Q&A: God as an Authoritative Source
God as an Authoritative Source
Question
Someone comes and asks you, “I believe in God, but even so, why should I obey His commandments and laws?!” You answer him, “If you’re asking, that’s a sign you don’t understand what it means to believe. To believe in God means to believe in a being that has the authority to obligate you in things.” So the question falls away from the outset.
And yet, maybe one could answer you like this:
God has the authority to define situations in which I am required to sit in a sukkah, but that still doesn’t impose on me an obligation of conduct. In other words, the deontic term “obligated” can be interpreted in two ways: either as a rule of definition (which defines states of affairs in the world) or as a rule of conduct (which imposes on the addressee a duty to do something).
For example, a minor can “owe money” (if he stole or borrowed, for instance), but that obligation does not impose any duty of conduct on him (to the best of my knowledge).
So regarding God as well, one could say the same thing: true, He has the authority to define situations, but how does He have the authority to impose on me an obligation of conduct?
Answer
In the column on Euthyphro I explained that the situation is exactly the opposite: the definition of good and evil, and of forbidden and permitted, is imposed on Him. Only the obligation to act accordingly stems from His authority.
But beyond that, I do not understand the source of your distinction. From where does the authority to define come, and why should we not learn from that same source the authority to obligate?
Discussion on Answer
EA*
I didn’t say that I don’t see a difference between definition and obligation. After all, I myself devoted a whole column to that (Euthyphro). I asked why claim that for this He has authority and for that He does not? Especially since I wrote there in the column that it is דווקא the definition that is imposed on Him and does not stem from His authority. Only the obligation stems from it.
For example: a minor broke one of my vessels. The judge will say, “The minor does in fact owe you money in reality (here he is defining a situation in which the minor owes money to the injured party, to me), but what can be done—he is a minor, so he cannot be compelled to pay it back” (the judge cannot apply a rule of conduct to the minor—because he is a minor).
Let’s say the same thing about the Holy One, blessed be He. He can define situations, but perhaps for reason x or y He cannot impose on us an obligation of conduct (we are human beings, we have impulses, we are pressed by the demands of the moment, etc. etc. etc.)