10 Responses to “Christianity’s Difficulties Part 2 - Does God Make Moral Sense?”

1. DagoodS Says:
   January 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

   Jeremy Killian,

   Thank you for posting this. I think there are a number of…issues…shall we say, within this presentation, but before jumping in–I must confess I am unclear as to what method you are using to solve this problem.

   O.K., the problem as presented, is how to resolve the claim of a Morally Perfect God versus the claims of the actions of YHWH in the Tanakh.

   Are you saying the method is any logical construct resolving this problem? Something along the lines of:

   1. It is logically possible God is morally perfect.
   2. It is logically possible God can morally commit the acts listed in the Tanakh.
   3. Therefore the conundrum is resolved.

   Or is your method what is a reasonable solution to a Christian? Or what is more likely than not? Or what is more plausible? Or what is possible?

   See, I am trying to peel us back a layer. More than just:

   1. Problem.
   2. Possible solution.

   I am looking for a method by which we come to the solution. Like:

   1. Problem.
   2. Proposed method of resolving problems.
   3. Application of method to Problem.
   4. Solution.

   You teasingly hint there is some method that is inadequate to you:

   Jeremy Killian: Many Christians seems to write off these problems by saying, “That’s the God of the Old Testament, now that Jesus has come we have the ability to see that God is indeed loving and ultimately good!” But that seems insufficient.

   Why does that seem insufficient? What method are you using that this explanation would fail to meet the criterion?

   Far too many of these discussions follow a tired trend:

   Christian: Here is my proposed solution to a perceived problem.
   Non-theist: No, it’s not. Here, here and here is where you are wrong.
   Christian: No, I’m not. Here, here, and here is why I am right.
   Non-theist: No, you’re not.
   Christian: Yes, I am.

   (True, with a great deal more flourish and Biblical citations, but I think I have captured the essence of the discussion.) And, frankly, I could equally launch into a similar response, pointing out a few difficulties I see in what you have presented.

   I don’t want to do that yet. I want to do better. Rather than fighting from two different positions, let’s see if we can first agree on a method to resolving the problem. If we cannot even agree on a method (which is possible), there is little use in each of us banging away at each other, since we would be trying to accomplish two different goals, using two different methods and focusing on two different things. The epitome of talking past each other. Fun and all, sure. But can we do better?

   That is why I am said I was looking for a method. What system will we use to resolve this (and perhaps other) theistic quandaries? If we can agree on a method (even temporarily) we can then apply that method to this problem and perhaps further the discussion, rather than add similar words to the internet cacophony of theist vs. non-theist.

2. Robert Says:
   January 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

   I’m not speaking for DagoodS here, but offering a few of my thoughts on your response to his challenge, which you’ve (bravely) taken up.

   The first difficulty you see for Christianity is the apparent moral ambiguity of God’s actions. Murder of innocents as described in the Bible does not appear to square with God’s claim of moral perfection. We are commanded not to murder (Exodus 20:13), but this moral rule apparently does not apply to God. Why then is it immoral to murder? The answer is apparently “Because God commands it,” which seems unsatisfying since morality is thus dependent on whatever God says it is, at the moment. More on this in a bit.

   You’ve attempted to address the difficulty logically, but I don’t think you’ve succeeded. Here is why:

   2.A morally perfect being would not cause the deaths of innocent people.

   A couple problems stand out. One, I think the premise is flawed. I would word it as, “A morally perfect, supremely powerful being would not deliberately, or by inaction, cause the deaths of innocent people.” I add “supremely powerful” to clarify that no action is beyond the ability of God to effect. “Or by inaction” is added to clarify that merely standing by, doing nothing when action is possible, is equally immoral. Can you respond to this premise?

   Second, I don’t think even your response to the original premise is sufficient. You wrote,
   

   Though they are innocent of any wrongdoing, the most merciful and respectful thing that we can do for them is allow them to die.

   But the action under consideration in your example is not about “allowing[ing] them to die” (i.e., inaction), but purposeful killing (i.e., pulling the plug, or euthanasia). It is this deliberate action which apparently runs afoul of the commandment not to murder, and why Christians generally oppose it.

   Your example still involves murder and apparently contradicts God’s commandment. If it’s still murder, then what makes it moral for God to engage in it, but not us? Christians usually respond that the taking of life is God’s right, regardless of guilt or innocence, but once more we’re left with the question, why then is murder immoral? If it’s immoral simply because God commands it, then on what basis do we know that God is perfectly good? It cannot be by His actions. Either murdering innocents is immoral, or it’s not. What you’ve essentially argued for is a moral relevancy for God–the very ambiguity the critics of Christianity chide it for.

   I think, instinctively, you recognize the problem I describe, because in your next point (3), you completely rebuff the notion of innocence. If no one can be said to be innocent, then why even defend the notion of killing innocents in the previous point (2)?

   In any case, it’s difficult to accept that the children who were killed or tortured by God were not innocent. At the least, their punishment does not seem to fit whatever crime they may have committed. We usually reserve capital punishment for only the most degenerate, incorrugible offenders. If these children were not innocent, what crime were they guilty of? If you cannot say, again, we’re left with the problem of judging whether God is perfectly moral or not. Why cannot we say, for example, that God’s attributes include good AND evil?

3. admin Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 9:15 am

   DaGoodS: I had hoped that this would be an adequate demonstration to illustrate my method, but I may have left a few things out. So let me clarify.

   As you’ve seen, I’ve utilized the common deductive reasoning model for determining the veracity of the argument that I’ve presented. This Aristotelean construct rests on breaking an argument down and determining if the conclusion is the most probable result of the premises of the argument. Because of my particular background and training (Aesthetics), I am most comfortable with addressing arguments this way. After articulating as best I can the main points of an argument, i examine each for logical and rational consistency, and then I ask myself, is the solution the most probable result of each premise? In order for the argument to work, each premise must be sound, and if the premises are flawed, the conclusion becomes increasingly improbable. Likewise, if the premises are all accurate statements, the conclusion they lead to should become much more probable, provided that it logically flows from the previous established premises. This method is one of the most valuable epistimological tools that we utilize on a daily basis, and I find it especially useful in addressing metaphysical claims-claims based on things that science has no capacity to study or inform us about-like the beginning of Time, etc.

   In the current context, assuming my criticisms of each tenet of the argument are accurate, is it most plausible to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist? Notice that I have not framed a positive case for the affirimative here; I’ve simply pointed out what I believe to be the logical inconsistencies in the argument, and I think that each inconsistency makes the conclusion more and more untenable.

   I’ll freely admit that there are problems with this method, and philosophers have demonstrated that something could actually be true though logically consistent arguments have disproven it. However, for my general purposes here, this method seems to work for me.

   Robert: I think, first of all, that we must make clear what the Old Testament meaning of the word “murder” is, because it contains a subtlty that you and I may miss. In the Biblical commandment against murder, the Hebrew word ratsach is used. This word, in nearly every instance of its use, refers to killing without cause. This is why some modern translations of the Old Testament translate the “Thou shalt not kill” phrase this way: “Do not put anyone to death without cause.” In the modern context, we tend to think of murder as simply killng a person, even though there may be a good reason to do it. For example, if I went out and shot a verified serial killer, I could be legally charged and convicted of murder. However, I do not think that the ancient Jewish person would have had a problem with that kind of killing based on their mindset regarding murder.

   With this definition of murder in mind, the God of the Old Testament never violates this commandment. Eech time God kills or instructs his followers to kill, we are informed of his reasons, so I think it difficult to argue that God breaks his own commandments (you might site Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac as a counter-example, but let’s not forget that no one actually died in that situation).

   With that in mind, I’d like to address your critiques of my argument. You wanted to clarify and broaden point 2, and while I see nothing wrong with the clarity that you’ve added to the statement, I don’t think that it is necessary to maintain the logical consistency of the argument. I might add one word to make the claim more powerful: “purposefully.” So, perhaps the claim should be best read like this. “A morally perfect being would not purposefully cause the death of innnocent people.” Again, I don’t disagree with your rewording of the premise; I just don’t think it necessary to demonstrate that the argument is flawed, mostly because it broadens the discussion a bit too much.

   Regarding premise 3, you claim that I “completely rebuff” the idea of innocence. All I established regarding premise 3 is that the statement is completely unverifiable, and as such doesn’t function as a good premise for the conclusion. I realize the fundamental problems with Verificationism as a test for truth, but I think most people would agree that an absolutely unsubstantiated statement cannot be a pillar of an argument.

   Try to see my objections for each premise on an individual basis. I don’t have to rebut each claim using the same arguments, I just need to show the validity or falsehood of each claim on a one-to-one basis. If the claims don’t stand as absolute statements, the conclusion they support is really unlikely.

   You said:

   n any case, it’s difficult to accept that the children who were killed or tortured by God were not innocent. At the least, their punishment does not seem to fit whatever crime they may have committed. We usually reserve capital punishment for only the most degenerate, incorrugible offenders. If these children were not innocent, what crime were they guilty of? If you cannot say, again, we’re left with the problem of judging whether God is perfectly moral or not. Why cannot we say, for example, that God’s attributes include good AND evil?

   I don’t find this last objection to be very rational. Basically, you seem to say, “that doesn’t seem right,” but that is not a rational test for truth. Sure, intuition is one of the tools of epistimology, but it must be balanced with the other tools we use to verify truth claims.

4. DagoodS Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

   Excellent, Jeremy Killian!

   We now have our method. And I sincerely appreciate your response. To quote you on what we will use:

   <blockquote> This Aristotelean construct rests on breaking an argument down and determining if the conclusion is the most probable result of the premises of the argument. </blockquote>

   I see one remaining problem within this method—“most probable” to whom? Who is the person making the decision as to what the “most probable” outcome would be. (And, as well, the soundness of the premises. Much more on that in a minute.) It may be <i>to you</i> a certain conclusion is the most probable; however to many others it is not.

   To Mormons, their arguments as to the incongruities of God result in a certain conclusion that is more probable to them. To the Jews, their arguments result in a conclusion more probable to them. To non-theists, a conclusion more probable to them.

   Inherent in this method is the subjectivity of “most probable.” The person making the determination (in this situation—you) is infusing their own bias and prejudice in order to come to the conclusion. Remember the two primary goals I am looking for in a method—objectivity and consistency.

   Secondly—who is making the determination as to the soundness of the premises? If the underlying premises are not sound, regardless of how straightforward the conclusion would be, even if it is the most probable, it is not correct. I often use this for an example:

   P1: If bananas are yellow, then left-handed people cannot golf.
   P2: Bananas are yellow.
   C1: Therefore left-handed people cannot golf.

   The conclusion is the most probable. The logic sound. Yet we can all see the premises are completely unsupported, lack argument, and are, in fact, quite wrong.

   While I appreciate the syllogism you have put together, I would be careful to note it has a bit of a strawperson about it. It is not what I would claim, nor what I would argue. Further, as Robert pointed out, you present unnecessary contradictory arguments.

   Let’s go through them one at a time. (Remember, if the premise is unsound, then the most probable conclusion is equally unsound):

   <b>1.If the God of the Bible exists, He must, by definition, be morally perfect. </b>

   <b>Jeremy Killian: </b> <i> This is a point on which I and most atheists who have studied the Bible would agree. </i>

   Ah, those clever atheists. I fear they only agree because either: a) they are attempting to set the Christian for a fall, or b) they haven’t sufficiently studied it or c) they are foolishly relying upon what Christians claim without doing their own research.

   Luckily for me, I am not most atheists.

   There are many things to unpack within this simple statement. What, for example, does “God of the Bible” mean? Is it the Protestant Bible? The Jewish Bible? The Catholic Bible? Further, each of the authors gives their own perspectives on God, not necessarily agreeing with other authors.

   I find it hard to even think in terms of the Bible as a cohesive whole, but rather look at the individual sections and individual books with their varying opinions. James’ God would never tempt a human (James 1:13), whereas the author of Job has no problem with YHWH tempting Job. Or the author of Gen. 22:1 has no problem with God testing Abraham.

   The authors of the Torah cite a God who loves the law, whereas Paul’s God has done away with Mosaic Law. (Mark and Luke take it a step further, emphasizing the food prohibitions no longer apply.) The Torahic God considers circumcision a necessary indication of the covenant—the Pauline God figures it is no big deal.

   Further, how do we define “God of the Bible” regarding the historical vs. the mythical aspects of the stories in the Tanakh? I notice Mr. Wells indicates 30,000,000 of the 33,000,000 killed occurred in the Great Deluge. Yet if these stories are just myth, we could still have “The God of the Bible”—yet He didn’t kill anybody! How does that play out with being “morally perfect”?

   And what does it mean to be “morally perfect”? Euthyphro rears its head here: Is God moral because he follows a moral code, or is whatever God determines to be moral to be considered moral? Can God sin, but does not? Can God determine morals? Can God change his mind regarding what is moral and what is not? As you indicated in your recent comment—the problem of verification is immense.

   How would we know of God committed an immoral act? What “code” or “law” do we have to compare a God’s actions and say, “Yes, that violated this code or law.” If the only thing determining God’s moral is His nature, then it is impossible for a God to commit an immoral act. On the other hand, it is equally impossible for him to commit a moral act. All he can do is…act. It is we humans who are ascribing labels to such actions, whether “moral” or “immoral” and not a God.

   I understand you are not writing a book here, but this first premise has SO many different aspects to it, and SO many possible different routes to follow, without any ability to determine the basic elements that I find it almost impossible to work with.

   I wouldn’t accept any atheist making such a claim.

   <b>2.A morally perfect being would not cause the deaths of innocent people. </b>

   Again, a premise needing a great deal of fleshing out. These premises seem to presume an absolute system of ethics. If you are “painting a picture” of what non-theists argue, I will tell you most hold to relative morality.

   Again, we have difficulty with “morally perfect being.” Assuming that means an entity that never commits an immoral act, then this premise would appear to be saying “causing the death of innocent people is ALWAYS immoral.” Again, an absolute morality system most non-theists do not hold to.

   We probably could create a hypothetical in which killing an innocent is not immoral. Part of the reason Robert (correctly) quantified this with “supreme being”—to take it out of the realm of human ethics.

   How do we know it is immoral for a morally perfect being to cause the death of innocents? Where can I review the law, where can I see the code, what rock of the supernatural universe can I review where I can see the moral prescription stating killing innocents by a “morally perfect being” is barred?

   We can’t!

   Robert pointed out one contradiction I would emphasize—If, in your view, there are no innocents, then it is physically impossible for a morally perfect being to kill an innocent. They don’t exist! By adding this at the end of your statement on Premise 2—you take away all the teeth of your first argument.

   Why bother going on about how humans can, on occasion, kill innocents, when in God-morals, things are completely different. We can kill innocents; God cannot. Therefore God is running by a different (completely unverified, of course) set of rules than we are!

   Whether we can or cannot is irrelevant to the question at hand—“Can a morally perfect God?”

   Secondly—a suggestion. Take it or leave it. Don’t use human examples when talking about a God. They are always inadequate. Sure, there are situations when we have to “pull the plug” on people who are dying. Why? <b>Because of our human limitations!</b> We can’t save the life. A God would have no such limitations; therefore any analogy toward our own is woefully inadequate.

   Instead, imagine a doctor seeing a person bleeding. And the doctor knows, by putting pressure on the wound, he can stop the bleeding. We are NOT limited, as humans, in that regard. What would you think of a doctor who did not apply pressure?

   Christians claim to me of a God who can heal cancer, leprosy, raise the dead, cause the blind to see and the lame to walk. A God who is SO powerful that faith in Him would cause your shadow to have the ability to heal! (Acts 5:15) A God who can stop the Sun.

   But when we have these discussions, I am informed that there are some things God can’t do. Somehow God seems to have the same limitations as humans. WE can’t always heal innocents, so by-golly-and-gosh, God can’t either.

   Norm Geisler famously uses the analogy of gangrene when talking of the genocides of Canaan as recorded in the Tanakh. He says, just as doctors have to cut off the whole arm, including good flesh, to prevent the gangrene from spreading, God had to cut off an entire race of people to stop the immorality from spreading.

   That baffles me. We cut off the arm, because as humans we have no other way to prevent the spread of gangrene. If the doctor COULD stop the gangrene AND save the arm—don’t you think they would? Of course! Apparently God is not smart enough to figure out how to do that with anyone but Virgin Females. Numbers 31.

   Honestly—human analogies are not the best to use in these situations. Especially if you follow it up with, “God has different rules anyway, because no one is innocent to him.”

   This second premise is almost as difficult to unpack as the first, due to many inherent difficulties.

   <b>3.The Bible records God’s causing the deaths of innocent people. </b>

   Because of your contradictory response to the second premise, we have two (2) ways to take this.

   If there are no innocents to God, then it is impossible for the Bible to record God causing the deaths of innocents. There aren’t any.

   The problem here is that any comparison of what we understand of morality completely breaks down. We lose any ability to make any statement about God’s morality with any conviction whatsoever. The statements themselves are meaningless!

   Look, imagine I make this statement. “I love my wife.” Because of our understanding of language, this conveys certain meanings to you. “My wife” tells you I am married. Not engaged. Not in a relationship. Not gay. The word “love” invokes all kinds of depth and images: me hugging her when she needs it, being committed to her, giving her flowers on a rainy day, helping with the kids, shutting up when necessary, etc. As another human, you can relate to what I mean by these four words.

   But what if I told you, <i>to me</i> “my wife” meant something else. Like a person I dated for two weeks. And <i>to me</i> “love” means I don’t beat her every day. And that I get the newspaper to read on the way to work. And I like black coffee.

   Our communication has completely broken down. You no longer can understand what I mean, or even have the remotest idea, of the simple statement of “I love my wife.”

   It is the same with God. We understand morality because of our interactions with other humans. Because of our study of history, our communication, our observations, and society. We understand the idea of not causing the death of innocents.

   If God’s morality is nothing like our morality, if God is operating on a completely different moral wavelength—then anything you say about God’s morality becomes meaningless. We don’t know! If God can kill when we cannot, then we lose any ability to determine when God can or cannot kill. Again, we have nothing to compare; nothing to verify whether God is acting in accord with some moral code or not. Worse, if you are saying his moral code is different than humans, this takes it one step even farther out of our verification. We can no longer use human experience as our barometer to make any determination about God.

   In the hopes of being able to say something about God; let us take the first response you gave. You mentioned, in determining innocence, “It doesn’t matter whether this person was themselves driving the vehicle or not. As a matter of fact, they may be the victim of someone else’s negligence. Though they are innocent of any wrongdoing, …”

   Now, in response to Premise 3, you stated:

   <b>
   

   >I am certain that we cannot validate or invalidate this point. Certainly, the Bible records God’s causing of death, but we are simply in no position to judge who was innocent and who was not. Without God’s vantage point, we have no ability to determine the innocence or guilt of the unnamed people whose deaths He authorizes. <

   >

   Well, I think we can.

   First of all, what does it mean to be “innocent”? There are two (2) ways in which a person is innocent—either no crime was committed OR the person did not do the crime committed.

   I may accuse you of typing on a Dell computer, but as this is not a crime, you would be innocent. I may have had my wallet stolen, but since you did not do it—again, you are innocent.

   We find one example where the person who died fit both criteria. As you point out, all we need is one to invalidate this premise.

   King David’s baby.

   David sleeps with Bathsheba, gets her pregnant, and has her husband Uriah killed. (Curiously, Mosaic law <i>mandated</i> David kill Uriah (Deut 7:1; 20:17) and allowed him to take Bathsheba as his wife (Deut 21:11). Apparently in this situation God changed his mind. Or maybe Deuteronomy hadn’t been written at the time this story originated…? Naw, only a skeptic would think such a thing! *grin*)

   As punishment for this crime (?) God struck King David’s baby, made it mortally sick, allowed it to linger for seven days, and then it died. 2 Sam. 12:15-18.

   The Baby fits our second criteria of innocence—whatever crime was committed by David (and Bathsheba) it certainly didn’t do it. Surprisingly, it even fits our first criteria, because after David repents, God pardon’s David! He “put away David’s sin.” 2 Sam. 12:13 As if it had never occurred. The first criteria—no crime—equally fits!

   Frankly, David’s Baby admirably demonstrates the inability to verify any moral this particular God was following and should cause moral absolutists sleepless night.

   What moral absolute was God following to grant David mercy for a crime that wasn’t a crime, but then inflict punishment on a baby who didn’t commit the crime (if any), after declaring David was pardoned and then allow the baby to be mortally sick for 7 days, rather than kill it outright? What moral code was God following there? What law mandated God do this?

   If we say “I don’t know,” I would say this makes it most probable we don’t know whether God is perfectly moral or not. Because there is no way to verify it.

   Now let’s go back to our methodology:

   <b>blockquote>This Aristotelean construct rests on breaking an argument down and determining if the conclusion is the most probable result of the premises of the argument. Because of my particular background and training (Aesthetics), I am most comfortable with addressing arguments this way. After articulating as best I can the main points of an argument, i examine each for logical and rational consistency, and then I ask myself, is the solution the most probable result of each premise? In order for the argument to work, each premise must be sound, and if the premises are flawed, the conclusion becomes increasingly improbable. Likewise, if the premises are all accurate statements, the conclusion they lead to should become much more probable, provided that it logically flows from the previous established premises. </blockquote>

   As to the first premise, while you may have broken it down from one aspect, I find it far too broad, and with too many loopholes to be adequately covered. There are far too many other possibilities within “God of the Bible” and such wide-open, unverifiable definitions.

   To be honest, this one was quite a bit of a strawperson. I think there are far better arguments regarding the God of the Bible and morality than this.

   As to the second, you provided two (2) contradictory responses, each with their own problems. Again, a bit of staw here as it hints toward an absolute moral system, which would not be utilized by those arguing against Christianity. Further, there is this perennial problem of lack of verification as to what code a “morally perfect being” would be following and how to verify it.

   As to the third premise, I think under one answer to Premise 2, we could find God killing an innocent. Under the other, we win the battle (by defeating premise 3) but lose the war as our argument becomes one of bananas and left-handed golfers—statements of no meaning due to God’s morality being so different than our own.

   So how would I, as an atheist, argue about the moral incongruities of God as presented by the Bible? Presuming we are using the Protestant 66 books.

   P1: Humans have assigned actions to god(s) for all of recorded history.

   Things such as lightening, earthquakes, crops, rain, death, sickness, the sun moving in its orbit. Further humans have petitioned god(s) for blessings (sacrifice) and have assigned blame for actions by claiming God was angry. (We need only look to Hurricane Katrina for an example, unfortunately.)

   All humans agree that some of the actions assigned to God were not directly done by God (although may have happened by natural forces indirectly established by God.)

   P2: Humans wrote the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

   Regardless of divine inspiration, it was human pen to natural material, writing human languages that was part of each and every book, letter, word, jot and tiddle.

   P3: Everything written could have been written by a human at that time.

   There is nothing within the books that no human of the time of the writing could not have included. For example—no prediction of Barak Obama winning the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In fact, everything remarkable smacks of the knowledge of the humanity of the time.

   When the earth was thought of as young—it was written in young-earth language. When it was thought rabbits chewed cud—rabbits were listed as chewing cud. They thought the “heavens” was a place above the stars where God lived, so naturally when Jesus went home, he went “up.” That is the way to God, right?

   When it was thought the sun moved around the earth, to stop time, God stopped the sun. When it was thought disease was caused by demons, Jesus healed by tossing out demons.

   More importantly, we can date books, such as Daniel, by how the authors indicated history, and made predictions (incorrectly as it turned out) for the immediate future. We can see the merging of more than one (1) author’s interpretation of events, such as creation and the flood. We see humans putting their individual spin on stories (Samuel vs Chronicles; Synoptics vs John, Matthew vs. Mark) and individual spin on doctrine (Paul vs. James vs. John vs. Peter)

   P4: The morality of the books reflects the morality of the times.

   Since progeny was important, Onanism was considered a crime at the time the story was written. Slavery was acceptable in 1st millennium BCE, and therefore it was acceptable in the books written within this time period. Slavery remained acceptable in 1st & 2nd Century CE, and therefore remained acceptable in books written in this time period.

   When polygamy was acceptable, the books recording morals in this regard made it acceptable. When it went out of vogue by First Century, the books reflect this change. Food went from clean (pre-Mosaic) to unclean (Mosaic) back to clean (Jesus). The books themselves reflect this change.

   We could spend quite a bit of time on the differing emphasis of the authors of the New Testament, each reflecting the morality of the community the writings were addressed to. Luke focusing on the rich. John focusing on love. Both disliking the Jews. Paul focusing on faith. As well as the different moralities regarding for divorce, for example, between Paul, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

   C1. The Moral incongruities apparent in the differing sections of the Bible are the differing opinions of human writers, assigning different actions to God based upon the author’s time, place and knowledge.

   In short, it is a human endeavor that we have no method, no means of verifying whether it is accurate, partly accurate or completely inaccurate, even if there was a God.

5. admin Says:
   January 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am

   DaGoodS: You are absolutely accurate in pointing out the problems in my little syllogism. You then go on to disprove it yourself, stating that it was based on faulty premises. I should point out though, that this is an argument that many atheists (I’ve even heard Dawkins use it) utilize. Have I misstated any of their premises? I’ve simply pointed out the insufficiencies in one area of the typical “New Atheist” thinking.

   You desired to shift the discussion into another direction, and you presented a syllogism of your own. While I see glaring inadequacies in your line of reasoning, I’ll leave it where it is, because for now your reasoning isn’t the subject of the discussion.

   You saw some problems with my method, in that it may lead to subjectivity. I should ask, what method outside of mathematical, doesn’t ultimately come down to the “eyes of the beholder?” My method asks, is a person within their rational rights to come to the conclusion of the argument, or is the argument itself irrational? I am appealing to a generally open mind here, and trying not to appeal to only those who have been “enlightened” by the Spirit of God. The question I would ask you or anyone that I’ve presented the argument at hand to is, “Do we have good reason to suspect, based upon the premises of the argument, that the God of the Bible does not exist?” And, as you’ve demonstrated, based upon this argument, we do not.

6. DagoodS Says:
   January 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   Jeremy Killian,

   I would like to see where you got the argument you claim is the basis of your syllogism. I do think you misstate some of the premise(s).

   I believe the difference is between:

   1. Christians say If the God of the Bible exists, He must, by definition, be morally perfect; and

   2. If the God of the Bible exists, He must, by definition, be morally perfect.

   Do you see the difference? In the first, the atheist is attempting to determine if the Christian’s view is internally consistent.

   I don’t think many atheists believe the God of the (Protestant) Bible is morally perfect. Even if He did exist. Many atheists might use the first statement (it was what I meant by their being clever). Very few that I encounter say the second. Quite the opposite. Most atheists make the claim the God of the Tanakh is a monster.

   In point of fact, in the video clip, Dawkins says:

   Dawkins: The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it. Petty, vindictive, unjust and unforgiving. Racist. An ethnic cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide.

   Narrator: If God doesn’t set a good moral example…who does?

   That appears to say the opposite of the God of the Tanakh being “morally perfect.” It appears to be saying such a God would NOT be moral at all! That is why I would be interested to see where you indicate Dawkins (or any other non-theist) makes the argument “If the God of the Bible exists, he must be morally perfect.”

   Again, with clarification as to what “God of the Bible” means.

   As to the second Premise:

   “2.A morally perfect being would not cause the death of innocent people.”

   I would want to see how the atheist is fleshing that out. Is the atheist using an absolute morality? (Curious, indeed!) How is the atheist defining “morally perfect being”? As Robert has pointed out, most that I know of would not use such a loose phrase as “cause the death of innocent people.”

   I again believe the difference here is between what Christians claim, and what we test. If a Christian tells me murder is absolutely immoral, I would want to know how they exempt certain actions of the God of the Tanakh from murder. Otherwise, we get to the point of saying genocide is sometimes wrong. Not an absolute.

   The third Premise I do think is accurate. The Bible records its God killing the innocent. I used King David’s baby as an example.

   The conclusion is questionable, depending on how one defines “God of the Bible.”

   To sum up, the first premise seems to be the opposite of what atheists claim. The second is unknown, depending on where you are drawing it from. The third premise is accurate. And the conclusion should be abandoned until we straighten out the first two premises.

   The only reason I presented a syllogism of my own was:

   1) To demonstrate what atheists actually say, as compared to the…er…rather strawish argument presented; and

   2) To put it in a form of what your method prefers.

   You are free to ignore it. Obviously I am curious about the “glaring inadequacies” but nothing I can do about it.

   No method is absolutely free of subjectivity. I try to see how close we can come to removing as much as possible, though.

   Jeremy Killian: The question I would ask you or anyone that I’ve presented the argument at hand to is, “Do we have good reason to suspect, based upon the premises of the argument, that the God of the Bible does not exist?”

   Based upon the four corners of the premises of this argument, the conclusion follows. My problem is that the premises are in error, or have significant definitional problems. The answer to your question would be, “Based upon the argument at hand, you have created and burned a wonderful straw person. Now let’s get down to brass tacks about what “the God of the Bible” is and whether such a God exists.”

7. admin Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 10:05 am

   You are right to assert that Dawkins does not utilize this argument in the video, or even in The God Delusion if my memory serves. I am not claiming that, but I have heard he, and I believe Christopher Hitchens, use it as an argument. At least both you and I agree that it is a poorly formed argument.

   One of the reasons that I have chosen not to address your second syllogism is that it doesn’t lead to a conclusion at hand. It does seem to prove that the Bible has little to say about God’s existence, but instead shifts our discussion in another direction toward the discussion of the inerrency of Scripture. This is a great discussion, but for now it is not where I want to go with our talks.

8. DagoodS Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

   Jeremy Killian,

   I thought long and hard last night about our exchange. I am starting to see (especially in light of this new posting) a method appear. While it may not be the method you intended, it may not be the method you think you are using, it is what is perceived by your audience. Namely me.

   You are free to ignore my input, of course. You are free to disregard it under some label of “hard-hearted” or “philosophically addicted to naturalism” or whatever term you desire. Just be aware if you intend to communicate with atheists, this is the perception coming across. If it is not what you intend to communicate—you may have to change your form of communication.

   The method I see is as follows:

   1. First, a concept surrounding Christianity is introduced.
   2. One (of many) arguments against this concept is presented.
   3. The argument is broken down into Premises and Conclusion.
   4. Each premise is inspected and if there is any logical possibility it is incorrect, the Premise is considered false.
   5. The conclusion is then considered unsubstantiated.

   To demonstrate the application in our present situation, using the same numbering system:

   1. The concept of “Moral Incongruities of God: Is God Morally Perfect?” is introduced.
   2. The argument against this concept—the actions of the Tanakh God are not moral—is presented.

   3. The argument is broken down to the Premises we have discussed.
   4a. Premise 2 is discarded under the logical possibility it IS moral to cause the death of innocents.
   4b. Premise 2 is discarded under the logical possibility there are no innocents.
   4c. Premise 3 is discarded because it is framed (by you) in the terms of an absolute, and it is logically possible it is not an absolute.

   5. The conclusion is considered debunked.

   This is not a great method. It is not objective, one does not stay consistent with it, and there are numerous problems with it.

   First, it is not making a determination about a Christian claim, but rather is simply responding to a single argument against one aspect of Christianity. In setting the stage, you said:

   Jeremy Killian: So, DaGoodS has invited me to write a post about some of the difficult teachings of the Christian faith and explain how I have objectively come to terms with the Christian approach to each of these teachings. (emphasis added) Here

   How is this “the Christian approach” as compared to a Christian response to one argument? It seems to me, in order to defend Christianity in this manner, on this point, one would have to address ALL of the arguments against the concept—not just one. While one argument may be insufficient, there may be 1000’s of other arguments that are!

   Would you agree it is “logically possible” just because this argument fails, there could be others that do not? If you say “No”—this becomes inconsistent. If “yes”—there is a great deal more work to be done!

   This seems overly burdensome–to argue against all other points contrary to this statement instead of defending the Christian point-of-view.

   Second, it is extremely subjective. A great indicator a method should be abandoned is if the same method would be rejected by those who do not believe as you do. Much more on this in a minute.

   Who picked the “one” argument against this premise? You. Who picked how the premises would be laid out? You. Who picked whether “logically possible” would be the standard by which we reject a premise? You. All that is well and good—but would you respect the same argument from me? Would you give it the same force?

   Look at this one argument. Frankly, it is not even the best argument. Now you admit it is not an argument used by Dawkins in your one citation—the video. First you said, you’ve “heard Dawkins use it” (see above comment) and now, when pressed for a citation, cannot produce one. You do cough up Hitchens’ name, and say he uses the argument.

   Remember, we are looking for an atheist making the claim “If the God of the Bible exists, he must, by definition, be morally perfect.” I did a quick search. See Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.

   I cannot find one (1) instance of an atheist making this claim (other than conceding it as a point for what Christians say) and can find countless instances of quite the opposite.

   Would you accept that in a claim from me? If I made the statements, “Christian argue this.” and every instance you could find, you see Christians arguing for the exact opposite, and when you press me on finding where Christians say it, I say, “I heard it somewhere.”

   Do you find such an argument to have force? Would you find it to be persuasive?

   If not—why should we? Why should any reasonable neutral person find it to be persuasive?

   Why use an incorrect, weak argument against Christianity to claim a Christian proposition is supported?

   Look, you had a bona fide, 100% certified, actual atheist give you his argument in this situation. Me. Rather than mis-state what other atheists say, or pick a poor argument—use your method to address what an atheist ACTUALLY says! Sure, it’s hard. Yep—it touches on numerous topics.

   That is what good arguments do!

   What if you made a similar argument against my atheism, and I said, “Too hard. Too much work. I want to address the easy arguments. The wrong arguments.” Would that be persuasive to you?

   Would you give this the same weight and credence as we are expected to of your own?

   To further demonstrate the point, let’s use an example of utilizing this method from an alternative point of view.

   One of the difficulties of atheism is explaining how the universe came into being. What if I used this method?

   1. A difficulty of atheism is “How did the universe come to exist?”
   2. One of the arguments against it is that God created the universe 5769 years ago as evidenced by the Jewish calendar.
   3. The premise would be as follows:

   P1. If God exists, then he created the universe 5769 years ago.
   P2. According to the Jewish calendar, God created the universe 5769 years ago.
   C1. God exists.

   4. I then indicate it is logically possible god did not create the universe 5769 years ago, as it could have been shorter or longer. Since P2 is an absolute, all I have to do is show it is possibly untrue in one instance, and the whole thing falls apart.

   5. Therefore the conclusion is invalid.

   There. Did I just prove the universe was not created by a God? Did I just resolve the atheistic difficulty of where the Big Bang came from? Of course not! You would never, ever, ever, EVER accept such an argument. There are so many holes in it; it couldn’t even act as a poor colander.

   Yet (in my perception) this is exactly the method you have utilized. This is exactly what you have done. I mis-stated what the Jewish calendar means. I only addressed one, extremely weak, argument. I didn’t touch any of the stronger arguments. And by simply refuting one (1) argument, left open the possibility there are 1000’s of others that could smash my claim to bits.

   Part of the determination of subjectivity is to turn it around. Would you accept the same argument if produced from the other side? Would you find the method acceptable? Would you find it persuasive?

   A story. Toward the end of my deconversion process, I was formulating my method. What would persuade a neutral person? One thought occurring to me was that Christians were, indeed, neutral, and I was missing it. Perhaps they would be able to “see both sides” and come to different conclusion rather than their foregone one. So I tried something in my Sunday School; I used this example:

   “I am studying Islam, and was reading the Qur’an the other day. I came across some passages about how Muslims are to treat infidels differently. How Americans are to be treated as compared to Israelites. It indicates since Americans live far away, we are to be offered a tribute of peace. If we accept it, we would become their slaves, and they would have our land.

   “However, if we do NOT accept their peace, they are entitled to kill all the men, take the children as slaves, and our women to be their wives.

   “As for Israel, because it is on land the Muslims believe they are entitled to, the Muslims do not have to offer peace. They will not take the women and children as slaves. They are commanded to kill every single human—man, woman and child, right down to the 2-day old babies.

   I stopped, and for a few minutes there were the appropriate responses of “How barbaric!” “How awful!” “Can’t they see how wrong that is?” “They need Jesus.”

   I then continued. “Actually I made that up. I got that from Deuteronomy 20, where God commanded exactly that to the Israelites.”

   A long, long moment of silence. Finally one fellow coughed out, “Well…times were different then…”

   They got it. What they would NEVER accept in another religion, they found themselves, all of a sudden, having to defend when they realized it was their own.

   Try it as your own. If you are looking to talk to the “open-minded”—modify the story a bit and see what they think.

   For example, “I was reading the other day how mafia bosses were influencing the Russian judicial system. Some mafia boss wanted another guy’s wife—so he had the guy killed. The other fellow’s family was demanding retribution—they wanted justice. But because the mafia boss had connections, he convinced the judge to let him go. Unfortunately, because of their system, the other fellow’s family demanded the mafia bosses’ baby, and the judge ordered he had to give it up. The family, out of spite, killed the baby.

   “Do you think the baby deserved to die?”

   Sure, it is not exact as to King David’s baby, but close enough to get the point across David’s baby was innocent of any crime.

   Do you think your open-minded (or even your Christian, if you can hide the story well enough) would EVER say the baby was not innocent?

   If they wouldn’t accept it, why should we?

   This method is far too incomplete (only addressing one weak argument when there could be, and in this situation are, many other stronger ones), setting the bar so low on “logically possible” and while not directly stated, not willing to accept the same method on those who believe differently.

   Unless you think I just proved God didn’t create the universe…

   Jeremy Killian: At least both you and I agree that it is a poorly formed argument.

   Right. Which is why no one (including non-theists) uses it. Why manufacture a poorly formed argument, and then demonstrate it is poorly formed?

9. admin Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

   You ask a very good question:

   Would you agree it is “logically possible” just because this argument fails, there could be others that do not? If you say “No”—this becomes inconsistent. If “yes”—there is a great deal more work to be done!

   My answer is an emphatic yes. It is possible that the “God of the Bible” is in fact simply a creation of Jewish culture. There could be other arguments that would compellingly illustrate this fact that are logically consistent with sound premises. What we’ve established is that the argument at hand is not one of them.

   On an unrelated note, are you copying and pasting your responses from a text editor of some kind into my blog response field? If so, it’s really messing up my blog pagination.

   Back to the issue at hand. All right, all right, you’ve goaded me into addressing your argument, check back soon for my response!

10. DagoodS Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    I look forward to your response.

    And yes, I copy from Word. Is there another way to do it to prevent this issue?

Leave a Reply