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.
Good God:The Theistic Foundations of Morality
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Good God provides a spirited defense of the claim that morality requires God as its foundation. The authors provide powerful reasons for rejecting the usual philosophical objections to this view, and a strong case for the advantages of their view over secular rivals. Although the book shows a deep knowledge of contemporary moral philosophy, it is accessible to non-specialists and written in a clear and engaging style."
-- C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University
About the Author
David Baggett is professor of philosophy at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. His books include C. S. Lewis as Philosopher: Truth, Goodness and Beauty; Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew; Tennis and Philosophy: What the Racket is All About; and Sherlock Holmes and Philosophy.
Jerry L. Walls recently served as a Research Fellow in The Center for Philosophy of Religion at Notre Dame, and is currently a visiting scholar there. Among his books are Hell: The Logic of Damnation, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy, and Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. He is also the editor of The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
18 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
In "Good God," David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls bring some much needed clarity and boldness to contemporary discussions about theistic ethics. Right from the start, the authors begin with seven key distinctions and clarifications (such as conceivability vs. possibility, knowing vs. being, and good vs. right) that are employed with great deftness throughout the course of this rich, eminently intelligible work, helping the reader to understand exactly what is at stake in the at-once classic and contemporary debate over God and morality.
The authors intend for their work to function as a cumulative-case-style moral argument, and they find themselves on both the offensive and defensive sides of this task. Indeed, the sheer scope of Baggett and Walls' analysis is stunning in itself. Nearly every conceivable angle on the relationship between God and morality is touched upon, including Euthyphro-style objections, the problem of evil, the relationship between God and goodness, the logic of divine command theory, the problem of abhorrent commands (especially in Old Testament narratives), the relationship between theistic ethics and the Christian view of the afterlife, and even the problematic nature of Calvinism for theistic ethics. None of these forays has the sense of being haphazard or unduly truncated. The book's sprawling coverage adds greatly to its persuasiveness, giving the reader the sense that theistically-grounded ethics have unparalleled explanatory power.
In terms of difficulty, the content of the book would be largely accessible to undergraduate students of philosophy, though it would still likely prove a challenge. Despite the somewhat challenging nature of the prose, the authors manage to use only as much philosophical jargon as is necessary to make their substantive, rigorous points. For the more technically inclined, there are two rigorous appendices that deal with arbitrariness objections to divine command theory and the logic behind moral outrage at horrendous evil (and the resources Christian theists have in dealing with it). Baggett and Walls do not deal directly with the many secular meta-ethical alternatives to theistic ethics that aim to underwrite objective moral value; that is a task they have reserved for a forthcoming work dedicated to the subject.
I think what I like most about this book is the authors' willingness to stake their ground and lay out their positions clearly yet judiciously, particularly on issues that have received little if any treatment in theistic ethics. For instance, Baggett and Walls offer an ingenious algorithm for assessing whether or not we can accept a difficult divine command as possibly coming from a perfectly good God (and they employ a helpful distinction between a command that is "difficult" to reconcile with God's perfect goodness, and one that is downright "impossible" to so reconcile it). This creative piece of philosophy is highly relevant and useful for theists in light of current New Atheist attacks on the morality of the God of the Bible. Their approach is both a rational and an epistemically humble way of dealing with a tough issue, and it shows that theists can indeed apply discretion with regard to what can reasonably qualify as a command from a perfectly good God.
I would heartily recommend this book both for Christian theists who are seeking to understand the moral implications of their worldview, and for atheists who wish to catch a glimpse of the vision and power of theistically-grounded ethics.
The authors intend for their work to function as a cumulative-case-style moral argument, and they find themselves on both the offensive and defensive sides of this task. Indeed, the sheer scope of Baggett and Walls' analysis is stunning in itself. Nearly every conceivable angle on the relationship between God and morality is touched upon, including Euthyphro-style objections, the problem of evil, the relationship between God and goodness, the logic of divine command theory, the problem of abhorrent commands (especially in Old Testament narratives), the relationship between theistic ethics and the Christian view of the afterlife, and even the problematic nature of Calvinism for theistic ethics. None of these forays has the sense of being haphazard or unduly truncated. The book's sprawling coverage adds greatly to its persuasiveness, giving the reader the sense that theistically-grounded ethics have unparalleled explanatory power.
In terms of difficulty, the content of the book would be largely accessible to undergraduate students of philosophy, though it would still likely prove a challenge. Despite the somewhat challenging nature of the prose, the authors manage to use only as much philosophical jargon as is necessary to make their substantive, rigorous points. For the more technically inclined, there are two rigorous appendices that deal with arbitrariness objections to divine command theory and the logic behind moral outrage at horrendous evil (and the resources Christian theists have in dealing with it). Baggett and Walls do not deal directly with the many secular meta-ethical alternatives to theistic ethics that aim to underwrite objective moral value; that is a task they have reserved for a forthcoming work dedicated to the subject.
I think what I like most about this book is the authors' willingness to stake their ground and lay out their positions clearly yet judiciously, particularly on issues that have received little if any treatment in theistic ethics. For instance, Baggett and Walls offer an ingenious algorithm for assessing whether or not we can accept a difficult divine command as possibly coming from a perfectly good God (and they employ a helpful distinction between a command that is "difficult" to reconcile with God's perfect goodness, and one that is downright "impossible" to so reconcile it). This creative piece of philosophy is highly relevant and useful for theists in light of current New Atheist attacks on the morality of the God of the Bible. Their approach is both a rational and an epistemically humble way of dealing with a tough issue, and it shows that theists can indeed apply discretion with regard to what can reasonably qualify as a command from a perfectly good God.
I would heartily recommend this book both for Christian theists who are seeking to understand the moral implications of their worldview, and for atheists who wish to catch a glimpse of the vision and power of theistically-grounded ethics.
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
By LAD
Format:Paperback
-I would recommend this book highly. It's lucidly written with playful wit while covering an array of topics that concern both atheist and theist alike. Baggett and Walls' (Henceforth Baggett) essential point is that morality does not make sense unless it is given by God. This book is such a good read, in part, because this thesis is so applicable, especially in response to the New Atheism crowd who believe they can have a sensible morality apart from God.
Baggett constructs a moral apologetic by offering multiple versions of the moral argument. He details a theistic ethic. And by answering normativity, epistemic, autonomy, and arbitrariness objections, Baggett strengthens the moral argument not only for God's existence but also for God's love and moral goodness as perfect, necessary, and recognizable.
These discussions also inform our understanding of natural law, the problem of evil, conquest narratives, and the moral relevance of the Trinity, incarnation, resurrection, and afterlife. The moral argument for God's existence is powerful and persuasive but too often neglected in natural theology.
Some of the specific subject matter is given below as preview.
The author addresses the Euthyphro Dilemma and seeks the best reconciliation. Both horns of this dilemma are uncomfortable and undesired by theists: to affirm that something is good because God commands it is to invite arbitrariness, but to affirm instead that God commands what is already moral makes it seem as if morality is independent of God and God is accountable to it. Murray Macbeath's response is that God chooses actions because they maximize our happiness, which might be the reason they are moral. This question will be a motif developed throughout the text as Baggett proceeds to answer it.
Baggett defends an Anselmian conception of God against charges that it is unbiblical and that it wrongly predicates moral goodness and perfect moral goodness of God. The "conceivability argument" is specifically addressed and rejected. It states that because God's sinning is conceivable, sinning is possible, and God is thus not impeccable. This argument is problematic, for conceivability is a fuzzy concept. This argument does not seem to be employing a definition of epistemic possibility, and if it is instead using conceivability to mean something closer to imaginability, our ability to think of the proposition with mental clarity, then that is equally problematic given that there are propositions known to be true that our imagination fails to sufficiently grasp.
He argues that in order for the moral argument to provide rational reason to believe in God, God's goodness must be recognizable. Otherwise the word "good" is being used to refer to something that isn't recognizably good, an equivocation. For this reason, he rejects Calvinism. Calvinists ascribe to radical voluntarism, the former horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, that whatever God does is good because he does it (arbitrariness). Baggett challenges this notion by posing counter examples. What if God commanded us to torture children? This would immediately strike us as intuitively wrong, and to admit it as "good" would entirely erode any intelligible understanding of what goodness is.
Baggett does not claim that the moral argument settles all apologetic concerns relating to God's existence; however he it does point to a transcendental source (God). Confidence in morality as real, objective, prescriptive, and authoritative is requisite for a workable moral argument for God's existence. Nonetheless, someone can be rational in believing in objective morality even while doubting God's existence because there are good reasons for moral realism by itself.
He condones the atheist for believing in objective morality, for she, whether she realizes it or not, is accepting the seeds of the moral argument. Two sorts of atheists broadly represent the opponents discussed throughout this book: the moral objectivist and the Nietzschian. The former, perhaps the New Atheist crowd, attempts to make sense of morality without God, while the ladder rejects it. Baggett encourages the atheist to cultivate his sense of moral realism, for it is that conviction that may point to a more coherent (and likely theistic) set of beliefs.
There seems to be something profoundly right about not giving morality up, the author states. In trying to understand the truth of reality, morality is one subject too obviousness to toss. The Calvinist too, who Baggett critiques as lacking a true sense of God's recognizable love, still holds that God loves everyone.
Once again, this is a fantastic read, not only for a student of philosophy, but also for the convicted laymen. It is fluid and accessible meanwhile challenging but fun. Seriously, read it.
-John Hare wrote an interesting and helpful review of this book. One point of his I wish to discuss as it is, I believe, a bit unfair. Hare states that the book would be better off without chapter four, A Reformed Tradition Not Quite Right. This was the chapter I mentioned above which dealt with Calvinism's resultant unintelligible definition of goodness. First of all, and I admit this is trivial of me to mention, Hare notes the book's sarcasm towards Calvinism. While this is true, it's actually quite funny and part of Baggett's humorous writing style.
Secondly, Hare states that "They do not discuss either the biblical texts that lie behind the Calvinist view or the motivation that also lies behind it." Hare is assuming that Baggett is providing philosophical arguments against Calvinism while ignoring the scriptural or exegetical arguments for Calvinism. This is not the case. Baggett's philophical arguments should cause us not to reject Calvinism prima facie, but to reflect on the alleged scriptural interpretation supporting Calvinism and reexamine those verses. Baggett illustrates that the Calvinist, upon admitting that goodness is something defined simply by what God commands (voluntarism), even if that command is to torture babies, is left with an unintelligible sense of God's goodness. We should take great pause here beacuse we know that the concept of God's goodness or omnibenevolence is essential to our interpretation of the scriptures. If Calvinism discards a concept that is obvious to a careful interpretation of scripture, what else might they discard? The skepticism should cause us to reaxime how the Calvinist is performing his exegesis.
LAD
Baggett constructs a moral apologetic by offering multiple versions of the moral argument. He details a theistic ethic. And by answering normativity, epistemic, autonomy, and arbitrariness objections, Baggett strengthens the moral argument not only for God's existence but also for God's love and moral goodness as perfect, necessary, and recognizable.
These discussions also inform our understanding of natural law, the problem of evil, conquest narratives, and the moral relevance of the Trinity, incarnation, resurrection, and afterlife. The moral argument for God's existence is powerful and persuasive but too often neglected in natural theology.
Some of the specific subject matter is given below as preview.
The author addresses the Euthyphro Dilemma and seeks the best reconciliation. Both horns of this dilemma are uncomfortable and undesired by theists: to affirm that something is good because God commands it is to invite arbitrariness, but to affirm instead that God commands what is already moral makes it seem as if morality is independent of God and God is accountable to it. Murray Macbeath's response is that God chooses actions because they maximize our happiness, which might be the reason they are moral. This question will be a motif developed throughout the text as Baggett proceeds to answer it.
Baggett defends an Anselmian conception of God against charges that it is unbiblical and that it wrongly predicates moral goodness and perfect moral goodness of God. The "conceivability argument" is specifically addressed and rejected. It states that because God's sinning is conceivable, sinning is possible, and God is thus not impeccable. This argument is problematic, for conceivability is a fuzzy concept. This argument does not seem to be employing a definition of epistemic possibility, and if it is instead using conceivability to mean something closer to imaginability, our ability to think of the proposition with mental clarity, then that is equally problematic given that there are propositions known to be true that our imagination fails to sufficiently grasp.
He argues that in order for the moral argument to provide rational reason to believe in God, God's goodness must be recognizable. Otherwise the word "good" is being used to refer to something that isn't recognizably good, an equivocation. For this reason, he rejects Calvinism. Calvinists ascribe to radical voluntarism, the former horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, that whatever God does is good because he does it (arbitrariness). Baggett challenges this notion by posing counter examples. What if God commanded us to torture children? This would immediately strike us as intuitively wrong, and to admit it as "good" would entirely erode any intelligible understanding of what goodness is.
Baggett does not claim that the moral argument settles all apologetic concerns relating to God's existence; however he it does point to a transcendental source (God). Confidence in morality as real, objective, prescriptive, and authoritative is requisite for a workable moral argument for God's existence. Nonetheless, someone can be rational in believing in objective morality even while doubting God's existence because there are good reasons for moral realism by itself.
He condones the atheist for believing in objective morality, for she, whether she realizes it or not, is accepting the seeds of the moral argument. Two sorts of atheists broadly represent the opponents discussed throughout this book: the moral objectivist and the Nietzschian. The former, perhaps the New Atheist crowd, attempts to make sense of morality without God, while the ladder rejects it. Baggett encourages the atheist to cultivate his sense of moral realism, for it is that conviction that may point to a more coherent (and likely theistic) set of beliefs.
There seems to be something profoundly right about not giving morality up, the author states. In trying to understand the truth of reality, morality is one subject too obviousness to toss. The Calvinist too, who Baggett critiques as lacking a true sense of God's recognizable love, still holds that God loves everyone.
Once again, this is a fantastic read, not only for a student of philosophy, but also for the convicted laymen. It is fluid and accessible meanwhile challenging but fun. Seriously, read it.
-John Hare wrote an interesting and helpful review of this book. One point of his I wish to discuss as it is, I believe, a bit unfair. Hare states that the book would be better off without chapter four, A Reformed Tradition Not Quite Right. This was the chapter I mentioned above which dealt with Calvinism's resultant unintelligible definition of goodness. First of all, and I admit this is trivial of me to mention, Hare notes the book's sarcasm towards Calvinism. While this is true, it's actually quite funny and part of Baggett's humorous writing style.
Secondly, Hare states that "They do not discuss either the biblical texts that lie behind the Calvinist view or the motivation that also lies behind it." Hare is assuming that Baggett is providing philosophical arguments against Calvinism while ignoring the scriptural or exegetical arguments for Calvinism. This is not the case. Baggett's philophical arguments should cause us not to reject Calvinism prima facie, but to reflect on the alleged scriptural interpretation supporting Calvinism and reexamine those verses. Baggett illustrates that the Calvinist, upon admitting that goodness is something defined simply by what God commands (voluntarism), even if that command is to torture babies, is left with an unintelligible sense of God's goodness. We should take great pause here beacuse we know that the concept of God's goodness or omnibenevolence is essential to our interpretation of the scriptures. If Calvinism discards a concept that is obvious to a careful interpretation of scripture, what else might they discard? The skepticism should cause us to reaxime how the Calvinist is performing his exegesis.
LAD
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
By ladyhannah
Format:Kindle Edition
David Baggett and Jerry Walls take complicated and controversial concepts and explain them in a way that is very approachable, and at the same time philosophically and theologically sound. If you've ever had questions about the nature of God, and how Old Testament stories line up with the New Testament's portrayal of a loving Creator, this book is well worth your time.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Engages the Mind and Heart
In Good God authors David Baggett and Jerry Walls present a strong philosophical argument defending the existence and exploring the nature of a fully loving, all-powerful deity. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Marybeth Baggett
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fantastic overview and defense of the Moral Argument, with much moral...
I very much enjoyed this book. Each chapter contributes more insights to the moral argument, and leaves almost no stone untouched. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Devin W. Tarr
4.0 out of 5 stars
Important work
This is an important contribution to the "morality" question in our society.
Just know that this is not an introductory text. Read more
Just know that this is not an introductory text. Read more
Published 7 months ago by J. H. Wells
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good God, a Must for Philosophers, a Great Read for All Willing to...
Why is God good and what makes him full of goodness? This question is thoroughly investigated in Good God: The Theistic Foundation of Morality by David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls. Read more
Published 16 months ago by RW
5.0 out of 5 stars
An insightful exploration of God, morality, faith, and reason
The premise of "Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality" is that the existence of a universal moral intuition, and the philosophical conclusions drawn from the analysis of... Read more
Published 20 months ago by Leslie Keeney
5.0 out of 5 stars
very clearly written
This is a very good book, very clearly written such that it can engage a broad readership. Particularly good is the devastating criticism of Calvinism, showing it to be utterly... Read more
Published 22 months ago by William Irwin
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good God and a good book too
David Baggett and Jerry Walls do a great job answering critical questions about morality and how it shapes us and the world we live in. In the spirit of those like C.S. Read more
Published 23 months ago by cslewisfan
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
So You'd Like to...
|
|
