Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality

by David Baggett, Jerry L. Walls

This book aims to reinvigorate discussions of moral arguments for God's existence. To open this debate, Baggett and Walls argue that God's love and moral goodness are perfect, without defect, necessary, and recognizable. After integrating insights from the literature of both moral apologetics and theistic ethics, they defend theistic ethics against a variety of objections and, in so doing, bolster the case for the moral argument for God's existence. It is the intention of the authors to see this aspect of natural theology resume its rightful place of prominence, by showing how a worldview predicated on the God of both classical theism and historical Christian orthodoxy has more than adequate resources to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma, speak to the problem of evil, illumine natural law, and highlight the moral significance of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. Ultimately, the authors argue, there is principled reason to believe that morality itself provides excellent
reasons to look for a transcendent source of its authority and reality, and a source that is more than an abstract principle.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Academic, Nonfiction, Religion, Christianity

283 pages, Paperback

First published March 10, 2011

About the author

David Baggett (PhD, Wayne State University) is professor of philosophy in the Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He is the coauthor of Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning, and At the Bend of the River Grand. He is the editor of Did the Resurrection Happen? and the coeditor of C.S. Lewis as Philosopher: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty; The Philosophy of Sherlock Holmes; and Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts.

Reviews

[Marybeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Good God authors David Baggett and Jerry Walls present a solid philosophical argument defending the existence and exploring the nature of a fully loving, all-powerful deity. Their argument is unique in three respects: its appeal to the general reader, its expansive coverage drawing together moral apologetics with theistic ethics, and its exploring the nature of God, not simply defending his existence.

(1) Though rigorous in its argumentation, Good God invites laypeople to enter this important conversation about the justification for belief in God. Using less-technical language and few, if any, philosophical symbols to present the necessary background on the issue and their contribution to the discussion, the book seems intentionally directed to an educated, though not philosophically trained, readership, and the authors’ conviction about the significance, and far-reaching implications, of the question of God’s existence and nature seems to be their driving motivation for opening the discussion up to those beyond the doors of the philosophy department. And they do so well. I have no philosophical training beyond an introductory course in college, and I was able to track with the writers’ argument just fine. They are clear, engaging, and aware of their audience’s need for guidance through difficult terrain.

(2) Another feature of the book that makes it well worth reading is its scope. Baggett and Walls open Good God with an in-depth yet accessible overview of the range of arguments in historical and current philosophical literature made defending the existence of God using morality as a starting point. The authors’ comfort with the subject shows in this lit review as they make connections extremely helpful to those, like me, who are only now being introduced to the material. And each chapter follows in the same vein. Though the book’s argument builds primarily from philosophical foundations, Baggett and Walls draw on scripture where appropriate, most notably in the final chapter which powerfully and passionately wraps up the argument presented throughout the book.

(3) My personal favorite aspect of the book is its insistence that knowing who God is is just as important as knowing that God is. I’ve seen some on-line reviews about the book griping about its chapter on Calvinism, yet the book’s argument that God is omnibenevolent justifies—and requires even—the inclusion of a critique of Calvinism as incompatible with such a deity. In establishing and defending the argument that God is perfectly good, all-loving, and all-powerful, Baggett and Walls also take on the difficult questions of the Old Testament conquest narratives and the problem of evil, all of which strengthens their argument since they put it to the ultimate tests (be sure to check out the second appendix for more of this (“Outrageous Evil and the Hope of Healing”).

The book is amazing. I highly recommend it, to Christians and non-Christians alike. Good God engages the mind and heart in discussing a topic at the very center of our reality. Do not let the philosophy label dissuade you from picking this book up. The topic’s worth anyone’s consideration, and Baggett and Walls, because of their apparent expertise and their genuine passion for the subject, are the perfect teachers.

[nadav kravitz · Rating 2 out of 5]

In scope, quite good, covering a lot of areas and mostly pretty thoroughly.

In depth: leaves a lot to be desired. Often question-begging or circular or punting to assertions (of course there are objective duties! I feel them!)

As with many Christian apologetics books, the intention isn't so much as to convince someone not initially inclined to agree, but to affirm the beliefs of those already inclined to agree. What does it mean for God to be good? What does "goodness" even mean? Is there such a thing as objective good? Is it better to be loving or unloving? Just or unjust? Why does this all seem to revolve around humans? What's so special about humans that the creator of the universe would care about us? Suppose I do something immoral: what then? In what sense is morality binding if I can choose to disobey it? Why should anyone care what God thinks about what is or isn't moral? Why think there's anything unnatural (or supernatural) about morality in the first place? Why think we wouldn't have the moral experiences and beliefs we do if God didn't exist?

Don't expect to find satisfying answers to these questions in this book. If you are an atheist, don't expect to find in this book a good reason to change your mind about God.

But if you are a theist and want to be a more sophisticated defender of your beliefs, maybe enough to bamboozle an atheist (or yourself) into thinking God is related to morality in a significant way, this may be a good book for you. Despite it's title, however, the book itself isn't especially good.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

DO MORAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD?

The authors wrote in the Introduction to this 2011 book, “A significant part of the attack on theism by these [‘new atheist’] authors has been their claim that morality does not need God, and indeed that it is better off without him. In the present volume, we engage this battle on the side of the transcendentalist view, and argue that there is much more to be ‘found’ than ourselves so far as morality is concerned… our primary aim is to defend a moral argument for God’s existence. We shall advance the case that moral considerations provide us with substantial reasons to believe not only in God, but a particular kind of God… our second primary aim… is to rebut objections to theistic ethics… we shall argue … that morality ultimately needs God to make full rational sense.” (Pg. 4)

They state, “theism is no more outlandish or outrageous than many of our most cherished moral convictions. If we want to take seriously moral freedom, ethical obligations, and genuine responsibility, then we are hard pressed to do so on naturalistic grounds… we do suggest that those who find [the moral argument’s] compelling and its conclusion reasonable are within their intellectual rights to do so… Such an argument can play an effective par in a cumulative case argument for God’s existence.” (Pg. 28)

They point out, “Notice that if ‘moral’ means ‘commanded by God,’ then to say ‘God issues a command because it is moral’ would be equivalent to saying, ‘God issues a command because it is commanded by God… So the proposed definition of morality that appeals to God’s command fails… What this shows is that definition and analysis are not the same… In fact, we think God’s commands do fail as a definition of morality, thereby making it possible that those who think that morality does not depend on God can nonetheless employ the concepts of morality competently, just as people could employ the concept of water competently before the discoveries of modern chemistry.” (Pg. 40)

They argue, “God has supreme power, knowledge, and goodness, and all of these underwrite his moral authority. He created us and this world and stamped us with his image, and has the power to hold us fully accountable for our actions. Since he has perfect knowledge of us, he understands perfectly what is good for us and our flourishing. Moreover, since he is perfectly good he desires our well-being and does everything short of overriding our freedom to promote it. In view of his nature as a perfect being there are no good grounds for doubting his authority… And part of what is involved in that is accepting his commands… IN short, we think the issue of authority is a matter of power, knowledge, and character, all of which add up to MORAL authority.” (Pg. 123)

Of the OT passages about the conquest of the Canaanites, they acknowledge, “We admit that if we were required to read these passages as holding that all the Canaanites, including the children, were all immediately relegated to hell, that reading would entail a depiction of God’s character well nigh impossible to square with our best mora intuitions. A loving God would plausibly do more to offer his grace and salvation to the Canaanites, even if posthumously. The text doesn’t force the harsher reading on it, and various textual clues point against it… [such as] the redemption of some among the Canaanites… God, we contend, would give even those Canaanites a full and free opportunity to repent of their sins and be saved through Christ. Such an account… makes possible the attempted moral reconciliation of God’s perfect goodness with the conquest narratives. It’s still challenging to effect such reconciliation, but, we contend, not impossible for an Anselmian theist… we want to reiterate that we are not insisting that the conquest narratives are intended to be read as straightforward literal accounts… Our purpose has been to argue that… it is not impossible to square these stories with our deepest moral intuitions, difficult though it surely is.” (Pg. 140)

They summarize, “If the argument of this book holds water, then it wouldn’t be the least surprising that God had, by whatever means he chose, conferred on or imbued in human beings clear apprehension of foundational moral truths that a reflective person would consider to be nonnegotiable… a moral argument for God’s existence… requires moral premises that are taken to be at least as secure epistemically speak as the conclusions are about God’s existence.” (Pg. 162) They continue, “The crux of the matter… is not merely whether there is an afterlife, but what sort of afterlife there is, if there is one… The moral argument of this book has been that God does indeed exist, and that God is good, indeed perfectly good and the Good itself.” (Pg. 180)

They conclude, “It has been our contention, in contrast, that the reality and authority of morality derives from a source higher and richer, more ‘attractive and final’ than anything we can generate or muster as finite human beings… there is a law to be discovered… but a law not of oppression, repression, or suppression, but of liberation. And the ineffable beauty of the infinite and transcendental Author of this law… fills us with confidence that by tasting and seeing the Source we will find our deepest satisfaction and truest liberation, perfectly rules, yet perfectly free.” (Pg. 206)

This book will be of keen interest to Christians studying philosophical versions of the moral argument for God.

[Nancy Dinan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disagree but they tried their best bless xx

[Adam Lees · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deftly deals with some tricky objections to the moral argument for the existence of God. I preferred the second book of this (to-be) trilogy, God and Cosmos, although this may be because the subject matter was more expansive and engaging. This is the nitty-gritty.

[Emily Gayle · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a challenging read as it was very wordy in its explanations and difficult vocabulary. I do like the layout of the book and learned a lot from it.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Baggett and Jerry Walls combine philosophy of religion and ethics with standard apologetic arguments for God's existence in this book resulting in a more popular rendition of God's relationship to moral duty (commands) and values (good nature) coupled with an apologetic argument for God's existence from the nature of morality. In chapter one Baggett and Walls not four features/arguments from ethics that point to God (objectivity, the dualism of practical reason, moral obligation/ought, and, freedom and responsibility). The authors then shift to the most common objections against God framed as arbitrariness, abhorrent commands, and tautology objections in chapters 2, 7-9. Chapters 3-6 deal with god's relation to ethics (both values and duties) as well as the nature of God (not Calvinistic). They end with more Christian theological concerns in chapter 10 with a discussion on virtue ethics. Throughout the work they continue to make the distinction between moral values (good/bad) and moral obligation (right/ought, wrong/prohibition). Their appendixes, specifically on moral outrage, are very helpful to see both the logical and existential issues with worldviews and ethics. Would recommend reading alongside "God and Moral Obligation" by Evans.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book on the moral argument for God’s existence. However, one major qualm that I have with the book is the awful chapter written against Calvinism. Their argument essentially boils down to: God’s moral goodness must be recognizable, and Calvinism is false because unconditional election, whereby some are chosen for damnation, violates our moral intuitions and shows God is not good because his goodness is not recognizable by consigning some to eternal perdition. It’s unfair and unjust and loving of God to save some and not all.

The argumentation in this chapter is incredibly weak and pathetic.

[Wade Bearden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Morality truly makes sense when it is rooted in God.