Tag: morality

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 4

Is God immoral? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

To begin with, in this chapter, I find it problematic to say God is either moral or immoral. He is good. Morality is doing as one ought which places an ought above someone that I don’t think applies to God. The only actions God is obligated to do are those that He has promised or fit into His nature.

So let’s get into what all Brucker says:

The origin and the existence of our innate moral display is almost as mysterious to many people as is the origin of the universe, but monotheists claim to have such sure knowledge that the non-religious do not.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 55). Kindle Edition.

Historically, monotheists have said everyone has access to the natural law. Everyone knows right and wrong. It’s almost as if Brucker didn’t bother engaging with any contrary thought before writing this book. Nah. That can’t be it.

If a monotheist believes there to exist a divinely-inspired moral code, they must also believe their all-powerful God to have the utmost morality and would apply it accordingly if they wish to label him as omnibenevolent and omniscient. If our moral perspective has been inspired by God, there ought to be an ultimate and non-flexible moral code. With that system for absolute morality, God must also be superfluous when following such a code himself. Furthermore, I would suggest that a knowledgeable and metaphysical mind would demonstrate a moral code inconceivable to the human mind – assuming of course that a mind such as that exists. The moral perspective from 3,500 years ago was much different than it is today. Progressive modern societies have demonstrated that we can collectively decide that senseless and unwarranted murder is reprehensible – something that the God of Abraham could neither command nor display.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 55-56). Kindle Edition.

So several parts here.

First, this is why I don’t say God is a moral being. It implies God is a part of creation following a moral code. Second, since I don’t have that, I don’t say God is the ultimate in morality. He is the ultimate in goodness. Third, God did condemn murder a number of times in Scripture so I don’t know what Brucker thinks he has done in discovering some new moral law or something. If your achievement for a progressive society is “We know murder is wrong” that’s not much of an achievement. Tune in tomorrow boys and girls when he discovers that water is wet.

He naturally goes with Elisha and the two bears. You can see more on that here. He also says we think God has only one principle. Love. Not at all. He has many others, including justice.

He also says that God says rape is okay citing this Scripture.

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 59-60). Kindle Edition.

So if the women are killed. That’s awful. If a man spares a woman and takes her into his house and provides for her, that’s also awful. Note before the man does anything, he has to wait a full month! That’s a common pattern in rape isn’t it? This was actually a way to look out for a woman and make sure she was provided for.

But what about this?

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 60). Kindle Edition.

Even a non-Christian has taken this one to task.

What about atheist morality?

Christians have often been said to have proclaimed, “We get our morals from God. Thus – Atheists have no morals.”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 62). Kindle Edition.

This does not follow. That an atheist doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean he  doesn’t know the moral law any more than he doesn’t know the basic laws of physics.

“What is keeping an atheist from murdering, stealing and raping?” It would take a sufficiently ignorant individual to say such a thing, as thousands of morally efficient atheists continue to prove them wrong today.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 62). Kindle Edition.

Except saying “Plenty of atheists don’t do this!” isn’t an answer to the question. I totally agree that plenty of atheists don’t do this. What is the reason? Someone like Tom Holland would say it is because they have a Christian background they refuse to acknowledge. What happens when those atheists get in power and no one is there to hold them accountable? Just look at how the Chinese and Russians in atheist regimes have treated their enemies.

Christians haven’t always done better! True enough, but yet when Christians act evil, that is in violation of Christianity. No tenet of atheism is violated when an atheist does evil.

Jesus spoke of many moral attributes that any modern secular humanist or atheist would consider as quite immoral. He advocated deserting one’s family if it meant a closer relationship with him. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Also, the limbs must be cut off from those who steal. If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut if off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. How about killing enemies of him and his own? But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 63-64). Kindle Edition.

The first one is classical hyperbolic language and if Christianity is true, it would follow. What would we think of someone who said they wanted to serve God, but that their family would come before God? This does not mean you ignore your family, but your ultimate priority is to God.

The second is also hyperbole. It’s a shame that has to be explained to someone like Brucker. This is the way Jews spoke.

The final is a parable and historically, it is not about Jesus.

Naturally, Brucker has to say something about same-sex relationships.

But are homosexual tendencies unnatural? It is entirely reasonable to believe that the early members of the Abrahamic religions may have been unaware of such tendencies outside of human behavior. Today, over 1,500 species within the animal kingdom have been discovered displaying homosexual behavior among those populations – many of which maintain that homosexuality for their entire lives.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 70-71). Kindle Edition.

Indeed. So let’s look at the argument.

If a tendency is found in nature, it is natural.
Same-sex behavior is found in nature.
Same-sex behavior is natural.

That checks out.

Then there has to be this other implication.

If a behavior is natural, it is a good behavior.
Same-sex behavior is natural.
Same-sex behavior is good.

That also checks out, but if these syllogisms are accurate, we should be able to fit anything in and it fits. We can’t be selective or we are as Brucker says earlier, begging the question. Let’s go.

If a tendency is found in nature, it is natural.
Eating one’s young is found in nature.
Eating one’s young is natural.

If a behavior is natural, it is a good behavior.
Eating one’s young is natural.
Eating one’s young is good.

Brucker will have to show what part of either syllogism he denies and why.

I find this to be ironic because if an architect who designed human life existed, then he most certainly created the homosexual desire.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 71-72). Kindle Edition.

This does not follow at all. A Christian can easily say our desires are fallen. We have taken good desires and corrupted them.

The emotional pain and possible subsequent suicide are the fault of religious faith, something that I would expect a loving and morally superior God to neither directly or indirectly inflict on an innocent person. Does it not seem irrational to believe that a loving God would require one to relinquish their identity to achieve eternal life with him?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 72). Kindle Edition.

Brucker is awfully dehumanizing here by making who one does or doesn’t sleep with the basis of their identity. A Christians says the person’s identity is “Made in the image of God.” Who they sleep with is very very secondary. Also, if anyone commits suicide, religious or not, it is the person who does it. Others can influence it, but the person who does the act is the one who made the decision. They are not forced.

Every moral epoch that has been reached was not through the work put forth by the religiously-inspired but through secular and reason-based thinking.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 72). Kindle Edition.

I am sure someone like Wilberforce or King would be shocked to hear that their moral changes came about because of secular and reason-based thinking. Of course, I am not at all saying that religious thinking is not reason-based. It may or may not be. The same applies to secular thinking.

Stripping the argument of any philosophical connotation – by strictly looking at the morality within a structured society – it becomes quiet obvious that the inclination for doing well is merely a genetic byproduct meant to ensure the survival of species. Morality could be considered an evolutionary necessity, saying that those within any social system will survive far longer if those within that system treat one another with kindness and thus avoid recessive conflict. Let us take a bee hive for example. Within each and every hive, there exists an instinctual moral conduct. They work together, push through the adversity the colony may face, and protect the queen at all costs. The same can be said of an ant colony and the tireless efforts put forth by the worker ants; they help one another maintain the integrity of the group.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 74). Kindle Edition.

But if this is the case, then we are really pretending. There is really no true good and evil. There is just the want to survive. Yet what happens if I acquire power and no longer care about the survival of others? Plenty of atheist regimes show us what happens and about these, Brucker has nothing to say.

So, an atheist will burn in hell for eternity for not believing, but a mass-murderer will dine in heaven if he prays for forgiveness. What kind of morally-superior God would allow for such a loop-hole to exist? With that, I truly believe that religious belief is to blame for all negative behavior because religious beliefs allow ignorance, racism, and bigotry to flourish while hiding behind the facade of “moral pureness.”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 77). Kindle Edition.

So if God punishes a wicked person, He’s evil. If He forgives him, He’s also evil. Got it. Would Brucker prefer God want to punish someone instead? Also, what is responsible for the mass killings in atheist regimes? Is it religious belief?

There is naturally material on slavery to which you can search this blog for. Brucker also says that morality evolves, but if good and evil are constantly changing, then there is no absolute good or evil. He also cannot condemn past societies. Perhaps they were just doing what was moral for them then. There can also be no moral progress. Progress assumes a goal beyond oneself one is trying to reach.

Finally in wishing for a hope for the religious he says

What if they were to realize collectively that there was no absolute purpose to life and the order of the universe?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 82). Kindle Edition.

I contend the people who think this are truly the most dangerous ones of all. It’s a shame Brucker wants us to embrace them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 3

Can atheism account for goodness? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s time to go back to Brucker’s book. In this chapter, he tries to explain morality and goodness. The strange thing is, he never defines at any time what he’s talking about. Oh well. I guess the guy who likes to talk about facts didn’t think the definition really mattered.

The feelings and emotions that encompass an individual when in the “presence of God” seems overwhelming and undeniable, almost to the point where it can convince a person into actually believing that what they’re feeling is special and unique to them because a heavenly presence made it so. Each and every religious individual has claimed to believe that God has touched them in some personal and meaningful way which is most often as a result of personal interpretation without an ounce of self-criticism.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 37). Kindle Edition.

Well, Mr. Brucker. I’m not going to claim a unique experience. Being on the spectrum, I’m not prone to such things. It’s not to say I never have joy in my Christian walk, but often times, it is a new idea or a new way of thinking that does it for me. Even if I had a strong personal experience, it wouldn’t count as data for you any more than I seriously accept the claim of the strong personal experience of the Mormon.

They separate from the atheist in a significant way: this uncertainty is what fuels their belief because religious bodies have persuaded the masses into believing that having faith in something to the contrary of science is respectable.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 38). Kindle Edition.

I suppose if you want to talk about a lot of modern fundamentalists, this might be so, but it’s not really the case historically. Also, speaking of not defining terms, he never defines faith either. He certainly won’t consider anything like my definition of it here.

Often taken at face value without even a tiny amount of skeptical reasoning, the NDE has grown in popularity and has become a quite fascinating cultural phenomenon. This anti-skeptical approach could very well have been rooted in either one or both of these core sentiments: It acts as corroborating evidence that could authenticate religious doctrine or that it can alleviate the worry or fear an individual might retain when pondering the existence of consciousness after death. Both of these can be held dearly and deeply and often many have made a particular jump to illogical conclusions to do so. Importantly, what ought to be done before any hasty rationalizations take place is to scientifically establish the existence of a supernatural force behind these often fantastical recollections. This is something that most certainly hasn’t occurred.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 43). Kindle Edition.

A person who cares about science, facts, data, and rationality might at this point decide to look into near-death experiences. He might have gone and got a book written from even a non-Christian perspective such as this one. Alas, Brucker is a man who only pays lip service to those ideas. How many cases does BruckerIt mention?

One.

Step back everyone! We’ve got a serious researcher here!

It is by Eben Alexander in his book Proof of Heaven, a book that I read and frankly, I think there are far better NDEs to go with, but you can see what I said here. Anyway, Brucker says that

The book itself is drenched with faith-based undertones. Those who support the unsubstantiated claims provided within this book – more times than most – fall prey to the “argument from authority fallacy”. The argument from authority fallacy has most certainly been utilized by the book’s supporters in regards to this case. The discourse present via social media, as well as my conversations with individuals, has helped me understand how this fallacy could, at first, seem appealing and reasonable. Dr. Alexander – a self-described ex-atheist as well as a practicing neurosurgeon – asserts he was once a skeptic until he experienced one of his own, and now he believes without a doubt that heaven exists. “See! He was an atheist and skeptic until he had an NDE, now he believes! After all, he is a neurosurgeon so he must know what he’s talking about,” is a brilliant example. We must all understand such evidence isn’t evidence of either God or an afterlife. Yes, he may have been a skeptic and was certainly a neurosurgeon, but that does not make him infallible. His state of being was a terribly compromising one, and because he was easily swayed by his personal experience, it shouldn’t lend credence to the phenomenon at all – it should call into question the motives behind the one making such a significant claim. Just because a knowledgeable individual makes a particular claim should never suggest that the particular claim being made is ultimately correct; fallibility must be factored into the scenario starting with the originator.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 45-46). Kindle Edition.

I am not a fan of Alexander’s claim, but I think Brucker’s response is horrible. First off, he says people could be falling into the appeal to authority fallacy. Brucker never tells us what this is. Hint. It is not appealing to an authority. That is hardly a fallacy. If it is, then every time you go to the doctor and follow his prescription and advice, you are behaving fallaciously. If you went to your doctor for advice on how to repair your car, that could be a fallacy.

Alexander is not someone unfamiliar with the material though. He is a neurosurgeon and knows how the brain works so that should be taken seriously. Then Brucker says that because Alexander was “easily swayed” however that is demonstrated, by his experience, we should question his motives. There you have it. These experiences don’t count and if anyone changes their minds based on the experience, they shouldn’t count. Obviously, we should only account the people who don’t change their minds based on an experience.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In this case, I question Brucker’s motives. I think Brucker would rather go swimming with alligators while covered in meat sauce than to admit any possibility whatsoever of anything theistic being true.

He later goes on to say that people accept information that helps them stay in their group. In a refreshing moment of candor, he says that even atheists do this:

Even we atheists do this, and many different social clubs or communities could attest to this aspect of our psychology.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 49). Kindle Edition.

The very next line, I kid you not, he demonstrates this:

This may also explain the existence of over 41,000 separate Christian denominations because not everyone can agree, so the more likely scenario would be to create an individual so all of the like-minded individuals could remain comfortable with their surroundings.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 49). Kindle Edition.

This whole story is a myth. Brucker could come nowhere near naming 41,000. I seriously doubt he could name 100. He did not go and check the original source. I have material on this question here.

This can often be observed when we see religious motivation behind the abandonment of a child for either being homosexual or any other anti-conformal action being perpetrated – an atheist or homosexual may be viewed as a threat to the community and thus being shunned, something that I believe to be one of the most deplorable aspects of religious faith. While these sorts of horrible actions have been prevalent in America for decades and decades, other countries with a ruling theocracy still today prescribes more deadly actions against those who deviate from the like-minded group. Even amongst the many modern Middle Eastern theocracies, death is a reasonable punishment for defying Muhammad, participating in homosexual acts, or being disrespectful of the dominant male within the family structure.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 49). Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, there is no word here on what atheists have done in atheistic/communistic regimes with putting Christians to death and dynamiting churches. Nope. It’s those evil theists that are the problem!

I often ask, “If God is as supreme as I was once led to believe, what is the purpose of free will?”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 51). Kindle Edition.

Free will is there so that real love can be a choice. Now Brucker will ask why it would be given if so many of us would find it hard to believe. I contend Brucker finds it hard to believe because he doesn’t want to since he has an emotional commitment to atheism, especially as shown by how many times throughout the book he sporadically mentions suffering of the LGBT community. While Brucker can say Christians have emotional reasons, he seems blind to his own.

Why would God create an atheist and then subject him to live in a culture that neither promotes nor accepts personal expression and the ability to exerciser the free will he’s so lovingly given us?”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 52). Kindle Edition.

He didn’t create anyone an atheist. He created people and people can freely choose what they want to believe.

In the end, there is really also given no real argument for morality and goodness. There is still one more chapter though related to this for next time and that is discussing the immoral God. Yeah. We’ve seen this one several times. No. There won’t be anything new.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Still Unbelievable Part 4

Does God make sense of morality? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is by Michael Brady. We will be looking at his explanation for the origins of morality. At the start, he does at least seem to agree that there is objective morality, though I prefer to say objective goodness instead.

Premise Two: Objective moral duties and obligations do exist. Agreed. Or at least it seems so. Unless one is a sociopath, each and every human being has an innate moral sensibility. This intuition that there is right and wrong, equitable and unfair, true and false, and that in all cases the former is better than the latter. Where do these intuitions come from? The theist argues that their creator wrote the moral code upon our hearts; we know right from wrong because we were formed in God’s image.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

It is not a shock that Euthyphro is brought up. As Brady says:

So the Christian God can do nothing that is not good, by definition? Every act, every utterance is a reflection of his perfect goodness? The difficulty in assigning this sort of goodness to the deity worshipped by the Hebrew is that He ordered acts which our internal moral compass tells is wrong. When the God of the Old Testament ordered genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, the murder of pregnant women, marital rape, and the taking of pre-teen girls as war prizes. Does he make such acts good? Suddenly, and counter-intuitively, the proscriptions against murder, theft, and coveting are no longer absolutes. Such acts become merely prohibited until ordered, at which time they become not only good but obligatory? Failure to commit such acts when ordered by God – because they offend our own God-given moral sensibilities – become a sin?  What has happened here?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Oddly enough, he doesn’t try to press Euthyphro. He says “God does things that I don’t like.” Many of these are thrown out there without any real interaction. Where does God order marital rape for example? I suspect pre-teen girls as war prizes is an interaction with Numbers 31 which I have dealt with here.

This would have been a good time to have brought up the idea of goodness and what it is, but that was not brought up. This is a great weakness in many atheistic, and many theistic, arguments. They never talk about what goodness is. It is assumed that morality is the same thing. All that is moral is good, but not all that is good is moral. You think your favorite food is good, but does that mean you think it is moral?

Brady does get to likely what he thinks is marital rape when he says:

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14 If a modern soldier took a vanquished female captive after a battle, shaved her head, locked her up in his house for a month, and then forced himself on her, he’d be guilty of violation of the laws of war. He’d be correctly accused of kidnapping, false imprisonment, physical and emotional abuse, and rape. He would be keeping a sex slave. If delivered into the hands of the law, he’d be imprisoned and his victim set free. To this and other hard passages, Christians routinely make the relativistic retort, that’s just the way things were in those days. That other tribes’ soldiers just raped women on the battlefield. That in Jewish society unmarried women were destined to poverty or prostitution. Rather than accepting such equivocations as an excuse, why is this not seen as an indictment of Jewish society? Under whose strict rules – and God-given morality – was Jewish culture operating at the time?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

But it’s not relativistic to say that was the way it was at the time. Brady obviously wouldn’t want the woman killed or he’d complain about that, so what does he want? Her to go and get a job at the local Wal-Mart or sign up for CanaaniteMingle.com and get a guy? If this was a case of rape, why on Earth does the guy wait a month before he does anything. If anything, this is actually looking out for the woman. He is not allowed to sell the woman or treat her like a slave. This woman is brought into the society and cared for.

Unfortunately, much of the chapter is just that. Bringing up things in the Bible the author doesn’t like. There is very little philosophy. At the end, he does say this:

As for naturalistic expressions of the good, we might not be having this dialogue if flourishing wasn’t better than suffering, life better than death, or success better than failure. Perhaps you can’t derive an ought from an is, but this system has been working since the dawn of life on our planet. It seems unlikely the life would endure in any other way, here or on any other planet in universe.   Objective? God-given? Perhaps not. But universal and ubiquitous? Certainly.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

But if we want to say that X is better, we want to know why, and why is it that this applies to human flourishing. There are some who think it would be better if humans went extinct and nature was left to flourish without us. Brady doesn’t give us any idea of what good is. He just assumes it.

The final part also undoes everything. If morality is not objective, then what has this whole chapter been about? One can say it’s universal, but so what? It could also have been universal that the sun went around the Earth at one point. Doesn’t matter.

Brace yourself. Next time we’ll look at a chapter on why the gospel is not good news. It’s going to be a painful ride.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: 101 Reasons for Non-Belief 11-20

Have we come across a valid reason yet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have said I’m not going to go over every reason likely. I might touch here and there. For the 11th, the author is saying there are too many positions on religion so it’s too confusing. With all this, it’s impossible to make the right decision and be informed in doing so.

So naturally, the right decision is to say everyone else is wrong.

Sounds legit.

12 is that you can be a good person without God. This is again, something no one is arguing against. It’s also not the claim that morality is rooted in one religion, but that morality is rooted in one God. That God has shown Himself in general revelation so that all know about goodness.

14 has a section worth quoting.

Any text written or dictated by a Cosmic Über-entity should be unambiguous, understandable in any language, and without peer. In 2021, I adopted the short phrase, Cosmic Über-Entity as my replacement for God or deity. Any Entity that could create or is responsible for the four constants would have zero need for mere humans to worship it. The concept is absurd.

Which pretty much seems to mean God will do your thinking for you. These are the same people who want to live by their own freedom and reason. If something is absurd, it is the concept that the author has expressed in this section.

16 tells us that religion preys on people who are poor, uneducated, sick, etc. Pretty much, the dregs of society. Of course, this can apply to anything else out there. There are people of every social status and intellectual status in most every movement.

19 has this saying in it.

Outside of terrorism there is less murder and other crimes in non-Christian countries.

Outside of terrorism. Well, that’s nice to know. There’s also the claim that America is the mass-murder capital of the world. None of this is backed, but the author blames this on American evangelicalism and proof that God is not the source of our morality.

First off, none of this is cited. I am not saying it is all wrong, but some citation needs to be made for a claim like this. Second, the author needs to show that there is a correlation here. The reason that we have this problem is because of American Evangelicalism. Color me skeptical that evangelicalism really has much impact today on our culture. If anything, it is the lack of Christianity in our culture that I contend leads to our moral difficulties.

Finally, there’s a swipe at Calvinism and other beliefs where the victim is blamed. I do agree that this does work though for positions like the prosperity gospel and for The Secret. Either way, none of this really counts as a reason for non-belief. So far, our author is still not making any valid arguments whatsoever. I can’t say that I have been surprised by any of this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Things Atheists Say That Simply Make No Sense

What do I think of Patrick Prill’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was given this book by a friend when he told me he had an extra copy and I found it intriguing. I was pleased to see in the table of contents that indeed, there was something saying that one dumb thing that is said is that Jesus never existed. Seriously atheist community. If you meet one of your own who is saying this, it’s best to ask him to please be quiet on your behalf.

I would ultimately describe this book as a gateway book. Each chapter is short and thus good for the purpose of small group discussion. You don’t have to read any prior chapter to understand the latter ones. You can just go to whatever you’re dealing with to see what is said.

This is also largely dealing with the new atheists, which is just fine because it’s more likely the lay Christian will also be engaging with your common internet atheist types who will be using new atheist material. The book deals with objections relating to the universe, to God, to Jesus specifically, to morality, etc. There is a final section introducing atheists who became theists. Not all of them became Christians, but they became theists.

So the positives. First off, as I have said, the chapters are short and they do have several references so you can look beyond this book and get more information. Notes are extremely helpful to see and yes, they are footnotes. Prill lets you know where he gets his information from.

I think my favorite chapter was the one on religion leading to war. There is information here that I found quite helpful for this common question. As I said, this is entry-level, but on this question this is an excellent entry.

For some criticisms, I do think that when Josephus is talked about, there is not enough said about the different versions we have of what Josephus said. Your average internet atheist will know about this and it could very well catch a  Christian unaware. This is also important since sadly, this is one of the most common objections I come across. (Again atheists, please clean up your own house. I know there are a lot of you that recognize this claim as nonsense thankfully.)

My biggest criticism though is in a chapter on asking if God is required for objective moral values to exist. If I had a hand in any sort of rewriting of a second edition of the book, this is the chapter I would change the most. As a Thomistic thinker, I was really stunned when I got to one part of this.

Prill asks if the question of if morality could exist if God didn’t and the answer is, perhaps.

Whoa.

This isn’t just about morality anymore. This is dealing with everything else. If it is possible for something to exist if God does not, then this means that ultimately, God is not the grounding of everything that exists. Scripture says about Jesus regularly in the New Testament in places like John 1, 1 Cor 8, Col, 1, and Hebrews 1, that Jesus is the means by which God created everything else and without Him, nothing else would exist. The logical conclusion, one I am sure Prill would deny but unfortunately a statement like this leads to, is that God is not foundational for existence. It would mean that it is not God’s nature to be, but that being is something He possesses.

Definitely fix that in any future entries. After all, if God doesn’t exist, then really nothing else exists at all. There is no ground of being.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 12

Does Humphrys understand evil and morality? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re on the final section of this book. Humphrys begins this with talking about evil, the card he seems to play most often. He talks about the case of a taxi driver  who murdered his wife with a baseball bat. Then he went upstairs, got one of his four small children and took her downstairs and murdered her. Then he did the rest with his other three children.

From here, Humphrys goes on to tell us about theodicies, which are said to be how to justify the ways of God to men, a term I don’t care for. It assumes that God needs to be justified. Still, it has been around a long time and if you mean an answer to the problem of evil, it is fine.

However, he says for those who take a less intellectual approach, the cries of a child resonate more than an elegant argument. This is a quite telling statement. At the start of this book. Humphrys said anyone with the mind of an inquisitive child can see the God arguments fail. Now at the end, he is saying those who do not go the intellectual route are more persuaded by the case of this murder.

Yet at the same time, if there is no God, then ultimately, what this taxi driver did doesn’t matter in the long run. If he was never caught, he got away with it. There will never be justice for the woman and her children. They will never enjoy life again. If there is a God, and especially the Christian God, there is no free pass for this man. He will face judgment. Even if he repents, the consequences of his action will carry over into eternity still.

Later, Humphrys will speak of the view of theists that atheists could develop a moral code, but without God, there is no way of knowing good from evil. Humphrys says that this is rubbish. How is that so many societies who didn’t know that this monotheistic God existed still produce a moral code very similar in many ways to what is had today?

Once again, Humphrys is someone who does not know what the argument is and if anything, his objection actually DEMONSTRATES the claim of theism. No one is saying you have to have knowledge of God to know right from wrong. Scripture even argues in Romans 2 that all men know this because God has placed it on their hearts in some way.

What the argument claims is that if God does not exist, there is no metaphysical basis for good or evil. (Actually, there’s no metaphysical basis for anything, but that’s another post.) Good and evil as ideas make no sense apart from God. As Dostoyevsky said, if there is no God, anything goes. One does not need to know of this God to know good from evil, but this God needs to be for the knowledge to be there.

Right now, I am also reading The Plague by Camus where he attempts to answer the claims of someone like Dostoyevsky by having a plague in a city killing multiple people and so the city is sealed off from the outside world. The hero is a doctor who does not believe in God, and yet he goes about trying to relieve the suffering of the people of the city. Therefore, God is not needed for morality.

The problem is this is still the world and in this world, good and evil still exist and you don’t have to be a theist to believe in those. However, giving a metaphysical basis is different. What is this good? Why should I think the doctor is the hero? Why should I see him as the good guy?

He also says in America, that some Christians are so convinced of the evils of abortion that some doctors fear their lives due to what has happened to their unfortunate colleagues. It is difficult for us to think of people who have been bombing abortion clinics. For me, just one name comes to mind. These are by and far the exception. Of course, Humphrys doesn’t really give a reason why abortion should be allowed and while I don’t agree with murder in response, I do agree that abortion is a great evil, one of the worst actually.

He also asks if theists can produce a moral code atheists can agree to. He thinks there are plenty of rules that we could all get along with, but then says that even Jimmy Carter said that he has lusted in his heart in an interview. He says this caused a stir in the Baptist community, but why should it? Does anyone really think they haven’t committed this sin, especially my fellow men? Besides this, a moral code should be something you strive to live up to. It should not be easy.

He then produces his own moral code that he says our more enlightened society should embrace to put to death the fundamentalist mindset. On top of the list is homosexuality is not a sin. If all he said was the temptation is not a sin, I would agree, but if he means the behavior, he needs to give me a reason why I should think this. We can talk all we want about how progressive and enlightened we are in society, but when you look at the rate of STDs and of broken families and fatherless children, does anyone think we are really better off?

What a shock that the next one is a woman should be allowed abortion as long as the rules of society are followed. Here we have a talk of enlightened society and what do you know? The first two rules are about sex. Why am I not surprised?

He also says there is hardly a soul alive he is sure who does not regret some sexual adventure. Humphrys must not know a lot of people. I could introduce him to several. Odds are, you can as well.

He then goes on to give a study of the trolley problem where atheists and theists by and large gave the same example and someone like Dawkins uses this to show you don’t need God to know right from wrong. What is missed is that as someone like Tom Holland has pointed out in Dominion, this is because also there is a background Christianity in us all. Would Dawkins be appalled by some of what he would see in ancient Greece and Rome? Quite likely. He and Humphrys make the same mistake again. They think that you have to be religious in order to have epistemology here, when the claim is not an epistemological one, but a metaphysical one. This is one of the most common mistakes in atheist argumentation that I see them making left and right.

They never learn.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Armageddon Part 5

Why is the book of Revelation so violent? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Ehrman’s latest book talking about the violence in the book. At the start, he does say a statement about the Old Testament that is worth repeating.

Many Christians admit they are just not that interested in the Old Testament because its teachings have been surpassed and even superseded by the coming of Jesus and because, well, they find it boring. I wonder what its author would say about that.

There is a lot of truth here. We need to remember the Old Testament is just as much Scripture as is the new. It was the Scripture of the original church and it’s still our Scripture today.

But to the Old Testament we go to talk about the violence. if you expect interaction with people like Flannagan and Copan, you will be disappointed. Walton is not mentioned either. If you want to see Ehrman interact with the other side, it’s not here.

Ehrman paints the picture as if the Israelites were going to these cities and they were just peacefully living out their lives and the Israelites show up and say “God wills it!” and destroy everyone involved. He uses the example of Jericho, which is fitting since this is the most graphic, but it is also not representative. It needs to be established what Jericho was.

For one thing, it could not be that big since Israel could walk around it seven times in one day. Most of these cities were not cities but forts. These would be where the military would be and not the places of women and children. Also, from Rahab, we see that the people knew what had happened and this wasn’t exactly a sneak attack. They encamped outside the city for a week. Anyone could leave if they wanted.

He also brings up the account of the Moabites and the Midianites. In this, the Moabite women come and seduce Israel into sexual immorality. Moses responds by having the leaders of the people killed. Ehrman depicts this as human sacrifice, but this is not what it is. Even if it is done to stop the wrath of God, it is done out of justice in that the people who did the wrongs are put to death for what they did in accordance with the Law.

We are told 24,000 Israelites die and not just those who did the wrong but the innocent. The problem is the text doesn’t say that. It just says 24,000 died. It doesn’t say who they were. Even if they did not participate, this is a collectivist society and each person was responsible not just for himself, but for his neighbor as well. The sin of one could be seen as the sin of all.

Ehrman also speaks with horror about the way that Phineas put a spear through Zimri and Kosbi. What is left out is that this is after judgment had started and the people were weeping. This wasn’t done in private, but was done publicly as the man brought her with him publicly and the text is unclear at least in English, but it looks like they went into the Tent of Meeting, which is a holy place. This is an act of open defiance. Phineas is praised for killing both of them with one thrust of a spear while they were having sex. Violent? Yes, but sin is violent and destructive.

Ehrman is one who complains about evil, but when God does something about evil, he complains about that as well.

Of course, this gets to Numbers 31. I have already written about that here and here.

He also talks about the wrath of God in Hosea and how infants will be dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped open. Why is God doing this?

Answer: He isn’t. God has laid out the stipulations of the covenant with His people. If they do not obey His covenant, He removes His protection. What happens then? Their enemies have their way and this is what their enemies do. Is God supposed to overrule them somehow so they can do everything else but that? Should the children be made invincible and the pregnant women’s stomachs be indestructible? Ehrman doesn’t answer such questions. Outrage is enough.

Ehrman tells us that when people read the Bible, they tend to see what they want to see. This is true, but it includes Ehrman as well. He wants to depict God as violent. Easy to do. Just cherry-pick some passages and ignore everything to the contrary. It would be just as easy to do the opposite.

He says this is true of laypeople, but it is also true of Christian scholars who see nothing wrong with God destroying people forever in a lake of fire.

Well, it’s Ehrman’s responsibility to show this. Outrage is not enough. Now I don’t think the lake of fire is literal, but is it wrong for God to judge and take life? Why? On what basis? What is the moral code that God is obligated to follow? I can also assure Ehrman that Christian scholars have wrestled with these issues. Unfortunately, we can’t say if Ehrman is aware of these claims since he never cites them. Has he considered Jerry Walls’s dissertation on Hell, for instance?

God is above our understanding of ethics and right and wrong. Whatever he does is right by definition. It would certainly not be right for my next-door neighbor to inject scorpion venom into someone’s veins and allow them to suffer in anguish for five months, refusing to put them out of their misery when they begged to die. And no one could justify a tyrant who chose to torture his people and then throw them into a vat of burning sulfur. But God is not my next-door neighbor or an earthly tyrant, and so he cannot be judged by human standards. If God does such things in the book of Revelation, who are we, mere mortals, to object? We simply cannot judge the Almighty.

But this is an important distinction. We are moral agents put in a universe where we have rules of right and wrong to follow. God is not. There are things God can do that I cannot do. God owes no one life and has all right to take it if He wants to. I do not.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that Ehrman regularly says we shouldn’t read Revelation in a literalistic fashion, but when he wants to depict God as violent, that’s exactly what He does.

It is somewhat ironic that so many readers of Revelation think, as I did, that the God portrayed there is above all human sense of right and wrong. Most of these same readers also believe that our own sense of right and wrong has been given to us by God. This , as you probably know, is a commonly invoked “proof” that God exists. According to this argument, if there were no superior moral being who created us, we could not explain why we have such an innate knowledge of what is good and bad behavior. Our morality, it is argued, must be rooted in the character of God, given to us as creatures made in his image, whether we choose to follow our God-given sense of morality or not.

It is worth pointing out that first off, Ehrman speaks of this as a “proof” of God, but He never shows where it is wrong. He never shows where our ideas of good and evil come from. I also want to say that is not the way I make the argument. I do not say a superior moral being made us. I said a superior good being made us. God is good, but He is not moral. Morality is doing what you ought to do, but God has no ought. God just does what is good. If something is moral, it is good, but just because something is good, that does not mean you have an obligation to do it. It might be good to sell all you have and give it all to the poor (Or it might be foolish), but that doesn’t mean you are morally obligated to do it. It might be good to leave a generous tip that is double what the waitress served you, but you are not morally obligated to do it. It might be good to pay the widow’s electric bill, but you are not morally obligated to.

But if our own sense of right and wrong reveals the character of God, what if God’s moral code requires him to torture and destroy those he disapproves of, those who refuse to become his slaves? (“Torture” is not too strong a word here: Remember those locusts.) 7 If God is like that, and we are told to be “godly” people — told to imitate God in our lives — then surely it follows that we should imitate him in how we treat others. If God hates those who refuse to be his slaves and hurts and then destroys them, shouldn’t we do so as well? Are we to act “godly” or not? And what does it mean to be Christlike if Christ’s wrath leads to the destruction of nearly the entire human race? Are we really to be “imitators of Christ”? Should we, too, force our enemies to suffer excruciating pain and death?

It’s amazing how wrong someone can be in an argument. For one thing, God does not have a moral code. Ehrman will never define what is meant by good and evil. Good then simply becomes that which Ehrman likes and evil, that which Ehrman doesn’t like.

However, I also want to know what is the context in which we are told to be godly and Christlike. I can be told to be godly, but surely I am not supposed to be able to create a universe. I can be told to be Christlike, but that doesn’t mean that I can claim divine prerogatives for myself. I can say I have a mentor I want to be like, but I would not be justified in sleeping with his wife and raising his children.

He also says Jesus is seeking vengeance on those who had nothing to do with his death, but this is embracing the futurist paradigm that Ehrman said is NOT the way to read Revelation. In my Preterist understanding, this took place as judgment on the Roman Empire and especially Jerusalem in 70 AD, which were involved in the death of Jesus and had not repented. Of course, Ehrman has no inkling shown that he is aware of such a view.

In the end, I find this still confusing. Ehrman condemns a futuristic reading of the text and treating it literalistically, but when he wants to condemn the text, that is exactly what he goes to. Ehrman still gives us the sound of one hand clapping. He presents a strong case, but rather a largely emotional one, but shows no indication he has interacted with the best of his critics.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life Is A Game Walkthrough Part 6

Do we play by the rules? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Continuing our walkthrough of this book, we now come to a section about rules and why they matter. Many of us play games without rules every day. Nowadays, most video games don’t even come with instruction booklets. When I was growing up, those booklets were a treat. If I found my old instruction books today from the games i got, I would probably look through them just to reminisce.

A lot of games we play are simple enough that we don’t see a rule book. Most people have gone to a sporting event and understood what is going on in the field without sitting down and being told the rules of the game. When I was in DivorceCare and we had a get-together, we would sometimes go out in the yard and play Corn Hole. I never once read anything on the rules of corn hole, but they were simple enough to understand.

In our world, we also have rules for how to play the game. If you’re a Christian, you can find some rules in the Bible, but certainly not all. There can even be debate over which rules apply and when. A favorite of internet atheists is to ask “Well why are you allowed to eat shellfish” as if they have just given a devastating blow to any Christian. (And to too many, they sadly have.)

Also, we have to understand what it is that we’re playing the game for. What are the victory conditions. If you’re playing Mario or Zelda, it’s normally to rescue the princess. If an RPG, it’s to defeat the main villain and save the world. If it’s a puzzle game, it’s to get a high score or finish a certain number of levels. Of course, there can be overlap.

What are our victory conditions?

Like the rules of the game, these aren’t written out for us, aside from Scripture. C.S. Lewis once said that if a ship is at sea, it needs to know three things. Those are how to stay afloat, how to avoid hitting other ships, and why it’s out there in the first place. I still remember the first time I heard that.

I heard the first two and those made sense, and yet the last one was the most important one really and I hadn’t thought about that as something to think about. You have a lot of people today who are health enthusiasts and want to live a long and healthy life. There is plenty of information out there about how to do that, but where is the information on why to do that?

What about money issues? Plenty of people will teach you how to save money so that when you are in your senior years, you can have enough to live on. What is not taught is why you should want that in the first place. This is not to say that people don’t have reasons for wanting health and wealth, but how many people think about what those reasons are?

We who are Christians need to think about this also. Is our goal just getting to Heaven? Then you have the question of why not become a Christian and just kill yourself? Why not just do evangelism by converting people and then killing them immediately so they can get there? Internet atheists are rightly answering this kind of theology with questions like this.

After all, the going to Heaven goal gives us something to die for, but really not much to live for. If you think this world is just going to be destroyed, why bother trying to save it and take care of it? Someone like myself looks at the world and sees the darkness and does my best to say “Challenge accepted.” I was talking with someone within the past week about our city of New Orleans and told him that our city does have huge problems with realities like crime, but that just gives us a chance to shine all the brighter.

If we are playing a game and playing it to win, we need to think about these questions. How do we play it right and what are we playing it for? Without these, we will be less than valuable players. We might even lose the game.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Life Is A Game Walkthrough Part 5

What kind of game are we playing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m returning to my look at Edward Castronova’s book Life Is A Game, seeing as it was highly influential on my Defend Talk. At this point, he is asking what kind of game we are playing. We are going to be looking at three main categories, materialist, subjectivist, or objectivist.

For a materialist game, everything in this game is matter in motion. Suppose you see a drowning child and you jump in the water to pull them to safety. Did you do a good act? Not really. You are matter in motion jumping in to save matter in motion and goodness is not a material property inherent in the matter in motion. If there is any goodness, it doesn’t come from the situation itself.

Actually, Hume would agree with this. Good or evil are often ideas that we throw on the events that we see. We read them into the event instead of reading them out of the event. In a materialist universe, it is not real. I do understand that atheists and other materialists do have arguments for why they think moral truths are real and objective. I just find them all so far lacking.

What about a subjectivist game? In this, we make it up as we go along. There is no real game, but we act as if there is. The closest analogy that comes to mind is Calvinball. Calvinball in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip is supposed to be the game that has no rules.

To be fair, many of us can make up games for us to do on our own when we get bored. Many a family on a long car trip, including my own, did the game of trying to find cars from different states in the country and seeing how many you could find. Children with imaginations make up games quite easily. In essence, most every game we have here to some extent is made up. Chess is not built into the fabric of the universe.

That being said though, once the rules of a game are made, one cannot change them willy-nilly. You cannot sit down to play a game of chess and suddenly decide that your bishops can move horizontally in the middle of the game. Now if you and your opponent want to make up some artificial rules to change the game, you can, but they must be agreed upon.

However, subjectivism doesn’t work because we can’t just make everything up and if we make everything up, we can make up the outcomes to. There is no risk. There is no real way to lose. Besides that, there are aspects of the game we cannot change. No matter how much you protest, 2 + 2 will still equal 4 and no amount of complaining will change that.

This leaves us with an objectivist game. There is something real to what we are doing. There is also something that is real beyond us. This game is not just something material as there is real good and real evil out there.

How do we play this game then and what is the goal? That’s for another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Doing No Harm

Is doing no harm a sufficient moral principle? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Often today, we don’t hear about if an action is good or evil. We hear about if it is harmful or not. Now, causing harm is one aspect to consider in morality, but it is not the only. When it comes to the idea of redefining marriage, part of the question asked is “Well who is it hurting?”

For one thing, changing the meaning of marriage for anyone changes it for everyone. Everyone’s marriage is shifted to not a union designed to bring about children for the prolonging of civilization, but rather to a sort of union from two people who are committed to one another. By this standard, we could say that two roommates could be married or a brother and sister who choose to live together are married or a son who brings his mother who is a new widow into his home are married.

However, while those are important situations to bring up, why not go back and question this principle about not harming anyone. Consider the scenario of a peeping Tom for example. he has found a peephole outside of a showering area where he can stand and watch naked women shower. He is never caught and the women never have any idea they are being watched? Are any of them being harmed? If not, then can we say this is wrong?

Consider also a dentist who has a private practice. To keep costs down, he doesn’t even have a secretary. He works alone and makes all his appointments. From time to time, beautiful women come in and he has to put them under for surgical operations. What they don’t know is that sometimes when they are unconscious, he undresses them and fondles them. The women never get pregnant and so never find out about what he’s done. Has he done any harm?

If you’re a Christian or even most any other kind of theist, you could say this man has damaged his standing before God in each case and so he has done harm at least to himself. He has lowered himself from being what a human being ought to be to being something less. If you are a secularist though, you do not have this option.

Not only that, but we know that there are times that causing harm is the good thing to do. I have a friend who just had a quadruple bypass operation. Right now, he is still in a lot of pain. I have told him some about my having scoliosis surgery and how I too was in a lot of pain and understood what that was like. In both cases, our doctors harmed us and left us with tremendous pain. The thing is, we knew this would happen and we went through it willingly and even paid our doctors for it. Why? Because we were not being harmed to be harmed. We were being given some degree of harm in order to get a greater good.

Another example is telling a loved one a hard truth. Sometimes, this is very harmful to the person for the immediate and short-term, but it is good in the long run. Again, consequences are not all that is to be considered, but they are a part of this. Consequences alone are insufficient. We need to look at the action, who is doing it, and why they are doing it.

No one being harmed by itself is insufficient. By this standard, the Peeping Tom and the dentist are both okay. By a Christian standard, they are in the wrong because they are lowering themselves as human beings and actually in the long run making themselves more likely to be the people who will take further steps to do actual visible harm to others.

Our moral thinking needs to go deeper than just utilitarianism. We need to look at who we are and why we do what we do.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)