The Importance of Definition

In philosophy, things can often get messy, as finding answers is never completely clear cut or simple. An important step in setting out to understand someone else’s argument or formulate your own is to define the terms used. While many times the words being used are not uncommon, like the word “beauty” or “truth”, the way the author means them does not always match up with the conventional definition. One person’s concept of what is beautiful is not necessarily the same as another’s. The fact that I like Dvorak does not make him universally appealing, just as my aversion for Wagner does not makes him unappealing to everyone.  Such subjectivity is equally applicable to definitions. The three statements that Mackie lays out – that God is all-powerful, all good, and the fact that evil exists– pose a logical problem when put together. However, each one can be reevaluated by focusing on the key word, “omnipotent”, “good”, and “evil”, as well as the concept of God.

We see the challenge of defining things in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro - Socrates repeatedly asks Euthyphro to tell him what piety is, and each time he finds holes in the logic presented to him until Euthyphro gets angry that the arguments seem “to move about instead of staying put”.  Finding the perfect combination of words to describe the concept of another is a hard enough task, and in philosophy it is important to remember that the definition the philosopher had in mind is almost never the same as what you yourself think.  Looking at the concept of goodness, vague terms with positive connotations come to mind. “Good” is one of the more primary words – when I try to find a describe it the first thing that comes to mind is merely “not bad”, which isn’t much better.  Thinking about what is evil is a little more fruitful, I unhelpfully think of “not good”, but also “bad, harmful, a cause of hurt and pain”. Recognizing whether something is good or bad is somewhat of an easier task on a basic level, we humans automatically sort everything into categories. Going with the assumption that God is all good, we now can attach another definition to each, so what is good is “of God”, while what is evil is “not of God”. It is important to make sure that the intended definition is understood. While “goodness” is an easier word, the term “God” is not.

Kyle already talked a little about altering the fixed view of what God is. Christianity thinks of God as an anthropomorphic figure who loves but judges all humans at death. If you redefine God as something other than this narrow concept, then you can by-step the whole conundrum Mackie sets out for us. For example, if “God” was actually “the gods”, as is the case with a polytheistic belief system, then there would be no problem accepting that fact that they were omnipotent and that evil existed, as it could easily be explained that the gods have conflicting interests. The fact that God is a like a human with motivations and consciousness is another debatable point.  Pantheists characterize God not as a figure, but as the sum of everything in the world, and so “God” is still omnipotent, because nothing exists outside of it; the concept of being good is not applicable because God is no longer a separate entity.  Looking at each part of the apparent problem can provide enough questions and discussions without even exploring the main purpose of the argument, but can help understand the proposed solution in the long run.