EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.) First, God has the right to take life however and whenever He desires. Since God is the author of life, He can take life and give life at His whim. Life is a gift from God. Every moment we exist is a gift from our Creator (Acts 17:24-28). God is under no obligation to sustain the universe or our individual lives. Since God created the world (and everything in it) He can do with it as He desires. Humans cannot take another life because they did not create it. Since we did not give life, we have no right to take it. But since God is the giver of life, He can take it in whatever manner He chooses. It’s His prerogative. Second, God shows tremendous longsuffering and compassion before executing judgment. When God first told Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the Promised Land, God instructed him that the fulfillment would be significantly delayed until the sin of the Amorites (the people of Canaan) was complete (Genesis 15:16). Why the wait? God was allowing sufficient time for the Canaanites to repent of their evil ways. 430 years was more than enough time for the Amorites to turn to God. Moreover, God promises to spare any nation that turns to God in repentance and abandons its evil ways (Jeremiah 18:7-8). God gave them considerable time to repent, but eventually justice must prevail. Third, God's commands must be understoon in light of His covenant with Israel. God chose Abraham to be the father of a nation through whom "all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:1-3). Israel was to be a holy nation, set apart from the evil and corruption of surrounding nations (Lev 18:30). God was preparing a nation as a vehicle for the coming Messiah, the universal Savior (Eph 2:11-22). In direct contrast, the Canaanites were involved in witchcraft, divination, child sacrifice, and sexual perversion (Deut 18:9-11; Lev 18:1-24). Thus they were the most serious threat to God's divine plan for Israel. Dr. Paul Copan rightly observes: "Although the biblical commands are themselves considered harsh, not carrying them out would have undermined the very theocracy and plan of salvation God had establishe" (That's Just Your Interpretation, Baker Books, 2005, p. 165). When difficult challenges like this arise, it’s important to remember what we know to be true about God: He is good, patient, loving, and worthy of our trust. We may not understand entirely why he called for the destruction of the Canaanites, but we can rest assured that He has a good reason. Philosopher Paul Copan has an entire book on this subject coming out soon: Is God A Moral Monster? I’ve often found it curious that atheists such as Dawkins raise this objection, because if we live in a Darwinian world, then what is wrong with this? After all, we see killing and other forms of pillaging all the time in nature. Just watch the recent “Life” program on the Discovery Channel (which, by the way, is incredible). The Israelites were merely weeding out the weak. The fact that we object so loudly to the slaughter of the Canaanites attests to our deep-seated commitment to objective morality. And yet if there is no God, where does objective morality come from? Dawkins certainly hasn’t offered a convincing explanation. So, ironically, Dawkins has to use God to negate God.
|
Comments
Two questions for Sean:
First, for some Christians, the fundamental question will be whether or not infants deserve eternal condemnation in hell. If infants deserve to suffer for all of eternity, then whatever atrocities God orders for them in this life will be relatively insignificant, including infanticide. I think I heard a Sunday school teacher once say, "If you can believe Genesis 1:1, you can believe the rest of the Bible." So, likewise, I have sometimes thought that if you can believe that infants deserve to suffer in hell for all of eternity, then you can believe anything about morality, justice, fairness and desert. Sean, what do you believe? Do infants deserve to go to hell? (If not, then how is it that anyone comes to deserve to suffer for all of eternity, if anyone actually does?)
Second, you ask, "where does objective morality come from?" It isn't obvious, however, why we must assume that morality (much less "objective morality") must "come from" somewhere. Surely it isn't true that everything must come from somewhere. So what is your proof that morality must come from somewhere?
CT, until Sean has a chance to reply, you might want to take a look at the debate he did with James Corbett on the topic, "Is God the best explanation for moral values?" The video of the debate is archived at: www.conversantlife.com/live
It was Adam who condemned the entire human race to Hell by his original sin. We all suffer the consequences of that original rebellion, and that include infants. All decisions we make have consequences. Often we don't (or can't) think through these consequences, and find out later on that we don't like them at all.
We (i.e. the human race, via Adam) chose to go our own way and must now deal with the consequences of that decision. It is Christ who offers us a way back to God. God may, in his mercy, make an exception for infants, and I believe he does. But logically, everybody is dealing with the consequences of Adam's choice.
A logical proof that objective morality must come from somewhere: If objective morality exists now, it must have come from somewhere, simply because it now exists. This is causality, a standard axiom of western thought since at least Aristotle. If you (CT) can think of something that exists now that doesn't have a cause, then you might have grounds for an objection.
If morality does not exist, and is only our imagination, then Dawkins has nothing to object to, which is the whole point of Sean's argument.
Chris Doig, I suspect Sean wouldn't want to endorse your responses, at least not in their entirety.
It is one thing for a child to suffer the consequences of its parent's decisions; it's quite another to say that a child deserves to suffer because of it's parent's decisions. It's more fantastic still to say that an infant deserves to suffer for all of eternity because of something that its ancient ancestor did. But as I said, if you can believe that, then it shouldn't be hard to understand divinely mandated infanticide, etc.
You suggest that it is a "standard axiom of western thought" that everything that exists has a cause. This is a big claim, and I'm a bit skeptical. Perhaps you are confusing the idea that everything that exists has a cause with the slightly more plausible idea that everything that comes into existence has a cause (namely, a cause for coming into existence). But then that's not the premise you need.
But why am I skeptical about your claim that it is "a standard axiom of western thought" that everything that exists has a cause? Well, for one thing, theism has been a major part of western thought and many theists believe that God exists but that God doesn't have a cause. But there are other things, besides God, for which we might have less confidence in supposing that they have a cause. Think of number 17. Are you prepared to deny that there is such a number? If not, then are you prepared to insist that the number 17 has a cause? What would that cause be? Or, suppose that it is true that everything that exists has a cause. Are you prepared to deny the existence of this truth? Presumably not. But then, what would be the cause of this truth? Perhaps here you might say that the "cause" of this truth is the fact that everything that exists has a cause. But then, what is the cause of that fact?
James 4:17 "...to one who knows {the} right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
This verse and others form the basis for the idea that infants do not go to hell. Yes we are all born with a sinful nature in Adam, but an infant or a young child is innocent because they don't understand the difference between right and wrong even when they do lie, cheat, steal, etc. So an infant or even an unborn child goes straight to Jesus by default. (Of course, Catholics don't believe that, which is why they practice infant baptism.) Could infanticide then, be another means by which God brings His own home? If not that, then it's cancer, a speeding bus, or a bad burrito. Take your pick.
To a certain extent I think you're on to something when you imply that the number "17" never just sprang into existence one fine day. Really, 17 and morality have always existed because they have always been in the mind of God, and God has always existed. Proverbs 8:22 would tell you as much: "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His work..." We would say that these things come to us from God.
You asked "what is the proof that morality must come from somewhere?" I think, judging by the tangent we went on of proving that some things simply exist, that you misunderstood Sean's point. He is that with out God as the ultimate authority there is no "grounds" for morality. In Dawkins' world, might makes right if anything can be called "right." For people who think like him, morality is an artificial construct, only as good as it is useful at the moment. At the end of the day a person who rejects God is only using their preferences as a standard, which may or may not be the same as someone else's. But under God we are all equal.
Roger, thank you for weighing in. I think you might be on to something in suggesting that, contrary to Chris Doig's response, Sean is not assuming that morality must have a cause. Rather, in assuming that morality must come from somewhere, Sean is rather assuming that morality (or, as Sean prefers, "objective morality") must be grounded in something. But then Sean must be assuming that morality has to be grounded in something other than itself. But why should we assume this? It's surely not true of everything. So what is the proof that morality, in order to be objective, must be grounded in something other than itself?
You also defend the idea that infants are innocent and therefore do not go to hell. You imply, however, that as soon a person knowingly does do something wrong, then that person deserves to go to hell. Consider, however, the point at which a child learns to distinguish right from wrong. Maybe, for some particular child (let's call her Jill), this occurs when she is nine-years old. Now consider this nine-year old's very first transgression after developing this knowledge. Jill sneaks one of the apples from out the refrigerator, eating it before lunch. It's no big deal, but when Jill's mother looks into the fridge, she happens to offhandedly ask, "Are these all the apples I bought?" Jill answers--and almost as equally offhand, but not quite--"I don't know." So Jill knows right from wrong, and now she has lied.
Here's the question for you (Roger): Does nine-year old Jill thereby deserve to suffer for all of eternity? (If not, then what could it be that makes a person deserve such condemnation?)
Here's a bonus question. If infants are, as you claim, innocent, then don't we also have to say that fetuses as innocent? If fetuses are innocent, then God does not send aborted fetuses to hell. And if God does not send any aborted fetus to hell, then abortion guarantees that the fetus won't go to hell. This means that abortion saves every fetus from the risk of hell. But if there is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal suffering and separation from God (I assume this is what hell amounts to), then, clearly, abortion is in a fetus's best interest. So, the promised bonus question: would you agree that abortion is in an unborn baby's best interest? If not, how do you resist this conclusion?
Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond all week, but I have been mulling it over. I will answer your questions in reverse order:
I do not resist the conclusion that an aborted fetus is better off than the rest of us. You could find similar sentiments in Ecclesiastes and Job. In a way I envy them because the first thing they know is Christ. And in the resurrection, who knows, will they be eternal children? That would be awesome. Will they start out grown up? Will they grow up slowly? Whatever awaits them it is a win-win situation.
However, I do think there are things worth risking eternal separation for--I don't regret the life I've lived. They will never have a chance to earn a reward like we do. They may never even experience first-hand the love of Christ as we have. Or in other words: they will never experience being "saved" or "redeemed" as we do. They would be spectators to it like angels are. For example, I have been a believer since I was five years old. While that is a great blessing, I cannot identify with someone who hit rock bottom and then found Jesus. Who will love the master more? The one to whom more has been forgiven.
The issue with abortion has nothing to do with the fate of those babies. If anything, they get the last laugh, as only a child can! Instead, it is a moral outrage over the systematic murder of 1,000,000+ innocent people every year. That's about the same rate that the Nazis were gassing "sub-human" types, but we've been doing it much longer--and I don't think they ever made a dime off it, but here it's big business. Enough of that.
As for Jill, the answer is yes: at that point she does deserve hell. It is not the sum total of her sins that condemn her (as if God would actually go ballistic over one apple and a white lie) but those sins show her to be what she is choosing to be: a rebel. God has given her a certain amount of light: a conscience, and she is rejecting it. Left to herself she would continue down that road, and by her own will remove herself from any right to God’s goodness that she might have had. Really has no choice but to condemn her to eternity without Himself if she will not have Him. Now of course she has a disadvantage, she was born with a sinful nature which guarantees that at some point she will sin, but it is that very disadvantage which allows her to be redeemed: if in Adam we all die, then in Christ we can be made alive.
Now back to morality. Morality needs to be grounded in something because quite frankly we need a good reason to follow it. Let's say you have a friend who is a caveman named Ted. Ted has a wimpy neighbor, Bill, who has a hot wife, Jane. Ted has just made the technological leap of tying a big sharpened rock to a stick, whereas Bill is still in the "stick age." Can you give Ted one good reason why he shouldn't crack Bill's head open and make love to his wife? From a Darwinian perspective it would be wise, for humanity's sake, to weed out twirps like Bill and make more good looking people with Jane. But an all-powerful God who will punish evil and reward good in eternal ways provides a very good reason, as well as a common standard of morality to agree upon. Otherwise it's every man for himself.
You might say (though I have no idea what you actually think on this issue) that morality evolved in humans as an adaptation for survival, because surviving is more likely in a group setting than alone, and a group must collectively adhere to a set of standards to get along. But even then, totally Godless people must base morality in something other than itself, even if that other thing is only its usefulness.
Roger,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I especially appreciate that you have mulled it over. I plan to check back for further responses--so please let me know if you decide that some response will be your last.
I'll reverse the order once again. You write, "Morality needs to be grounded in something because quite frankly we need a good reason to follow it." There is something very odd about this response. If the fact that a given action is immoral isn't a sufficient reason to avoid it, then what possibly could provide a sufficient reason to avoid performing the immoral action? It is odd to think that Ted only has a reason not resist wronging Bill if wronging Bill also happens to violate Ted's own self-interest. After all, if morality does not by itself provide reasons, why should we think that reasons can be sufficiently provided by self-interest, the promise of sexual pleasure, the darwinian benefit to "humanity," or the promise of divine punishment/reward?
Nine-year old Jill has come to know right from wrong and now she has committed her first transgression. Her "sin" was quite trivial: when Mom offhandedly asked her about the apples in the fridge, Jill fudged the truth, as children often will. For this you say that Jill deserves to suffer for all of eternity. In saying that Jill thereby deserves such torture, we are not simply saying that this is the tragic and unfortunate consequence of Jill's action. Consider the difference: if nine-year old Jill were to disobey her mother, chasing her ball into the street, it might be a tragic consequence of that Jill is hit by a truck and paralyzed for life. We ordinarly would not say that Jill deserved to be hit by a truck and paralyzed for life. In fact, to think that seems positively perverse. Why is it not even more perverse to say that Jill deserves to suffer for all of eternity for fudging the truth about the apples?
Here I suppose you could say that our ordinary convictions about all such cases are misinformed, and that we are somehow blind to the enormity of Jill's crime when she chases the ball into the street. You might say that if we could really see Jill's action as God sees it, we would also confidently affirm that Jill has in fact gotten far less than she deserved in being hit by the truck and paralyzed for life for chasing the ball into the street against her mother's warning. But if this is the case, then, in order to make our own convictions align with truth, why shouldn't we try to view Jill's action as we currently view the most heinous crimes of our day? Perhaps we should try to think of Jill as we now think of the child raping serial killer. However, to even suspect that this is plausible way to correct our judgments is bizarre in the extreme. Research all the cults: it would be hard to find a more fanatical, morally outlandish belief. If the life and teachings of Christ attracted the early disciples by resonating with what they intuitively knew to be just and moral, then your proposal would seem to undermine everything. Jesus stood in stark contrast to the hypocritical pharisees, but it is easier to think of religious hypocrisy as just than to think that it is just to condemn nine-year old Jill to eternal suffering for fudging the truth about how many apples are in the refrigerator.
Finally, you claim that there are certain things in this life for which it would be worth risking eternal suffering and separation from God. You give, as an example, your regret that you "cannot identify with someone who hit rock bottom and then found Jesus." By this line of reasoning, you must suspect that it would be in your interest to walk away from Christ in a trajectory towards rock bottom. You must suspect that the slight possibility for obtaining that more radical conversion experience would be worth the risk of eternal suffering and separation from God. It's a bit odd that that you would count it a good gamble to risk eternal suffering for the chance to love God a bit more. It's really odd that, for the chance to love God a bit more, you would count it as a good gamble to risk eternal separation from Him.
CT,
I would like to only respond to the problem about Jill. In saying that it is perverse that Jill should suffer, you are implying a belief in a standard of morality. In Christian logic, being hit by a truck or even hell, while horrible and undesirable, are the direct EFFECTS of ignoring the warnings of her mother. The wages (effects) of sin is [eternal] death but the gift of God is eternal life. Do I believe God would send this girl to hell? I'm not the judge and it is not my place to decide. The big question would be, has she accepted the gift that God has so willingly given us through His son Jesus.
Here is the problem. In Darwinian/atheistic reasoning, the gene pool is better off without Jill's DNA "perverting" it. It is perverse to think that we would allow someone who would run in front of a moving vehicle to reproduce other children who would be predisposed to do the same. As this reproduction continues, we end up with a whole species of creatures who constantly run in front of moving vehicles. While I find this logic abhorrable, it is the natural conclusion of a naturalistic interpretation of the world. Her death/paralyzation is just natural selection at work.
JM,
Thank you very much for reading the dialogue and weighing in. I’ll make two points in reply.
First, there is nothing about Darwinian evolution or atheism (or one's belief in either/both) which commits anyone to the idea that it is morally good for disobedient Jill to be hit by the truck. Equating principles of natural selection with principles of morality is as absurd as equating laws of motion with laws of morality. Defying what is evolutionarily beneficial is no more immoral than defying the laws of gravity.
Second, it is still important to distinguish the causal consequences of an action (the "direct effects" of the action) from what the action deserves (its just "wages"). We can accept that life-long paralysis was the direct effect of Jill's momentary disobedience without conceding that this is what Jill's disobedience deserved. This is true even if you actually think Jill also deserved life-long paralysis. If that's what you do think, surely you can imagine other actions whose direct effects are undeserved.
People’s life time seems to be really interesting issue and very often you have to choose one only stuff at one time, then you don’t have time to work on some else stuff. Sometimes, some people have to choose between free time and ancient essay paper completing. In this situation, I advice to determine the professional the best essay writing service to purchase the college essays related to this good post at.
This article is really useful! I have been searching for some information about the viagra pas cher and accidentally I have noticed this headline. As I see, this site is full of more such great posts like this one so I will definitely bookmark it. Thanks a lot one more time.