that a god who values worship above all else would want to appear more benevolent and gracious than evil, in order to attract more believers. A god like that is not at all contrary to deism, but really seems to have no place in monotheism.

Claiming that God is good is no less non-sensical than saying that East is red. We can imagine what it might mean (there may be some objects that are red in the East), but we just cannot be sure, and no clarifications are expected anytime soon. God is good in what context? Does he decide what is good? If God is everywhere, how can evil be the absence of God? The interesting truth appears to be that, even if we had definitive evidence for the existence of a god, we could not concretely determine whether or not it would be a good or moral being. But with the examples in the bible, God seems much closer to being an evil deity than a morally good one.

1. Plato. (2002). Euthyphro. Five Dialogues, p.12. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
2. Hume, D. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2009.