On Monday 2 August at the University of Auckland Emeritus Professor of Philosophy Dr Raymond Bradley and Dr Matthew Flannagan (of this blog) debated the topic “Is God the Source of Morality? Is it rational to ground right and wrong in commands issued by God?” For the benefit of those who could not be there, who are awaiting the editing and uploading of the video of the debate, we will be running a blog series where we bring you some of the debate in written form.
Raymond Bradley’s Reply to Matthew Flannagan
I hope everyone is aware of what Matt’s been up to. He’s used his research into ancient literary conventions and current use of metaphors like “Knock his block off” to make God’s actions seem innocuous and so to divert attention from the grave charges his God faces. These are:
- that no-one is above the moral law, not even God;
- that the God of the Bible is a thoroughly evil God, and self-confessedly so;
- that one ought not to obey the commands of such a God just because he issues them.
Matt claims that God is above the moral law since it’s God that lays down that law, or as he puts it “he has no duties.”
Matt uses this dodge when he tries to escape my logical straightjacket by exploiting what he calls an ambiguity in claim [3] that it is morally wrong to cause, commit, condone, or command any of the crimes of types A, B, C, D.
He says that this isn’t universally applicable. It doesn’t apply to all persons, he says, only to human ones. God is exempt because–although he’s a person–he isn’t a human one.
But this makes a mockery of the idea that truth and falsity are objective matters, not relative to persons. Matt wants to make moral truth relative to a person’s status.
You see, the claim that truth is objective says that truth isn’t relative to persons, to places, or to times. Truth is absolute, not relative; objective, not subjective. Just as the truth of the heliocentric hypothesis–that the earth goes round the sun rather than vice versa–doesn’t depend upon what any one (even God) says, or the place and time at which they said it, so moral truths aren’t relative to persons, places, or time. Hence, moral truths can’t be dependent–as Matt is claiming–on the whims of a supernatural God.
Here beginneth the first logical lesson: Matt accuses me of begging the question by assuming that God, as person, has moral obligations to do and not to do certain things. But the idea that God is exempt from moral law had already been ruled out by Matt’s own commitment to the objectivity of truth. No fallacy on my part. Just an inconsistency on his.
Matt betrays the notion of moral objectivity again when, in trying to escape from the strictures of my straightjacket he relativises the applicability of God’s commands by claiming that many of them applied only to people of the past, not to us today.
But which ones? Are we still to obey his commands to stone to death witches, whores, adulterers, homosexuals, maidens who can’t prove they’re virgins, rebellious sons, followers of other gods, and infidels like me? If he hasn’t changed his mind about killing all such persons, ought Christians obey him today?
Set aside the fact that Christian Reconstructionists believe they are morally obliged to obey all such commands.
How about you?
I ask you: “Who among you will cast the first stone?”
Matt tries to sidestep these problems by arguing that God is by definition “omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.” So defined, he argues, it is logically impossible for God to cause, commit, condone, or command any of the atrocities listed in my four categories.
But, bless my soul, those are precisely the sorts of thing the Biblical God says he has done! Describe for me an evil God. The Biblical God fits the description perfectly.
Besides, this definitional move is a logical fraud. You can define something as having any properties that you like. But this doesn’t mean that there is something that has those properties.
You can define the greatest prime number as that than which no greater prime number exists. But it’s provable logically that no such a number exists. You can define the perfect Rolls Royce as one that can do a thousand kilometres on 1 litre of gasoline, and exists! But it’s provable empirically that no such vehicle exists.
So does a morally perfect God exist? Maybe some morally perfect god does. But on the God’s own say-so, he isn’t the one.
This is where my four types of crime come in. Matt tries to defend the Biblical God against just three of them.
First of these is God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites by slaughtering them all without mercy. Now watch his two-fold strategy.
He says, first, that there are other passages in the Bible that say, to the contrary, that some Canaanites actually survived. But this is to jump from the frying pan of criminality into the fire of contradiction.
Hence his second ploy, that of claiming that God didn’t really mean what he said; he was indulging in a bit of hyperbole. “Kill all” just meant, “Kill most”.
Does this make God any less guilty?
What sort of perverted morality would lead one to conclude: “Not all of them? Oh! I suppose that’s OK then”?
Matt’s tries to deal with the issue of capital punishment in a similar way by arguing that God didn’t mean anyone to take him at his word. Apparently “stoning” doesn’t really mean stoning.
So what exactly does it mean? Can we substitute some other form of capital punishment? Or was God just using language irresponsibly while in full knowledge, by virtue of his omniscience, of the consequences over the next few millennia?
As for the doctrine of eternal hell fire, Matt offers the same sort of word play. “Unquenchable fire”, he says, just means “fire that consumes and will never be put out.” But that is cold comfort (or should I say hot?) for those of us who don’t or can’t believe in Jesus as saviour–perhaps because they’ve never heard of him–and hence will be so consumed.
Can you buy into this sort of sophistry?
And by what sort of word-play will Matt try to prove God innocent of causing plagues to kill millions, and events like Noah’s flood to drown all but a few life-forms on our planet?
So I have two simple questions for Matt:
1. Will he say that the whole Flood story in factually true and that near-universal drowning did occur?
2. Will he say that talk of drowning was mere metaphor or hyperbole since the story of a universal flood has been scientifically shown to be false?
I await Matt’s answers with baited breath.
Please note that this series is not a transcript of the debate. Each post in this series is effectively a very close approximation of what was said on the night and has been put together from the papers and notes each speaker prepared and spoke from plus any additions each recalled making.
RELATED POSTS:
Video: Bradley v Flannagan “Is God the Source of Morality?
The Podcast: Bradley v Flannagan
Joint Communique: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Raymond Bradley’s Opening Statement: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Matthew Flannagan’s Opening Statement: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Flannagan’s Reply to Ray: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Glenn Peoples’ Review: Bradley v Flannagan Debate
Tags: Debates · Matthew Flannagan · Raymond Bradley57 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
I think the strength of his argument lies in:
“What sort of perverted morality would lead one to conclude: “Not all of them? Oh! I suppose that’s OK then”?”
And sadly Matthew never addressed this issue. It is the Achilles heal of his argument.
Can’t wait to see your response to this Matt. Where you nervous as Raymond read this out?
Max listen to the audio of the debate.
Jeremy video footage was taken, it is being edited and will be available online soon and you can order a copy via DVD if you wish – I can find out a price if you want?
To rather shamelessly quote myself from an earlier comment
“The one thing i might have added is that God as the source of morality is entitled to prescribe consequences and apply those consequences.
If the law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes and a judge sentences some one to death for one of those crimes in accordance with the law then neither the judge nor the executioner are guilty of murder.
Whether i believe in the death penalty or not, is inconsequential to the arguement.”
God is not guilty of murder when some one has to suffer the prescribed consequences of thier own actions. What we think of the action/consequence is irrelevant.
Furthermore the idea that God is necessarily subject to His own commands is just a little twisted in its logic–
” I order myself not to do this but if i do i will punish myself severely and if i wont cooperate then i will issue further sanctions against me and send myself out to detain me and force myself to obey me” — hmm how would this work?
I must admit i disagree slightly with Matt here–
Morality [right and ought] are grounded in Gods character not His commands. However His commands are consistent with His character. The problem from a human point of view is that His character is Holy and Just, fortunately for us He is also Gracious and Merciful.
Which brings us to Hell and further shame through self quotation
” As I’m sure you have noticed I harp on about the fact that God gives us choice,and He respects the choices we make. If we say we want nothing to do with Him then he steps back and honours that choice. Hell is the consequence.”
” all have eternal existence, some get to spend eternity with God some without. Spending eternity without God is Hell and is a case of God respecting our choice to live without Him. I do believe that God is unlikely to be a divine bully tormenting people forever. The best explanation I have met comes from easten orthodox theology–in eternity those in Heaven experience God [his love, grace, mercy etc] as bliss while those who have rejected Him experience God [his Perfection, Holiness, Justice] as torment. An analogy might be found in the way that people sometimes cannot recieve love from someone they believe they have hurt too much.Our own guilt and regret provide the torment.”
Christians do not believe that people go to Hell for the reasons Ray outlines which rather defeats the point he was making. Argueing against his own mistaken interpretation doesnt actually add anything to the debate nor prove his own point.
Neither does the Bible teach that God is some kind of bully threatening Hell but rather He warns us of the consequences of our choices while leaving us free to make those choices. This is God respecting us and the freedom He gave us.
Lastly the flood.
Cant say that i have ever understood the bible to claim it was “universal”, some interpret it as being “global” but even that is not a necessary understanding of the text.
The “whole world” could easily mean “known world”
ie that much of the world that men had spread over.
This is a common usage throughout history.
Again Ray is rather selective in his words.
The text clearly states that God saw “that every inclination of the thoughts of his [ie mans] heart was only evil all the time”.
It is more than a little inconsistant of Ray accept God’s words on the mass extermination of mankind but refuse to acknowledge His stated reasons.
I guess what Ray means is that he doesnt like what is described or doesnt like the idea that mankind could be held accountable for his evil, but what Ray likes doesnt count as an arguement against God being the source of morality.
Max I did address that issue in my reply; it is on the audio as Murph stated.
Will download the podcast tonight, internet too slow here at work, looking forward to listening as there is so much more when listening to the actual people cf written word.
I dont suppose anyone recorded the debate for DVD?
A Madeleine
Much appreciated, look forward to it.
Thanks
Murph: I had just listened to the audio – hence my comment.
Matt: I have listened to the audio and the closest you come to addressing the issue seems to be in your “we have to stop the NAZIs” comparison… I guess this would excuse a good but non-omnipotent God from using violence to solve problems, and if you let your definition of God slip a little so that Yahweh is merely a local deity I think you have a case. For an all powerful God who set the whole show going in the first place the “gotta stop the NAZIs” argument does not cut it.
No Max I addressed the specific objection you mentioned.
richard
I was very nervous before the debate, by this stage I was not nervous, I was reasonably confident I could respond to what he said the real difficulty was in 10 minutes condensing his points responding clearly, I think I pulled it off.
Yea, once you are a few minutes into the fight the nerves seem to calm down and you can concentrate better.
How about you debate me over something philosophical sometime soon? Maybe over the existance of God? Just for something fun I could argue for God’s existance and you could argue against. How about it?
Well if you tried to Matt, you failed.
Max, its hard to respond to a person who admits they did not hear your response and then simply asserts what they did not hear is mistaken.
I have checked the audio and I respond precisely to the line you refer to and point out its based on a straw man.
Max I see you missed the point of the Nazi illustration.
I realize you tried to address the issue – but it is still your Achilles heal.
And the Nazi comparison (which is getting a bit tired really… it is 2010) was directly linked to this issue. Yes sometimes it is necessary for finite fallible beings in times of uncertainty to resort to less than perfect actions… but then that is not the God of the philosophers that you claim to give intellectual assent to is it now?
“For an all powerful God who set the whole show going in the first place the “gotta stop the NAZIs” argument does not cut it.”
1st of all, this is an analogy and hence imperfect but it does make the point that actions that seem evil from one point of view may in fact be serving a greater good. Matt made this point again almost at the end of the Q&A when he pointed out that our limitations as humans necessitate a different set of rules/gudelines/ morals than an omniscient God might require. Hence God can be the source of an objective moral code while not actually subject to it Himself.
Maybe a simpler analogy is found in the driving age, most children simply do not have the physical size, coordination and sufficient brain development etc to be allowed to drive on a public road. Hence a rule made by adults that recognizes these limitations and does not in general apply to adults.
2nd virtually all evil we experience is the result of human choice somewhere. Every time some one asks “couldnt God do better”? it pretty much amounts to a demand that God directly intervene to prevent other people doing things we dont like, while demanding the freedom to keep doing as we please. But if we have no choice to do wrong neither do we have the freedom to do right. You cannot have it both ways. God made us free therefore there are consequences.
Rays arguements all seem to come down to the fact that he doesnt like the consequences of human freedom, while insisting on his own right to reject God
.
“1st of all, this is an analogy and hence imperfect”
I would say useless.
“but it does make the point that actions that seem evil from one point of view may in fact be serving a greater good. ”
They ARE serving a greater good… maybe… and for people stuck in time with finite capabilities these evil actions are excusable. Not so for Matthew’s concept of God.
“Hence God can be the source of an objective moral code while not actually subject to it Himself.”
Yes – this is one of the slimiest of apologetic moves out there… yes for us rape and torture are wrong… but for God maybe they are not. The words “good” and “moral” loose all meaning if you are forced to go down this path, and you have already lost the debate.
“Maybe a simpler analogy is found in the driving age, most children simply do not have the physical size, coordination and sufficient brain development etc to be allowed to drive on a public road. Hence a rule made by adults that recognizes these limitations and does not in general apply to adults.”
Yes – but this does not mean an adult driving at 200km, drunk, the wrong way down the motorway would be excusable… which is the completion of your analogy.
“2nd virtually all evil we experience is the result of human choice somewhere.”
Bullshit.
” Every time some one asks “couldnt God do better”? it pretty much amounts to a demand that God directly intervene to prevent other people doing things we dont like”
Again. Bullshit. Unless you are going to go down slimy apologetics path 2 and claim that all natural disasters, disease, and suffering are caused by demons.
“Rays arguements all seem to come down to the fact that he doesnt like the consequences of human freedom, while insisting on his own right to reject God”
Oh dear… I was wrong. There is a more slimy apologetic move after all. The classic “people are only atheists because they want to sin against God.” argument. Or maybe this is not what you meant and I am reading too much into it. But Ray does not insist that he can reject God. He does not think there IS a God. It is a subtle distinction, but think on it a while and it should become clear.
Max, I was not saying God needed to do this to defeat the Nazi’s. I actually think the allies were unjustified in their actions. My point was simply that a good being can permit evils to occur if doing so brings about greater good or prevents a greater evil, thats the sole point I was making.
Even if God is omnipotent, it does not follow he can always bring about greater goods without bringing about evils. God’s power is limited to what is possible; not even an omnipotent has the power to do the absolutely impossible. Thus if there were a greater good that absolutely could not occur unless evil were permitted, it might well figure in Gods reason to permit evil.
As to it being 2010, there was a dialectical context here. Ray in his previous articles frequently used the analogy of hitler. He argued that seeing we call Hitler evil because he killed millions of people we have to do the same with God. My comments were intially written in anticipation of this objection. This objection involves drawing analogies with WWII figures and attributing the results to God. My response was to follow the same method and show the conclusion did not follow, it turned out on the night that Ray did not use this argument so I adapted the example to the circumstances.
Max, I guess you’ll have to spell out how its the achilles heel. Because Ray suggested I was arguing “God did not say kill all he said kill some” and this was hardly a moral improvement.
I did not say this however, what I said and have defended in my writings is that the phrases “leave alive nothing that breaths” are a rhetorical way of saying “defeat them”. Hence when it states they “killed all who breathed” all that is being said is that they won. Just as ( to use an analogy you hate) the person he says “we slaughtered the other team” is only saying his team won.
Once this is realised one cannot infer from the text that all women and children were killed, or that some were, or that their were massacres or anything like that, all you can say is that they won a decisive victory, in fact given how the rhetoric functions in ANE literature you cannot even say how decisive the victory was. The battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites for example was barely a Egyptian win and really an escape from an ambush, a few combatants died, yet the Egyptian rhetoricall describe it as “we killed all the foriegners” “millions and millions were killed every single foriegner” and so on.
Hence Ray’s suggestion that the text commands war crimes and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilian populations is false. All we know is they had a battle (probably a skirmish) and they won. No more details are avalible.
Matt
Are you seriously attempting to suggest that at the time in history that these kinds of confrontations took place, no one was harmed in the process.
We’re used to weapons such as rifles and automatic weapons. But warfare in the Late Bronze Age was mostly hand to hand, with some use of longer range weapons such as bows and arrows, slings and stones. Fighting was a pretty dangerous, personal, and bloody business. These are just some of the weapons used:
Club. Often made from a single piece of wood, usually larger at the striking end. It could break bones and shatter skulls.
Spear. A sharp blade was attached to the end of a stick, a hand-held stabbing weapon. The spear was used by defenders of besieged cities to keep shock troops at bay when they tried to scale the wall by ladders.
Sword. Used chiefly as a stabbing instrument. This was the most important weapon in Canaan, mentioned 400 times in the OT. The sword probably developed along with the advance of metallurgy. Swords and daggers were made of copper.
Sickle Sword. The curved shape and sharp cutting edge were used for striking or hacking a foe rather than for stabbing, functioning somewhat like a battle axe but easier to handle.
Sling and Stone. This was made of inexpensive materials, and was a significant part of Israel’s arsenal. The sling could be made of woven materials, such as wool or palm fiber rope, or of leather. Excavations in Israel, especially around fortification systems, usually reveal hundreds of sling stones. Stones were often worked to make them as round as possible, and they range from 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.5 cm.) in diameter. Stones could be flung by a warrior at 100 to 150 miles per hour (160 to 240 km/hr).
And, I might add, this is not an exhaustive list. To find out more:
http://www.jesuswalk.com/joshua/warfare.htm
So you can wriggle around on the end of the hook of this argument as much as you like, but your attempts to reinterpret this and similar incidents as involving no more than harsh language and insults between combatants is ridiculous.
What would have actually happened, would have been a lot more blood thirsty in reality than you suppose.
Of course he is not trying to suggest no one was hurt and of course given the type of weapons used injuries would be horrific. The point is that given our knowledge of ANE text conventions we can say there were battles, the Israelites won and thats about all. The contemporary accusations of hundreds of thousands killed cannot be sustantiated from the text.
Jeremy exactly, Ray’s claim was that God commanded war crimes, the killing of hundreds of thousands of women children and babies.
In reality the claim reduces to God commanded Joshua to fight in a war and he won a few skirmishes. This is a very different claim.
Matt & Jeremy
So, was, in your considered opinion, anyone hurt, or possibly even killed in these confrontations?
Please, no dodging the question, just a simple yes or no will do
Of course people were hurt and died, i’ve already said so. The point is you cant use the text to make out hundreds of thousands of people were necessarily killed which is what Ray and various other people have tried to do. To do so is to impose 20thC literalism on a text that wasnt written according to our conventions.
Next paragraph is my comment and Matt may have an entirely different opinion.
If God chose in His Holiness and Justice to wipe the planet clean of humans because they have chosen to go their own way rather than follow Him, then He would be absolutely entitled to do so and we would have no cause or grounds for complaint. That He doesnt, but rather gives us endless opportunity to choose the right is evidence of His Mercy toward us. You are free to choose, but with freedom comes the responsbilty bear the consequences of your choices.
I would suggest that everything that is wrong with this planet and with human society is directly attributable to humans chossing to go their own way rather than follow their Creators guidelines/advice/rules. We have sure messed up almost everything we have touched.
Jeremy
Please explain then, if you can, how a person who has led an evil life, can ask for forgiveness on their deathbed, confess all their sins and will then be welcomed into heaven
Whereas, a good atheist, for example a doctor, who has spent their whole life tending the sick and providing comfort, will be sent to hell for not beleiveing in god
How can your god, or even you, justify such a stance?
Paul, yes people were killed in the skirmish.
Ray’s argument however was that God was gulity of commanding war crimes because he commanded Genocide. Thats a big difference to killing some people in a skirmish.
Paul, the problem is your example is a caricature of Christian teaching. It does not affirm that good people do not go to heaven merely because they lack belief. I refer you to Aquinas comments in the 13 century.
“Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: “Who hath believed our report?” It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin”; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as “referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.”
An atheist is condemned either because (a) his non belief is culpable based on a conscious rejection of God or (b) if his non belief in inculpable he is condemned for some other thing he has done. Its never the case that an atheist is condemned merely for unbelief despite what else he has done.
The answer is that i have very limited ability to judge the heart and motives of my fellow humans, God has no such limitations.
Even the best of us are still at times selfish, self centred, less than perfectly kind or loving to others, tell lies, hide our faults all sorts of things. No human is perfect.
Your doctor example may have spent his entire life doing good for personal glory and wealth, while the man who lead an “evil” life may have spent his entire life trying and failing to be better than he knew he was. Only God can truly judge a mans heart.
I suspect that there will be suprise in Heaven at who is there and who isnt, but its Gods heaven not ours and we dont get to say. The whole point is that we cannot earn our way into Heaven, rather it is free gift based on our response to God. To repeat God gives us the freedom to choose and then respects our choice and only God can judge the sincerity and honesty of that choice.
“I did not say this however, what I said and have defended in my writings is that the phrases “leave alive nothing that breaths” are a rhetorical way of saying “defeat them”. ”
Matt. Excuse the language. But how the f%&k do you defeat your enemy without killing people. You are trying to weasel out of it and it is not working,.
“Max, I was not saying God needed to do this to defeat the Nazi’s.”
What are you on Matt… no one is saying God fought the Nazis… it was an analogy right?
“Thus if there were a greater good that absolutely could not occur unless evil were permitted, it might well figure in Gods reason to permit evil.”
Right. So you are ASSUMING, based on the evidence of a world full of suffering, that we are in the rather odd situation where heaven on earth could not be possibly be created without hell on earth being their first. This is not going to convince anyone who has not already bought the Omni-God concept… ie. it is a post hoc apologetics trick, rather than really taking the evidence and seeing where it leads,
Max, nowhere did I deny people were killed when they “won” but Rays claim was not that people were killed. It was that God commanded the death of hundreds of thousands of women children and suckling babies and committed war crimes.
That’s very different to the claim that you killed some people in battle. I am surprised people seem to recognise the very important moral differences between these two claims.
Max Right. So you are ASSUMING, based on the evidence of a world full of suffering, that we are in the rather odd situation where heaven on earth could not be possibly be created without hell on earth being their first.
Not at all, I am saying that (absent revelation) the evidence we have is insufficient for us to be able to tell whether the suffering in this world is such that if an all knowing all good being existed he would have reason for allowing it. This point has been rigorously defended in the literature on the problem of evil, you cant just dismiss it as a trick.
This is not going to convince anyone who has not already bought the Omni-God concept Well some people who have studied the arguments in the literature arguing this point have been convinced, but that aside even if what you say is true I fail to see the force of it. The argument here was not whether there was evidence for Gods existence, rather Ray assumed God existed, the bible was authoritative and so on and tried to argue from that position to a contradiction, hence in this context, the fact that only a theist would accept the conclusion is not pertinent.
Matt: Yes but it just brings it back to my original comment:
I think the strength of his argument lies in:
“What sort of perverted morality would lead one to conclude: “Not all of them? Oh! I suppose that’s OK then”?”
As you readily admit Yahweh did command the killing of people in these stories… and to say yes but it was just killing a few not genocide hardly makes for a wonderful picture. I therefore stand by my original post – and it seems so do you.
Sans revelation you are left with one of two options: (i) there is a completely good and completely powerful god who due to some structure of the universe (which the God created by the way) it is necessary to command humans to kill each other in order to bring about the sort of world he wanted in the first place or (ii) the God is not totally good. Now using the principle of parsimony which is the one we should accept. Clue: not the one with lots of convoluted ad hoc claims. I do dismiss it – not so much as a trick, but as desperate clutching at straws.
Now when you have revelation thrown into the lot we will start to agree… but to try to get there from a philosopher’s conception of God you need some pretty shaky arguments.
“… only a theist would accept the conclusion is not pertinent.”
As I think I indicated above even a theist would not arrive at the conclusion you do without some wild shoddy assumptions. You need to believe that God is good BEFORE you begin your argument. Not a bad assumption… but not one you can get to from your starting point via reason.
@ Max
It seems to me that most of your response is rude but without the redeeming feature of actually adressing any thing i said, except to disagree.
Over extending analogies does not invalidate the point they try to demonstrate,–
the analogy concerning the driving AGE LIMIT, was about one group imposing a law that did not apply to themselves. An example albeit imperfect of how God could apply laws to us that wouldnt necessarily apply to Him. You extension about adult drunk driving was complete twaddle wrt the point under discussion.
Please name me any examples of evil that are not ultimately caused by mans choices.
Dont bother mentioning weather patterns, there would be no life on earth as we know it without the weather patterns we experience. Or earthquakes, plate tectonics are also a necessary part of the normal function of this planet, as are volcanoes. None of these things are “evil”.
I know of no examples of God indulging in rape or torture, nor of condoning them. I do know lots of examples of people takeing bits of the Bible out of context and hence misunderstanding or misapplying them.
Please explain how and why God could or should be subject to a moral code for humans. ?I do not accept this proposition and you have provided no reason why i or anyone should do so. A meaningful answer rather than an insult would have more chance of persuading me.
Ray denys God exists , that his choice. I did not suggest that he did so because he wanted to sin, i do not know anything about Rays life choices, my conclusions are drawn entirely from his comments in the debate and of course your comment on how God should act.
The distinction between denying Gods existance and rejecting God may be subtle but yes i do speak english as a first language and can recognise the distinction. Practically though ,it works out exactly the same. God doesnt say to Himself “Ray denys my existance therefore he is not rejecting me, thats okay then.”
I am argueing from a Christain pov, i’m not going to concede to Rays primary assumption, am i?
By the way Ray may deny Gods existance, but most of his arguement through the debate was predicated on God commanding things Ray characterised as evil so just to please you i will change a few words–
“Rays arguements all seem to come down to the fact that he doesnt like the consequences of human freedom, while insisting on his own right to DENY THAT GOD EXISTS”
Of course if God doesnt exist then He cannot be responsible for all the things Ray doesnt like.
And on the subject of slimy or slimier
the atheist claim that there is no God is an absolute truth statement of godlike omniscient breadth and as such meets the fundamental Biblical definition of human sin “i wiil be my own god”.
If you have any understanding of the Bible you will already know this is really basic doctrine and not some “apologetic move”.
Man ursurping God’s place , the consequences of this , and Gods plan to heal the situation is pretty much what the whole Bible is about from Genesis to Revelation
“there is a completely good and completely powerful god who due to some structure of the universe (which the God created by the way) it is necessary to command humans to kill each other in order to bring about the sort of world he wanted in the first place ”
seems to include an assumption the God commanding humans to kill other humans is wrong –says who?
assumes that this killing has to do with God achieving a previous goal–again says who?
leaves no room for human freedom or responsibilty [crime and punishment]
two groundless assumptions and a denial of reality, i am missing your point somewhere
the discussion is fully within the realm of revelation as the actions being critiqued come from within the Torah.
however leaving aside the Torah we can stll have
An all good all powerful creator God who exercises His judgement upon His creation by the means He chooses.—who are we to disagree or complain?
Max if you think killing a few people in war is not significantly different morally from genociding hundreds and thousands of women and children, then I suspect we have very different moral intiutions, I also suspect most people can see the difference you apparently cannot.
“It seems to me that most of your response is rude…”
My humble apologies… I do not mean to offend, but to stimulate thought and to entertain.
“Your extension about adult drunk driving was complete twaddle wrt the point under discussion.”
Indeed it was. In fact it was a demonstration of how you can construct an artificial analogy to make any point you want to make, and it will not convince anyone.
“Please name me any examples of evil that are not ultimately caused by mans choices.”
You offer this challenge then mention several yourself:
weather patterns, earthquakes, volcanoes.. I would add in flesh eating bacteria, disease of all manner, David Atty’s famous example of the worm that survives only by devouring the eye of a living creature… but you outlaw all of these cases because they go against your point. Forget “Evil” if you have an objection to this word… the world is full of pain, suffering, misery, and despair, much of which is caused by non-human events… don’t want to call it “evil’? Fine. You are still faced with the same basic problem though.
“Please explain how and why God could or should be subject to a moral code for humans?”
I don’t think this is even a meaningful question personally – so I am not going to try to defend it. I am just analyzing the debate between Matt and Ray… I think the whole debate is a non-starter… but if that is your chosen battlefield I think that Ray has the stronger argument.
“I do not accept this proposition and you have provided no reason why i or anyone should do so.”
Nor will I. All Ray is argueing is that Yayweh, as presented in the OT, if he were human, would not be a very morally upright human. This a agree with. But there are several ways to attack this. One as you mentioned is simply that God is not human, another would be that a lot of the bloodthirsty revenge-speak in the OT is written my men and not inspired. I think that the weakest way to attack it is that Yahweh, as presented in the narrative, did nothing wrong. I think he did. But I do not think that God is anything other that infinitely, and perpetually good. I hope that I have made this distinction clear…
“A meaningful answer rather than an insult would have more chance of persuading me.”
Again – I did not mean to insult you… take it with a grain of salt.
“God doesnt say to Himself “Ray denys my existance therefore he is not rejecting me, thats okay then.”
Doesn’t he? Indeed? I will leave that up to God and would not venture to pronounce upon Ray’s fate, or indeed the inner workings of Ray’s mind. Let alone God’s!
“seems to include an assumption the God commanding humans to kill other humans is wrong –says who?”
Again – if morality means the same thing when applied to God then this is clearly wrong. If morality does not mean the same thing when applied to God then the whole debate is a waste of time.
“…..i am missing your point somewhere”
I suspect so…
“An all good all powerful creator God who exercises His judgement upon His creation by the means He chooses.—who are we to disagree or complain?”
That’s fine and a consistent viewpoint. But you can hold that viewpoint and still accept (along with Ray) that by a human standard of morality the Yahweh character does not fare very well. I think we are largely in agreement.
“Max if you think killing a few people in war is not significantly different morally from genociding hundreds and thousands of women and children, then I suspect we have very different moral intiutions, I also suspect most people can see the difference you apparently cannot.”
Don’t be patronizing now Matt. Obviously they are different. And yes Hitler is more morally repugnant than David Gray. However the existence of Hitler does not make David Gray suddenly not guilty of mass murder. The people are still dead. He still killed them. People still grieved. Pain was still felt. Evil was still done… despite the fact that Hitler did worse. So what? How does this make it not evil?
Max, your are familar with just war theorising you’ll know that there are positions which allow people to kill in war but also condemn the mass killing of non combatants as wrong. In fact most countries today operate on such an ethic. To fail to note the distinctions so basic to much of ethical thought on this question seems to me perverse.
I think there are important epistemic considerations as well. Suppose someone believes God commanded X and they also believe X is wrong. One of these judgements must be false, its not given our moral judgements are always correct, just as its not given our theological judgements are always correct. I think its a lot more plausible that a persons belief that killing even in war is always wrong and absolutely prohibited, is mistaken than the claim that a persons judgement that genocide is always wrong.
I could go into what the text says are the reasons for Gods commands, but a short com box does not allow it. Suffice to say I think they are much more plausible justifications for war in general than they are for genocide.
“Max, your are familar with just war theorising you’ll know that there are positions which allow people to kill in war but also condemn the mass killing of non combatants as wrong. In fact most countries today operate on such an ethic. To fail to note the distinctions so basic to much of ethical thought on this question seems to me perverse.”
I understand some people – even some famous theologians of the distant past – held on to a concept of just war. I don’t however hold to such ideas. War is perverse. We disagree on this issue I know.
” they are much more plausible justifications for war in general than they are for genocide”
Yes but again you are using the same tactic. IE. A is REALLY bad…. we all agree that B is not as bad as A… THEREFORE B is not bad after all. This is a fallacy – and you should know better.
Max you state that the non existence of God provides a more parsimonious explanation of evil than the existence of God plus some purpose for allowing evil. I agree, however I don’t think (a) that argument has much force and I don’t think (b) that was Ray’s argument.
As to (a) even if atheism explains evil more economically it does not follow it’s a better explanation, of evil, for this to be the case it would also have to be as equally a probable explanation of evil. This would mean that the existence and evolution of sentient conscious beings who can suffer is as probable on the assumption of atheism as it is on theism and it would mean that the existence of objective moral rules are as probable on theism as on atheism.
Moreover, even if atheism is a better explanation of evil, it does not follow it’s a more plausible position. The fact that a hypothesis explains one feature of reality better than others is of little consequence, what’s relevant is whether it is more probable on all the relevant evidence.
Moreover, even if it’s a more probable explanation of all the agreed upon evidence it does not follow atheism is the better position. Its highly improbable that I would draw four aces from a pack of cards, yet if I draw a hand from a pack of cards look down and see that I have drawn for aces I am justified in believing I did so despite the fact that its hugely improbable.
As to (b) like I said Ray was not arguing that atheism was a better explanation of evil than theism. Ray was saying the theist was committed to five inconsistent propositions; he was essentially assuming Christian theism for the sake of argument and trying to draw a contradiction from within that perspective. In this context then one can draw on what a Christian theist believes and is committed to believing to show no contradiction occurs, and the Christian theist typically believes that suffering does serve some higher purpose.
So I am not convinced your criticisms of what I said, in the context of this debate carry weight. Had Ray offered the argument you offered I would have had to respond differently but he didn’t.
“Max you state that the non existence of God provides a more parsimonious explanation of evil than the existence of God plus some purpose for allowing evil.”
No. I did not state this. Please either read more carefully or stop misrepresenting what I am saying… I am not sure which one is going on. The rest of your answer (which talks about atheism a lot for some reason) – since it presents a stance I did not propose I will ignore.
, No Max, my argument is not that A is less bad than B it’s therefore A is bad. My claim is that A is more plausible than B. This is important, because there is an apparent dillemia involved. There is the claim God commanded X and the claim X is wrong, seeing both our theological and our moral judgments are fallible, one needs to weigh the relative plausibility of the claims. I am quite willing to accept that some of my judgments about the justice of a specific war or pacifism or capital punishment might be mistaken these are areas where reasonable human beings disagree. It’s far less plausible to say that our judgments about I wholesale genocide are mistaken.
Matt: Fine… but I don’t see how any of this weighs against my initial post.
I probably need to write a post on this issue sometime.
@ Max
“the world is full of pain, suffering, misery, and despair, much of which is caused by non-human events…”
actually i dont necessarily see that these are evil, in fact they can often help us to make wiser choices about where/how we live, how we treat our environment, honesty in building practices etc
we are still back to the freedom and consequence issue, you just cannot have one without the other.
“weather patterns, earthquakes, volcanoes.. I would add in flesh eating bacteria, disease of all manner, David Atty’s famous example of the worm that survives only by devouring the eye of a living creature… but you outlaw all of these cases because they go against your point”
I have to disagree about outlawing these because they go against my point, rather i outlaw these cases because they are natural events that function within the laws of nature and cannot be said to be evil in and of themselves. A planet without these natural events would also be a planet without humans. Sometimes human choices mean these things have “evil” consequences for people.
“Again – if morality means the same thing when applied to God then this is clearly wrong. If morality does not mean the same thing when applied to God then the whole debate is a waste of time.”
So far no one has established that morality is or can be applied to God, Ray certainly didnt. The most Ray ever achieved was to say that he didnt like the death penalty being the consequence of disobeying some of Gods commands. Again how does the fact the Ray doesnt like this have any bearing on the matter. Is he saying that the death penalty is immoral, then he needed to establish why and by what standard?
My opinion is that human morality cannot be applied to God and Ray provided no reason to think otherwise and he needed to or everything he said is meaningless and groundless.
By the way thanks for the comprehensive reply, even in disagreeing with you i enjoy the conversation
Shalom
“actually i dont necessarily see that these are evil, in fact they can often help us to make wiser choices about where/how we live, how we treat our environment, honesty in building practices etc
we are still back to the freedom and consequence issue, you just cannot have one without the other.”
Yes – I agree I think on a deep level… but sometimes it is a struggle to see Creation as fundamentally good. I am sure a lot of the evil I see is filtered through my own mind… on a good day I see nothing but beauty in the natural world. On a bad day nothing but horror. But then again perhaps I am looking at a broken world..
“I have to disagree about outlawing these because they go against my point, rather i outlaw these cases because they are natural events that function within the laws of nature and cannot be said to be evil in and of themselves. A planet without these natural events would also be a planet without humans. Sometimes human choices mean these things have “evil” consequences for people.”
”
And yet at least some forms of Christianity look forward to a world where these sort of things will be gone… so a world without, and yet with humans, is possible in their minds. This raises the question of why God did not create this world in the first place… I don’t know the answer. For whatever reason though – here we find ourselves and as you say must to our best to protect and cherish the world.
“Is he saying that the death penalty is immoral, then he needed to establish why and by what standard?”
I guess what he is saying that what our intuitions tell us sometimes drastically differs from some people’s interpretation of scripture… why would our intuitions be so wrong. Sin?
“My opinion is that human morality cannot be applied to God and Ray provided no reason to think otherwise and he needed to or everything he said is meaningless and groundless.”
Then the word “moral” loses all meaning when applied to God. Do you find God’s answer to Job satisfactory?
At heart I am not really an intellectual when it comes to my faith – and so such debates do not really have a huge impact on my faith. This can cause me to be a little flippant and play the devil’s advocate a little too much… but I hope no one is offended too much.
I know God is good because I have felt God’s goodness in such power that it is beyond doubt.
Max, I have some sympathy with your comments. For example compare your statement I know God is good because I have felt God’s goodness in such power that it is beyond doubt with the Plantinga inspired comment I made above
Moreover, even if it’s a more probable explanation of all the agreed upon evidence it does not follow atheism is the better position. Its highly improbable that I would draw four aces from a pack of cards, yet if I draw a hand from a pack of cards look down and see that I have drawn for aces I am justified in believing I did so despite the fact that its hugely improbable.
My position is that we do not know the exact reasons God allows evil, but that does not entail that evil provides a rational reason to reject belief in God, that was part of the point I was trying to make.
Matt, as ever we are in 99% agreement… but who wants to talk about things where we agree?
Not when you studied philosopy together and made a hobby of arguing with each other.
@Max
“Then the word “moral” loses all meaning when applied to God. Do you find God’s answer to Job satisfactory? ”
My self will bridles at Gods answer but yes I do find it largely satisfactory, also i find Isaiah’s references to the “the clay questioning the Potter” helpful.
It is our rebellious nature that has trouble with Gods holiness and justice,we need to be seriously grateful He wants to deal with us in grace and mercy.
It is so very easy to get an exagerated idea of our own worth and forget the size of the gulf that is between us and God, and that only He can bridge that gulf. I guess thats why Proverbs says that “fear” of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Both you and Matt may find “Why the Universe is the way it is” by Dr Hugh Ross helpful, especially on the issues of pain, death, general unpleasantness.
He is not a philosopher but an astronomer and astrophysicist, a scientist.
Shalom