Thom Stark has written a lengthy response (304 pages!) to Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster? which he has published on his blog, Religion at the Margins; it is entitled Is God a Moral. Compromiser? A Critical Review of Paul Copan’s. “Is God a Moral Monster?” In it, alongside his criticisms of Copan, Stark makes several criticisms of the work of Richard Hess and Matt.
Matt has not yet had time to read Stark’s book-length review, much less respond to it, but Copan and Hess have. Copan has published the following blog posts on his blog, Parchment and Pen:
Is God a Moral Monster Revisited: Preliminary Replies to Thom Stark
Richard Hess’s Response to Thom Stark
Matthew Flannagan’s Interactions with Thom Stark
Stark has responded to these posts with:
Copan and Company, Part 1: A Brief Introduction
Copan and Company, Part 2: Response to Matt Flannagan
Copan and Company, Part 3: Response to Paul Copan
Copan and Company, Part 4: Response to Richard Hess
Other blogs have chimed in:
Thom Stark’s Sweeping Claims by Christopher Copan Scott
Reflections on the Thom Stark-Paul Copan debate by Randal Rauser
Matt has on his ‘to do’ list an intention to wade through Stark’s review and write a response, at the very least, to the parts that critique his work. He also intends to answer Stark’s questions put to him on this blog post. However, Matt has several publication, conference and marking commitments to meet first and Matt simply cannot churn material out at the prolific rate Stark can.
RELATED POSTS:
Thom Stark on Wolterstorff and Hagiographic Hyperbole
Is God a Moral Monster? A Review of Paul Copan’s Book
God and the Genocide of the Canaanites Part I: Wolterstorff’s Argument for the Hagiographic Hyperbolic Interpretation
God and the Genocide of the Canaanites Part II: Ancient Near Eastern Conquest Accounts
God and the Genocide of the Canaanites Part III: Two Implications of the Hagiographic Hyperbolic Account
Tags: Is God a Moral Monster? · Paul Copan · Richard Hess · Thom Stark29 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.
Thanks for linking. Once again, my sincere apologies to Matt for the tone of our past engagements. I’ve learned my lesson and I hope we will be able to have productive engagements on the substantive issues in future. I look forward to Matt’s responses as he is able to get to them. I spoke with Paul Copan as well and offered an apology for my tone and acknowledged that my tone made it difficult to focus on the substance.
Mr Stark I think it’s very respectable that you’ve had the humility to apologize numerous times: kudos to you, sir! 🙂
Matt and Madeleine, my thanks as well for linking. Yes, Thom and I had a very cordial conversation last night. Thanks, Thom! I too hope that you, Matt, and I will have productive discussions in the future!
I am definitely looking forward to us all sitting down over a drink or a meal in San Fancisco and having a great discussion 🙂
Are you going to be in San Francisco for the SBL, Thom?
I did envision you all discussing in the fashion Madeleine said– though I would be off to the side listening in on it.
🙂
Oh dear…that’s a lot of catching up to do.
Michael, Paul, Madeleine, thanks so much.
Chris, I was not planning to attend this year but I’m going to see what I can do. If I can make it, we’ll be sure to meet up. Thanks for the invitation, Madeleine.
By the way, Madeleine, I just noticed the title of this post. I find that humor (the reference to my old posts) to be a sharp gesture of goodwill. Thanks!
I was worried it was a bit too subtle or obscure a reference but yes that was the vein I chose the title in.
Just finished up to end or intro and scope…
When it says:
“Muhammad sanctioned warfare only for defence against oppressors and those who sought to limit Islam’s freedom to exercise their religion.”
What does it mean by sanction?
Explicitly in the Koran, sanction?
Did not Muhammad himself war against nations who were neither Islamic nor attacking Islam?
and the second condition: “who sought to limit Islam’s freedom to exercise their religion.” can be applied to anyone if the practice of the religion includes war against nations which aren’t oppressors.
Rosjier, my point was that one should afford the Qur’an at least the same hermeneutical principles that Jewish and Christian scholars employ to contextualize statements that seem to advocate for unjustified aggression in the Bible. If Jews and Christians can say that one passage of scripture must be understood in light of another, then we should afford Muslims the same hermeneutical privileges. All of the statements I made are right there in the Qur’an and ahadith. Muslim scholars read certain stronger sounding passages within the strictures put in place by other passages, which state that aggression is only justified in the face of aggression, that there must be no compulsion in religion, that if the enemy inclines toward peace, then Muslims must also incline toward peace, that if an enemy attacks but then relents, the aggression must cease because God is merciful, etc. One also must realize that, much like the Bible, there are different historical periods within the Qur’an in which different rules applied, and one cannot rip a passage out of context and apply it to the present, when it belongs to a bygone period, etc. It is not in the slightest bit fair to engage in apologetics to defend one’s own religion, but then to declare that one’s own religion’s ethics are superior to another’s, on a surface-level, non-apologetic reading. My point was not to defend Islam per se, but to state that if we applied the same standards to their texts, and conversely read ours the way Copan was reading theirs, Islam is most certainly going to come out looking better.
Cant agree at all Thom. Mohammed was a highwayman, a thief and a brigand, he also deliberately engineered the massacre of Jews in Medina. I compare the record of his actions with the record of Jesus’ actions.
Further you cannot compare and contrast the Koran with the old testament. Islam claims to recognise the old prophets so you would have to apply the OT to both Islam and Christianity. Comparing and contrasting the NT with the Koran may be valid and will much more truthfully show the differences.
If Mohammeds behaviour is evaluated in the light of NT teaching then there is no way that “Islam is most certainly going to come out looking better.”
While supposed Christians have done many things wrong through history these have always been at odds with Christ’s [and NT] teaching. Conversely Islam’s growth at the point of the sword and violent conquest has always been in accord with the teaching of Mohammed and the Koran. As Don Richardson said if Islam ever undergoes a “reformation” a return to the Koran rather than tradition it will be the “moderate” streams that undergoe correction not the violent ones.
Islam accepts the old prophets, but it has its own traditions about them. We have to evaluate them on their terms, just as we would expect them to do toward us. Do unto others . . .
I don’t expect to convince you, Jeremy. I’ve studied Islam extensively at the graduate level, and wrote a thesis on Islamic reform movements. When we want to understand and rightly evaluate another tradition, we don’t turn to their opponents; we turn to their proponents. Otherwise we will only get caricatures. I’m not saying we can’t be critical of Islam, but we must be willing to be just as critical of our own traditions, applying the same standards fairly across the board. I doubt discussing this with each other will bear any fruit. Frankly, I’m deeply saddened by your attitude.
Many of my friends who are Christian missionaries to Islamic countries, trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, would identify your evaluation of Islam as utterly ignorant. Go live among Muslims for a few months, and put in the effort to learn the logic of their traditions and their hermeneutics; then we’ll see if you still have the same view of Islam.
Trouble is, Stark apologies and then starts his snarky malarkey all over again.
I’m not being snarky.
Don’t mess with Thom…
Thom Stark, I think it’d be fair to say, doesn’t suffer fools gladly. When braying jackasses set out to defend themselves against the indefensible, Thom doesn’t sit back and mutter ineffectually to himself… he picks up the proverbial jawbones of s…
Although I appreciate Gavin’s support, please don’t mistake the tenor of his post as reflective of my current disposition. 🙂
Just reading the first chapter this comes up:
“Copan must realize that Jesus’ anger here was incited by his compassion for the exploited innocent”
Must he?
Did not Jesus cleanse the temple not out of ‘compassion’ but out of passion as He was the new temple?
I believe He is the new temple (which was destroyed and ‘rebuilt’ in three days.)
“So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”
The reason he drove out sheep and cattle is because they were no longer needed for sacrifice as He is the everlasting sacrifice, you have totally missed the analogical sense of the text.
“Jesus announced that the kingdom of God was “coming soon,” even imminently, but two thousand years later, we’re still waiting.”
You’re waiting?
I’m not, I’m living in the Kingdom of God here and now, Jesus is currently ruling in the hearts and minds of men in every country in the world. What are you waiting for?
“Copan doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the ancient Near Eastern covenant.”
“Copan makes it seem like Yahweh is special”
Well duh! He actually exists. For some reason you seem to presume that a covenant with the real God is going to work exactly the same as any other ‘covenant’ with any other ‘god.’ Although obviously these other gods do not exist and therefore neither do their covenants! You then talk about interactions between Moses and God, totally ignoring, again, any analogical readings of the text.
btw,
thanks for responding to my first comment,
I get your point now.
Regardless of history, we should give Muslims the same courtesies we ask of them.
“Frankly, I’m deeply saddened by your attitude. ”
Which part of my attitude Thom.
The historical truth that Mohammed was a highwayman and a brigand or the bit that accepts Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word of God and then compares one with the other.
My understanding Thom is that you regard yourself as a Christian [and that is between you and God] but if Christianity is true, if Jesus is the only Son of God and the only way to the Father.. then Islam is a lie and nothing else but a simple attempt to divert us from Jesus the Son and reconciliation from God the Father.
And i am sure it may even encompass some truth and no doubt most muslims are perfectly ordinary people [like you and me just trying to get by in life as best they can], but a lie is more effective the more truth it is clothed in.
“We have to evaluate them on their terms, just as we would expect them to do toward us. Do unto others . . . ”
Sorry but rhubarb, my terms or their terms , these are both irrelevant. The only questions for any of us are God’s terms. While acknowledging that these can take time and effort to understand and we often get it wrong, Islam stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ and NT teaching. And Mohammed stands in stark contrast to Jesus Christ.
Rosjier, thanks for your comments. Thanks for your reply on our Islam exchange. Much appreciated.
Many of the statements I’ve made that you’re objecting to I’ve argued for at greater length in my HFG. I won’t have time to respond point by point to your objections; normally book reviews are quite short and criticisms are not fully supported. In reviews, it is generally sufficient to point out that a position articulated in the book without sufficient argumentation is not at all settled in the field, or that it constitutes special pleading by reference to the comparative data. My review is much longer than normal, but if I fully defended my every objection, it would have been two times as large. Copan should be aware of the relevant scholarship behind the criticisms I made for which I didn’t feel it necessary to mount a full argument. In some cases, my intention was merely to make it clear that some of these issues aren’t as easy or clear-cut as Copan was making them out to be.
But I very much appreciate you’re taking the time to go through it and to read it critically.
Jeremy, I understand your position but I won’t be engaging it further. Thanks for your comments.
Thom, Gavin is just showing how nasty the NZ theological scene can be. I did my PhD at Otago and some people still there have a snark reflex reaction towards conservatives. I suspect its more about me than it is about you.
“normally book reviews are quite short and criticisms are not fully supported.”
Ah! this has frustrated me in the past,
but I didn’t realise why until now.
Cheers.
I think it’s interesting that an excerpt from a recent post on my blog appears here as a comment as if I was the one who placed it. Not so. If someone wants to quote me, fine, but it’s a bit rich to indicate that I’m the person actually commenting.
As for Matt’s suggestion that I’m connected to a snarky faction of Otago non-conservatives, shame on you sir. Snarky I may indeed be, a failing sadly not uncommon among refugees from controlling religious movements, but I certainly found nothing to indicate a cabal of foul-tempered progressives on the hallowed grounds in Dunedin… in fact, quite the contrary.
Finally, Matt suggests it’s all about him, yet to my knowledge we’ve never met. I’m sure you’re a perfectly pleasant fellow, Matt… despite that gun in your Bonnie & Clyde blog pic.
Gavin, I just call it as I see it,
One can look up the thread http://otagosh.blogspot.com/search?q=Flannaganand http://otagosh.blogspot.com/search?q=Flannagan&updated-max=2010-11-03T07%3A29%3A00%2B13%3A00&max-results=20which contains several nasty and snarky attacks on me, for no reason whatsoever.
These include an attempt to argue that the whole field of philosophy is an not really an academic field ( see your post will Matt be Mad) because one, hardly significant practioner, ,known to be a vociferous online atheist, said so.
Another is an attempt to say that Alvin Plantinga is not really academically credible, but worthy of ridicule, despite you admitting having never actually read him, the basis for this assesemnt because I quoted him on a power point.
I note also that Otagosh has a “blogs I love to hate section” on which MandM features.
But I am sure you really don’t have any issue with me at all this is all just coincidence and it’s a mistake to see any of this as evidence of some kind of hostility towards me at all.
As to you being part of a faction, I did not actually say that, what I said was some people at otago still there have a snark reflex reaction towards conservatives. try reading what people actually write it’s a lot more sensible than attacking straw men).
But seeing your brought this issue up, one only has to note that in addition to your otagosh blog, (mentioning Otago ) was can also note the existence not long ago of another blog called the “Dunedin school” ( also mentioning Dunedin which is of course in Otago) which has published similar snarky and nasty comments on various occasions (some examples here http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/01/a-response-to-the-dunedin-schools-thinking-in-tatters-moral-relativism-and-so-called-%E2%80%98counter-examples%E2%80%99-2.htmlhttp://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/a-response-to-the-dunedin-schools-thinking-in-tatters-moral-relativism-and-hidden-objectivist-assumptions.html
The blog of course published lovely stuff about me on several occasions such as the comment that “… Matt fantasizes about some weird behaviour (and his favourite suggestion, for some reason, is a person who rapes, tortures and ‘chops up’ women…)”
Oddly enough, this blog mentions a series of Otago based theological scholars as its writers and you are listed as one of the writers of this group on the sidebar http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/.
But I am sure this all a coincidence as well. When the same authors try and draw attention to Starks illtempered comments about me, that’s a coincidence as well. There is not a group of theologians at Dunedin in Otago who write snarky stuff about Conservative theologians like me, nor do people associated with this group right nasty stuff about me designed ridicule me and denigrate my scholarly credentials, it’s all just a coincidence.
Gavin wrote:
“I think it’s interesting that an excerpt from a recent post on my blog appears here as a comment as if I was the one who placed it. Not so. If someone wants to quote me, fine, but it’s a bit rich to indicate that I’m the person actually commenting.”
Gavin I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on pingbacks.
MandM is a WordPress blog so it is capable of publishing pingbacks. I like the use of pingbacks so I have enabled them to show up in the comments threads of the posts that get linked to. You’ll note they show up shaded slightly grey with a bolded heading to distinguish them from comments. They also show up in the Incoming Links widget in the sidebar.
Most bloggers are familiar with them and recognise them when they see them in comments threads so I doubt anyone thought you had left a comment, most would have just gone “ah there is a pingback on this post from Otagosh” (and several would have clicked on it to go see what you had written in full).
You are probably less familiar with them as Blogspot doesn’t do them to the sophisticated level platforms like WordPress do them to. From memory Blogspot allows you to turn on or turn off the option to show incoming links only, no text snippets, either above or below comments and then only from other Blogspot blogs, not all blogs.
Elsewhere (06.24.2011)…
– Madeline Flannigan has a round-up of links from the ongoing discussion over Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster? to which Tom Stark wrote a friendly 304 page review….
Stark Wars | MandM…
I’ve often posted articles in relation to Paul Copan’s theodicy found in his book Is God a Moral Monster. It’s been endorsed by both Dr William Lane Craig and the Flannagans. I have yet to really make up my mind about whether I agree with them or no…