I was recently reading a discussion on Facebook about the various passages in the Bible that are used by atheists to claim that the God of the Bible is immoral. All sorts of claims swirled around. Jesus commanded us to murder children. God was a premeditated murderer. For the most part, it was a group of atheists ganging up on one or two theists, and unfortunately the only type of “argument” taking place was more of the ad hominem variety than any reasoned intellectual discussion.
Given the tone the discussion had taken on, I decided to ask a simple question. I wanted to know if any of the atheists on that board could articulate even one reason a Christian has given in response to their claims of divine immorality. After all, plenty has been written on the subject, including Paul Copan’s 2011 book “Is God a Moral Monster?,” David Lamb’s “God Behaving Badly,” and William Lane Craig’s and Chad Meister’s “God is Great, God is Good,” just to name a few. The results were pretty astonishing. I honestly expected at least one person to be aware of the distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws, to understand the Christian position on the special place held by the Jewish people, etc. I was not asking them to agree with those rebuttals, just for some reassurance that they had at least investigated them, even if they found them wanting.
Instead, I got a song and dance, a fanciful bob and weave of avoidance. A couple of people articulated something, although the rebuttals they gave were more the type we find on the internet and not in any scholarly work. For the most part the response I got was along the lines of “I don’t need to articulate how a Christian would respond to my objections.” Most commenters claimed to have fully investigated any rebuttals, but consistently refused to articulate a single one. Keep in mind, all that would have been necessary to meet my challenge would have been to summarize some argument advanced by Copan or any other apologist. But instead I was confronted by a militant refusal to respond, all the while expecting me to accept that they really knew the answer. They just did not want to tell me. I guess I was supposed to take their knowledge on faith. Needless to say, I do not believe the people on this page were very good ambassadors for their worldview.
What follows below is a portion of that conversation (I originally planned to include the entire discussion, but that wound up running far over the maximum word count expected for these posts). Generally, I have focused on a discussion between myself and a gentleman named “Jeff” (with one interspersed comment from “Paul” that was pertinent to the flow of the conversation between Jeff and me). Jeff refused to articulate any Christian responses to his position, stating that was not his job. Instead, he thought he was entitled to ask questions of Christians and expect them to formulate an answer. He never did seem to appreciate the obvious contradiction. After all, our entire conversation started with me asking a question that he was refusing to answer.
Jeff also consistently tried to claim he was merely asking questions of Christians and that I was demanding that in the course of a debate he provide answers to the very questions he was asking. At one point he even said, “In a debate, which is what this group is for, it’s up to each side to present their evidence or ask questions of the other side, not for one individual to present both sides.” Of course, I never asked him to present both sides in the course of his debates with other Christians. I just asked him to articulate one, any one rebuttal that he claimed to have read in regard to the alleged immorality of God. Also, Jeff’s whole attempt to describe himself as merely asking questions was false. He was not merely asking questions. He was making a claim: “The God described in the Bible is immoral.” That is a claim, not a question. I was simply asking him to articulate any of the various Christian rebuttals to that assertion that he says he has read about. If he has really studied the subject, shouldn’t he at least be capable of coming up with one rebuttal? He was clearly either unable or unwilling to do so. If unable, then has he really adequately researched the subject before forming such a fixed opinion on it? If unwilling, why? What did he possibly have to lose by simply demonstrating his own knowledge of the subject at hand?
If nothing else, I hope that discussion illustrates that everyone, regardless of what side of a debate they are on, should always be cautious to ensure that they are giving all the evidence and arguments a fair hearing.
____________________________________
Ken: I’m curious to see … if you’ve really studied this issue, because the types of things you are raising have been answered time and again. Could you please articulate for me your understanding of the Christian response to your objections about these passages that allegedly condone murder, etc.?
Jeff: The passages condone murder, there are no apologetics that somehow fix them or change what they say. … Actually, I’ve read many apologetics sources. I study religion for fun and hope to study it for profit one day. What apologetics do you have that somehow change what Jesus said about killing children?
Ken: Nice try, but I’m not going to allow you to change the subject from my original question, Jeff. I don’t think it is that unreasonable, if you really claim to hold to a position reasonably, for you to be able to at least articulate your opponents’ response. If you can do so (without generating a straw man) and still don’t accept it, fine. That is what honest intellectual debate is all about. But to be honest, in my perusal of this page, I’ve seen virtually no honest intellectual debate, but rather just a bunch of one-liners, conclusory statements and ad hominems, hardly becoming of a worldview that claims to be based on reason. I am not saying that some of you cannot meet my challenge. In fact, I would certainly hope that some of you could, otherwise your election of your worldview is extremely shallow. So please, articulate for me how a Christian would respond to your objections.
Jeff: I don’t need to articulate how a Christian would respond to my objections, they are capable of articulating their own responses.
Ken: The test here, Jeff, is to see if YOU are being reasonable. Do you think it is reasonable of a Christian to hold to their worldview and completely ignore any responses you raise.
Jeff: No, it is not reasonable for them to ignore the points I have raised. So, how do you justify Jesus saying that you should kill your children if they dishonour you? I get my information from both sides, none of the apologetics sources have managed to justify Jesus commanding parents to kill their children.
Ken: Jeff, you are still changing the subject. I’m not debating the merits. I’m debating your approach to arriving at your conclusions and whether you are being reasonable. So please answer this question: If it is not reasonable for Christians to cling to a worldview while remaining ignorant of any rebuttals to their position, why is it reasonable for you to cling to your worldview while remaining ignorant of rebuttals to your points? You have yet to articulate for me anything you had supposedly read that would be in response to the points you have raised here.
Jeff: I arrive at my conclusion about what the bible says by reading the bible and comparing it to the historical and cultural context in which it was written. I know the rebuttals to my position, none of them stand up. I haven’t attempted to articulate their conclusions. I’ve asked them questions here in order to get their conclusions and how they come to them. I’m trying to get you to answer a question and you are skirting around in a desperate attempt to avoid answering it.
Ken: It’s funny, Jeff, that you accuse me of skirting the issue when I have never come out one way or the other on the issue. I have not told you whether I am a biblical inerrantist, or heck, whether I even accept the Bible at all. I could be a Hindu for all you know based on what I have said here. My part in this discussion began with a simple methodological question which you have yet to answer. Perhaps I can ask it more generally: Is it reasonable to form a conclusion on an issue by only researching one side of it and ignoring any evidence or argument that is offered to the contrary?
Paul: No it is not, and we have not done that.
Ken: OK Paul, as I said before, I am more than open to the possibility that you have not done that. In fact, I would certainly hope that individuals who claim to have reason on their side would see the inconsistency in criticizing their opponents for not listening to the arguments against them all the while doing the same thing themselves. All I ever asked was for someone to articulate any of the allegedly standard Christian responses to these alleged moral difficulties in the teachings of the Bible. They are not hard to come by. Entire books have been written on the subject. I am simply asking for someone to articulate some for me in order to demonstrate that you actually have fully researched the issue.
Jeff: I never said you were a biblical inerrantist, never even said you were a Christian, I wasn’t even talking to you initially. I was asking a question about Christians in general and you started commenting on how my asking a question was ignoring the other side of the argument, which it’s not, it’s attempted to get the other side of the argument to put forward their position. Now, if you’re talking about evolution and creation, I will look at the creationist evidence when the produce it, so far they haven’t. I am trying to get the Christians to articulate their responses to the questions I asked. They are refusing to do so. I have read books and websites and other sources on their responses, and have rejected their opinions put forward in those sources because they are attempts to apply secular morality that they have learned and developed to an old book that many claim to be the word of god. So I ask these questions in order to get them to understand that if they are using secular morality as the basis for what they believe should or should not be done in this world, that they do not need the book. Your assumptions that I, or other people, haven’t looked at other sources because we aren’t presenting the other side of the argument is showing an incredible amount of dishonesty on your part, you are attempting to invalidate what people are doing by asking questions, or speaking of certain evidence, because they don’t present what other people think as well. Sorry, but in a debate, which is what this group is for, it’s up to each side to present their evidence or ask questions of the other side, not for one individual to present both sides.
Ken: So when you ask questions, Jeff, it is fair, but when I do it, it is dishonest. OK, I see. So I guess it is fair, then, for me to use the same approach and just say I’ve read all the naturalistic responses and none of them hold up. End of debate.
Jeff: I never said it wasn’t fair for you to ask questions, what is dishonest you assuming that someone has to be even familiar with both sides of the issues to ask questions.
Ken: Jeff, when did I ever assume someone was not familiar? Twice now I have said that I fully expect some people on this page could meet my challenge. For some reason, however, you insist on repeatedly assuring everyone that you are familiar with the responses, but you have refused to articulate even one.
Jeff: I don’t need to articulate their responses. I am asking them to articulate their responses. I am not here to articulate other people’s responses to a question that I ask.
Ken: Jeff, our discussion started with ME asking a question. Not you. You continue to shift the focus to the conversation you have had with others.
Jeff: Ken Coughlan. You asked a question in reply to a conversation that was already occurring. It is unreasonable for me to ask questions and expect people to be able to articulate their own answers?
Ken: So can anyone here articulate any response that has been offered by a Christian apologist to the passages raised here?
Jeff: It’s not our job to articulate answers to our own questions that we are asking of other people.
Ken: So “no,” then? You are refusing to answer my question, Jeff, is that right?
Jeff: Oh, I totally can provide a response that an apologist has given. But it’s not up to me to do that. I’m not refusing to answer your question as I have answered it, my answer is, its not up to me to provide apologetics answers to the questions that I ask of other people.
Ken: Why, Jeff? What are you afraid of? Why are you so adamant in refusing to answer what should be a simple question?
Jeff: I have answered your question. It’s not up to me to provide information from apologetics.
Ken: I will close with this. If we are truly to claim “reason” is on our side, then we must fully invoke reason in arriving at our conclusions. That means listening to the arguments on both sides, then applying good logical principles to arrive at a conclusion. This also means that we do not cut our investigation short. If one side makes a claim, then the other offers a response, we must be willing to listen to any rebuttal that is offered. Someone who has truly investigated an issue should be able to articulate their opponents’ position as well as they can articulate their own. This is a failing I have found on both sides of theistic/atheistic type debates. Far too often people gain their “understanding” of what one viewpoint holds by listening only to people who hold the opposite viewpoint. This tends to lead to an elementary and straw man appreciation of one side, so of course your conclusion is all but pre-determined. Always get your information “straight from the horse’s mouth,” so to speak, no matter which side of this debate you fall on. If you cannot answer the challenge to step into your opponents’ shoes, then perhaps you have not investigated their claims as deeply as you believe you have. Have a good day, everyone.
‘I wanted to know if any of the atheists on that board could articulate even one reason a Christian has given in response to their claims of divine immorality.’
Easy.
Here is William Lane Craig
”God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.
What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.’
Craig simply believes that whatever his hypothetical god does must be right.
It is moral for Craig’s god to kill Craig whenever he wants to do so, and Craig’s god doesn’t even have to explain why.
If his god arranges public orgies of adultery, that is moral and it is the duty of Christians to take part.
2 Samuel 12: “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
Here is Craig explaining why he would have taken part in this public orgy.
CRAIG
On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.
CARR
There you are. It is morally obligatory for Christians to take part in public orgies of adultery, if , like in 2 Samuel 12, Craig’s god was the one who arranged them.
Thanks for posting. Like the author, I’ve been somewhat disappointed with how unwilling or unable most people seem to be to provide what they see as their opposition’s strongest arguments or defenses on a topic.
But you haven’t done that. I personally view this as a small but important sign of open-mindedness on a topic. (though of course not at all the only one)
Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for giving some responses that are actually serious ones. I’ve seen other people, when pressed, throw out tiny snippets they’ve read on YouTube or something, that you know they’ve just picked because of how ridiculous and easy-to-mock they are. They just use it as a chance to make more of a laugh out of the Christian position, and it takes some time to get them to become serious and actually engage you.
You don’t consider the above sufficient, of course, but have presented them pretty fairly. Some further context would help, but I understand that there’s a limit to how much you can (or would want) to cram into a single comment.
At this point I’m mostly just curious what you think about morality–on what it fundamentally is. I’ve been thinking for quite some time myself on what morality is, for me as a Christian, and have yet to really come to an understanding of it, that makes it much more than just divine commands–even if those commands are from the “paradigm of goodness”, as Craig words it.
How do you, as an atheist (I think), understand morality? Is it anything special, or is it really just a strong set of sentiments we’ve developed? Do you have about the same view on morality as most people do, or is it fundamentally different? Do you try as some do to cultivate it deeper in your life; and if so, why? Do most of the people you work with do the same?
I have a genuine curiosity about how atheists view the world, and am trying to understand them better. (if you’re wondering, I plan to someday be an apologist, of sorts)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So this next point is sort of off-topic. But one of the points I’ve really been bewildered by, in this long-set attempt, is the topic of abortion.
I’ve asked on this a couple of times now, but have so far not gotten any serious responses. I emailed a website that promotes pro-choice, for example, and didn’t even get a return email. Maybe that just wasn’t where they answered questions, or their organization was just for promotional purposes, but I was hoping for at least some sort of reference to one such website.
Anyway, I realize that you might not have a position on the abortion issue, and may even support the conservative position. (avoiding the implicative ‘pro-life’) But from what I’ve seen, it’s a lot more common for atheists to instead be ‘pro-choice’, often outspokenly. So if I’m wrong in assuming your position ahead of time, I apologize. But basically my question is as follows.
Even if you don’t consider what’s in the womb to be alive, don’t you at least want to protect such a thing from extreme pain?
That’s basically the whole question, but it could help to supplement it with my own speculation. Is it that the things I’ve been informed of are wrong, and in fact they don’t feel pain? Have the methods I’ve heard of been replaced by some newer one that ends them painlessly? Or is it, instead, that they just don’t feel pain to the same degree that we do?
Now it’s true I could probably find these things out independently, by looking it up on Wikipedia perhaps. And I probably will do so eventually. But I wanted to ask someone personally first, because I want to see how you understand the whole issue, in one overall view. Is abortion just not a big issue for you? Is it just a lot of misinformation and hype that brings people to react so vehemently against it?
I really want to understand what it looks like from your side, before attempting to promote my own view on it. If you have time, I’d really appreciate it.
Thanks.
– Stephen
Morality is a tool to achieve the happiness and well-being of individuals and society.
Just as nutrition is a tool to achieve a healthy body.
Why do people feel they ought to eat healthy foods? (even if they don’t actually do so)
Because being healthy is better than being ill.
If you like being ill, then fine, don’t eat healthy food.
And a happy society full of beings brimming over with well-being is better than a dystopic society, full of people who are depressed and demotivated.
if you enjoy seeing your family and friends and the people you care about suffer, then don’t act morally.
I am against abortion as I do not believe that abortion has promoted happiness and well-being.
This response is self-defeating. You assume the existence of a quality known as “better” and use that term in a moral sense, but try to argue that morality is nothing more than a tool. If it is possible for one alternative to be “better” than another in a moral sense, then morality is not merely a tool, but rather an objective reality.