Since 9/11 a choir of commentators have claimed that the willingness to murder innocent people in the name of God stems from the progenator of the Abrahamic faiths. Abraham, the father of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is commended for attempting to kill his own son.
The account of this episode is arguable the most infamous passage in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Then God said, [to Abraham] “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.” (Genesis 22:2)
Now, as anyone who has read the story knows, God intervened and prevented Abraham from killing Isaac. In the Mosaic laws that follow this story, the Prophets, Psalms and the historical books, human sacrifice is unequivocally condemned. Notwithstanding these prohibitions, it appears inescapable that Abraham was acting on God’s commands. For this reason, it is not surprising that this story looms large in the criticisms of theological morality. The passage appears to show that God commanded someone to do something clearly and obviously immoral.
Appearances can be deceiving. There are two issues here: the first is whether the text teaches that God commanded the killing of an innocent child, the second is whether commanding the killing of an innocent child is always immoral. For this objection to have force both these contentions must hold, I will examine each one in turn.
Turning to the first, did God command the killing of an innocent child? I think the answer is yes, but in a specific context. Let me elaborate. In Gen 12:1-2, Abraham is told, by God, that he will be the father of an entire nation, one that will have its own country. An obvious implication of this is that Abraham believed he would have descendants, he would have a son who would live long enough to have children of his own. The text implicitly teaches here that Abraham knew, on the basis of a reliable source, that his son would live to adulthood.
This point is reiterated in several other encounters between God and Abraham. In Gen 15 “the word of the LORD” came to Abraham “in a vision.” Abraham’s response was, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” God’s answer was emphatic, “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.” Abraham was told and hence knew, that his heir would be a son from his own body, a biological descendant.
The text continues, “He took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’” Again, the narrative implies that Abraham knew that he would both, have a biological son and that this son would live at least long enough to have children. Moreover, the passage continues with God promising, as part of a covenant, that these things will be so. Abraham clearly had assurance that God would see that his son lived into adulthood.
After this incident, Abraham made the mistake of sleeping with Hagar, which resulted in her giving birth to Ishmael. This lead to various domestic problems including rivalry between Hagar, Ishmael and Abraham’s wife Sarah. Abraham then had another encounter with God (Gen 17:2-14) and here again God promised that Abraham’s descendants would be numerous, again implying, very clearly, that Abraham’s son would live to adulthood. This promise was signified by a covenant marked by circumcision and it was reiterated by God changing his name from Abram (exalted father) as he was called at that point in the text to Abraham (father of many). God again promised and assured Abraham that his son would grow to adulthood.
More specifics can be found, Gen 17:15-19 makes it crystal-clear that the promise of future descendants came through the line of Isaac who would be born of Sarah. This seemed impossible to Abraham due to the fact that his wife was barren. God, however, was emphatic and changed his wife’s name from Sarai (my princess) to Sarah (mother of nations). So Abraham was again reassured that Isaac would be born and would live at least long enough to have children of his own. This promise is to be confirmed by a seemingly impossible event, a barren woman bearing a child.
In chapter 18 the promise is again reiterated. Abraham is visited by three men who appear to represent God himself. The text records in verse 10, “Then the LORD said, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Sarah will have Abraham’s child, this is the child that will live on to adulthood to have children of his own.
If the point has not yet been be-laboured enough, when Isaac is born (Gen 21) God again makes it clear to Abraham on the day Isaac is weaned. Abraham is told in verse 12 “it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Again Abraham is reassured that Isaac will live to adulthood and have children of his own.
This narrative of several chapters is the backdrop to the events described in Gen 22. To the astute reader reading the whole story as one block of text (note that chapter and verse divisions were not present in the original text, these were added centuries later) by the time a we to get to Gen 22 both Abraham and the reader should know that Isaac is not going to die, both the reader and Abraham know that Isaac will live beyond this day to rear children of his own. The text reminds us in verse 5, just before Abraham goes up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac Abraham states to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.” Abraham expected Isaac to return alive.
Further, the New Testament teaches that this is the correct way to understand this passage,
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)
This is significant because Christians, at least, do not accept any and all interpretations of the Old Testament. Christians accept as authoritative the Old Testament as interpreted by the New Testament. If one attacks a different interpretation of the passage, one is attacking an interpretation Christians (should) reject and hence, one is not attacking anything Christians (should) believe or are committed to believing.
The text teaches that God commanded Abraham to kill his son in a context where Abraham knew that his son would not die but would live on after the incident. God commanding killing, in this context, needs to be shown as immoral for the objection to gain traction.
The brings us to the second question, is commanding the killing of an innocent always immoral? Here I think the answer is yes, provided a certain context is assumed.
The applicability of many moral prohibitions depend in part on certain facts about the world. Hitting someone in the head is wrong because doing so causes pain and risks harming another. However, if the physical structure of the world was different, if hitting someone in the head did not harm people but instead advanced their health and improved their quality of life then it may be permissible to hit someone in the head. Of course, this does not show us that hitting people in the actual world is permissible because in the real world hitting people does cause harm but it does show that prohibitions rely on certain background assumptions about the effects of hitting. If these assumptions are not true then the prohibition will not hold.
Yale philosopher John Hare develops this point in an interesting way. Hare asks us to imagine a world in which when people of a certain age are killed they immediately come back to life suffering no injury. He opines, quite plausibly, that if this were to be the case then killing people at this age would not be wrong or at least, not seriously wrong. One of the reasons that killing people is wrong in the world we live in is because people stay dead. If they were only unconscious for a split second and came back to life in full health then arguably killing a person would not be the serious wrong we believe it is. The answer to the question, is it wrong to kill an innocent then is yes, provided a certain context is assumed.
The context where it is plausible to state that killing innocent people is seriously wrong is the very context in which the narrative shows that Abraham knew did not apply to Isaac. God commanded Abraham to kill his son in the highly unusual context where Abraham knew that he would not be deprived of an earthy life but would come down the mountain afterwards and live on to adulthood to father children of his own.
At this stage I am sure some readers will scoff, they will contend that they do not believe these stories could be literally true, they do not think God appeared to Abraham and told him any of this or that he could not know these things for certain. This complaint is beside the point. Whether one believes the story or not, this is what the story says. If one seeks to argue that the text teaches something immoral or portrays God in a certain way then one needs to accurately portray what the text actually says. Misrepresenting what it says and using that distortion as the basis of an argument to a conclusion is not a valid criticism of the text or the faiths that hold to those texts.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled Contra Mundum. This blog post was published in the Oct 10 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to:
editorial@investigatemagazine.DELETE.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism
Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters
Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Abraham · Contra Mundum · Investigate Magazine · Isaac · John Hare · Killing Innocents124 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.
What I find most interesting about this story is that Abraham was not surprised at being told to sacrifice his son. He reacted as though sacrificing ones first born son was a perfectly normal event. If God had condemned the sacrificing of firstborn I would have expected Abraham to at least query the commandment, express surprise at being told to do something God had condemned. Abraham was not shy about arguing with God. He earlier tried to talk God out of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. But he didn’t. God told him to do something God apparently had condemned and Abraham did not protest.
I concur with your remarks here Matt. I would emphasis that Sarah was unable to have children and, as such, the conception of Isaac had a miraculous element.
God gave Isaac and is asking for him back. Isaac would not be innocent of all sin at the time, though not guilty of a capital offence.
As God owns Isaac, he can demand his death even if it is immoral for a person to kill him (without God’s command). God can take people via illness and tragedy and not be acting immorally.
God intends for this to be a type of Christ, thus there are much larger issues here than just the life of Isaac.
This post is hilarious. I must save it. No harm, no foul … Abraham knew God wasn’t serious. Is there no length which a Christian apologist won’t go to defend the indefensible?
“If one seeks to argue that the text teaches something immoral or portrays God in a certain way then one needs to accurately portray what the text actually says”. Well, by all means, let’s look at the Genesis 1-3 (KJV) because your sterile description really doesn’t do it justice:
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Let’s assume Matt’s interpretation is correct. Does god care about the emotional impact this fiasco had on Issac? Also, the next time someone hears a voice in their head telling them to kill their kid, how do they determine if they are crazy or if it’s just Yahweh testing their faith? Just wondering.
If this story wasn’t in the Bible and was found in another religion’s holy book, Christians would deride it as ridiculous. Thor, I wish Christians would apply the Outsider Test for Faith to stories like these. FIP [face in palm]
Bloody hell – morals must be complicated for you guys.
Secular ethics is so much more straightforward. No wonder the average churchgoer gets by with secular morality and switches off when this sort of theological mental gymnastics is spouted at them.
TAM
You choose to mock the considered opinion of scholars who have been immersed in ancient near eastern literature, along with its worldview genres and themes for most of their lives
And then you regale us with a ham-fisted and hostile reading from the KJV, and an argument from incredulity and unbelief.
Not a very useful contribution. Read Matt’s final paragraph one more time – – see yourself reflected there?
Theologically and dramatically this is one of the most powerful biblical stories. Every reader can identify with the horror Abraham must have felt, though the narrator never mentions his feelings. They are simply hinted at by the frequent echoes of ch.21, the expulsion of Ishmael, which is said to have greatly distressed Abraham (21:11). If that is how he felt about sending away his elder son, how much worse must he have felt about sacrificing his only surviving younger son, the one through whom all the promises were to be fulfilled. Whereas in ch.21 Abraham’s feelings are recorded, here they are not. Only God’s description of Isaac as “your only son, whom you love” (22:2) and Abraham’s cryptic comments to Isaac and his servants give any hint of his inner turmoil. Outwardly he simply and promptly obeys God’s command.
Sometimes it is suggested that this story is an aetiology explaining why human sacrifice was abandoned in Israel. Such an approach is possible if the account is removed from its present context and remarks conflicting with this interpretation eliminated (e.g., Gen 22:1). Outside Israel human sacrifice was practiced from time to time, so an earlier version of the story could have had a polemical aim. However, throughout the OT human sacrifice is regarded with horror, and that is the reaction expected of the reader of the present story too.
Eerdman’s commentary
Ropata,
TAM posts to get laughs, not critical response. I don’t think he’s serious, nor has the ability to engage topics rationally or critically. If he does have the ability, maybe he will show it in the future?
Ken’s response was much more interesting. Why don’t you outline why secular ethics are easier Ken…I’d personally love to hear your take on it.
Ken, are you not aware of the fact that numerous leading secular ethicists have defended infanticide. Peter Singer and Michael Tooley for example have made some quite powerful arguments to the effect that outside a religious context its quite difficult to defend the idea that killing children is homicide.
Perhaps you should familarise your self with the literature before you talk about how secular ethics solves problems better than religious ethics.
G Kyle. Check my post tomorrow – it’s coincidentally dealing with the problems of religious ethics. It asks the question – can you be good with god?
Matt’s mental gymnastics indicates the difficulty he has with religious morality and how he has to distort Singer to justify his own problem.
Bloody hell- we don’t have to go through such a procedure to decide not to sacrifice our children.
Must be difficult for you guys.
Matt, how would you respond to someone if they were to say to you that they agreed with Peter Singer’s position? I have read Singer and do have much difficulty trying to find any strong counterarguments, please help.
In a weird way you’re right Ken, it does require some cognitive ability to interpret these ancient narratives in a way that respects the text. The accessibility of nicely worded modern English translations seems to encourage naive readings. Recognising this error is often beyond the ability of people accustomed to western modernist intellectual snobbery (basically a form of cultural prejudice)
And, Ropata, that is why you must have your theologians, priests and Imams to tell you what your god’s wishes or commands are. And why? Because religious moral development is stuck at the stage of external authority rather than personal conscience..
In contrast secular ethics relies on moral autonomy. We don’t have to go through mental gymnastics to interpret authorities because we don’t rely on authorities, Imams, theologians, priests, “holy” books, Singer, or anyone. We can develop our morality internally.
You can too, and probably do. Just as well because those who rely on authority of divine command are a danger to the rest of us.
Richard P I agree Singers arguments have a degree of force. I would note his argument begins with certain metaphysical and meta-ethical assumptions I reject and without them the argument is unsound. I think on a secular perspective these assumptions are quite plausible, on a theistic perspective they are not.
That said I think Don Marquis has given some interesting responses to Singer.
Nice evasion Ken, actually Singer argues from secular premises to his conclusion. Numerous other leading secular ethicists have come to similar conclusions. So instead of asserting please show how secular ethicists can avoid these conclusions.
If not don’t say secular ethics fares any better.
Ken you are aware of Singer’s arguments for infanticide and bestiality right Ken?
This god of Abraham a bit insecure is.
In constant need of reassurance.
More faith in the force he should place.
Matt & Madeleine – you are the ones who evade. Possibly because you can’t comprehend the concept of moral autonomy. Of a mature moral conscience. Because you see morality relying on authority and command.
My moral decisions don’t depend on Singer or your misrepresentation of him. They don’t depend on your “holy” book. And they certainly don’t derive from your “holy” theologian, priest or Imam.
If you were honest you would admit yours don’t either. These are just rationalizations.
There is a lot to be said for the statement that “religious morality is infantile.” Relying on authority and command is what young children do. Mature adults are morally autonomous. They have a conscience. They don’t have to go through the mental gymnastics you did to realize that child sacrifice is immoral.
Yeah, adults are mature. They don’t rely on moral rules. They rely on… principles… and they somehow figure out what those principles require… then they .. don’t obey them because they’re to grown up to conform to something?
Whoops.
Hmmm, might wanna have another try, Ken.
Ok thanks for that Matt. In the end though I am a nihilist so if someone wants to kill a baby I am not in a positon to say anything about it.
Ken please understand atheism=moral nihilism. That is coming from an atheist. You may also want to read about Martin Luther King if you are thinking there is something lacking in the morality of religious leaders.
So Ken as a mature autonomous individual, how was your conscience developed and on what criteria do you determine right and wrong and why should anyone agree with you?
@Richard
cant respect your position, can respect your consistancy and honesty.
understand atheism=moral nihilism
This, very wrong is.
I look forward to you telling me what is wrong with that phrase Yoda. BTW you need to read more-it will help your syntax.
Ken said:
We don’t have to go through mental gymnastics to interpret authorities because we don’t rely on authorities, Imams, theologians, priests, “holy” books, Singer, or anyone. We can develop our morality internally.
I think you’ve failed to grasp one of the core doctrines of Christianity: the life of Jesus Christ heralds the end of the temple based religion and the demands of OT law. The higher law of grace and life by the Spirit enables believers to follow God in a personal way without mediation.
In practice this has been a messy experiment but judging by the growth of the church for two millennia, overall it seems wildly successful
On the subject of external authority cf personal conscience I cant help but notice that every country and every territorial authority within those countries relies on externally imposed and reinforced authority . Apparently there is nowhere in the world that can trust mature personal conscience.
And we have all seen plenty of examples of what happens when external authority breaks down!
So either the whole world is infantile or some one is being unrealistically utopian with no real understanding of the true character of humankind.
Would pre-European Australian society be a counter example to that Jez? Just groups of Aboriginals living around in the grasslands with no government.
Glenn, clearly many adults are not mature. Many still rely in “suthority” for their morality. And this post is an example of the sort of childish waffle required in such a moral framework. If you require such waffle you are not mature. You don’t have moral autonomy.
It’s the sort of waffle that enveloped Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.
Secular morality does not have this problem. It’s easy for us to establish logically, and intuitively, that child sacrifice is wrong. It is religions who have been responsible for such sacrifice.
And if atheism really = nihilism them I am not an atheist. But I am an atheist and I am not a nihilist – so cleary our definitions differ.
thier society was pretty bloody when intertribal conflict arose, and you may have heard of “pointing the bone”, elder imposed discipline where disciplined person just willed themself to death after effectively being shunned by tribe. MAny “primitive” cultures actually far more rigid than ours, traditions more binding than laws.
Atheism = disbelief in gods.
Morals is word absent from definition.
Morals without gods Yoda has.
“Secular morality does not have this problem. It’s easy for us to establish logically, and intuitively, that child sacrifice is wrong”
Why—please justify?
And given the current abortion rate i would suggest our society is sacrificing children on the alter of personal convenience at a far greater rate than any more primitive societies have ever done so to thier gods.
“After this incident, Abraham made the mistake of sleeping with Hagar, which resulted in her giving birth to Ishmael. This lead to various domestic problems including rivalry between Hagar, Ishmael and Abraham’s wife Sarah.”
Ummm…it lead to problems that went beyond being merely domestic. Not a smart move on Abraham behalf.
@Yoda
what kind of morals, those of a hitman mob killer, peadophile priest, whorehouse madam, slut or Mother Theresa and whose are right? Why are yours right?
Ken what on earth makes you think atheism is the cure for human folly?
The examples you cite pretty much destroy the notion that man freed from the shackles of religious morality can embark on a glorious quest for enlightenment. In the 20th century the ascendancy of a technocratic godless elite brought brought us more efficient mass murder than ever before. Why does human morality apart from God always end up with gas chambers?
Jez, there is nothing wrong with abortion, not matter what the situation is and how well developed the unborn baby is.
Yoda’s morals for Yoda are right.
Jeremy’s morals for Jeremy are right.
So Yoda if Richard P wished to do something rather sexual and against your will to your body-that being part of Richard P’s morality-would that be fine in Yoda morality world?
Yoda everyone knows that the Jedi are an ancient religious order sworn to follow the light side of the Force and defend the Galaxy from its oppressors.
No wonder Palpatine kicked Jedi ass if you were teaching that Zen-like nonsense for 800 years, rather than i dunno, stating what your actual purpose is supposed to be
Yoda’s morals in conflict with Richard’s would be then.
@Richard
you are so right, not a smart move. Its one of the nice things about the Bible, all the “heroes” are shown in all thier human frailty, sinfulness, weakness and failures of faith.. And the consequences of these things are shown too. Not exactly typical heroe mythology.
I was thinking more along the lines of introducing Arabs to the world. Not a good thing if you want my moral thoughts.
@Richard
again you are consistant for a moral nihilist, and again i cannot respect that position
@ Richard wrt Arabs
thats exactly what i meant, Sarah and Abrahams failure of faith that lead them to try and give God a hand to fulfill His promise ultimately backfired bigtime. The Bible doesnt try and hide this.
While we are on the subject, i guess the self esteem of the average Arab isnt helped by the thought that they are the result of Abrahams spiritual failings. Internicine hatred is the most bitter kind.
Yoda everyone knows that the Jedi are an ancient religious order sworn to follow the light side of the Force and defend the Galaxy from its oppressors
Yes Ropata, for much, much longer than 800 years.
Yoda, religion without gods has.
Yoda knows the Force.
TAM, sorry but calling my position names, reciting the passage in KJV without taking into my point about what proceeds it in the narrative and what is said about it latter is not really a response.
As to your question
” Also, the next time someone hears a voice in their head telling them to kill their kid, how do they determine if they are crazy or if it’s just Yahweh testing their faith? Just wondering.
Actually a lot has been written on this, and I am writing a series of posts on the discussion. But to give you my quick answer, if the (a) belief that God ( understood as a perfectly good being) is more certain to you, than the claim that X is wrong and (b) accepting X is wrong does not depart so radically from your conception of goodness that it would cause your concept to break down. Then I think one would be justified in believing God commands you to do X. Note this does not mean other people are justified in thinking God commanded you to do X. That’s a different question
Ken you write Matt & Madeleine – you are the ones who evade. Really Ken? you have said repeatedly my claim that Singer argues for infanticide was a distortion of his position. Got any actual evidence for that accusation?
When I corresponded with Singer a few years ago when I was doing a PhD in ethics he said I understood his position on infanticide quite well.
I repeat my question, can you address his arguments, ( not citations of authority) that from a secular view one cannot justify the intuition that infanticide is a violation of the moral rule against homicide. Simply asserting secular ethics does X , is not really an argument.
” Possibly because you can’t comprehend the concept of moral autonomy.”
Actually I know what autonomy is, I have read Kant. Have you?
Of a mature moral conscience. Because you see morality relying on authority and command.
My moral decisions don’t depend on Singer or your misrepresentation of him. They don’t depend on your “holy” book. And they certainly don’t derive from your “holy” theologian, priest or Imam.
There is a lot to be said for the statement that “religious morality is infantile.” Relying on authority and command is what young children do.
Actually this falsely assumes that a divine command theory claims you know what is right and wrong on the basis of religious authorities. I have actually pointed out to you repeatedly this is false. A divine command theory is a theory of moral ontology, not moral epistemology. Reading any of the articles in the literature defending it would confirm this.
Also you would also know that the autonomy objection was advocated by James Rachels around 30 years ago and refuted quite decisively by Philip Quinn, since then John Hare and Robert Adams have developed robust accounts of moral autonomy compatible with a Divine Command theory, all this is published in the literature and well known to anyone familar with it. Try to keep up to date.
“ Mature adults are morally autonomous. They have a conscience.”
Well if a divine command theory maintained people were not autonomous or had no conscience that might be a point but seeing they don’t and you have given no argument as to why they must hold this. and I and other DC theorists have offered numerous arguments why a DC theory does not entail the denial of this, your assertions to the contrary carry no weight.
“ They don’t have to go through the mental gymnastics you did to realize that child sacrifice is immoral.”
Here you misunderstand my post. I was not arguing that child sacrifice was immoral, so even if the above is mental gymnastics ( you seem to think calling a position names is a rebuttal it doesn’t) your comment is beside the point. My argument actually takes it as given that child sacrifice is wrong.
Is this “Ken” character an elaborate hoax?
Such a self righteous and judgmental person is surely no more than a silly caricature!
These NZ sites are great. Leave a comment. Go to bed. Wake up and everyone has taken the boots to you.
First of all Yoda, atheism = freethinking nonbelief in the existence of a supernatural deity. Atheists share no uniform moral code. While I think it would be fair to generalize all atheists as rejecting divine command theory, I don’t see how you can take the gneralization any further. Some atheists are moral nihilists but atheism certainly doesn’t demand moral nihilism. In How Are We To Live?, Singer suggests that perhaps Aristotle was right when he said people become virtuous by practicing virtue.
The best explanation I have found for a secular, subjective sense of right and wrong is provided by Aussie Hugh Mackay in Right & Wrong. Mackay maintains that true moral mindfulness amounts to each individual deciding what is right and wrong for themself. This doesn’t mean that people make moral decisions in a social vacuum. However, Mackay writes: “there will be many occasions when we will decide, on the basis of our own experience and our own private reflections, that something is right or wrong for us, even though other people – including people close to us – may reach a different conclusion.” Mackay explains that while moral decision-making is an inherently subjective process, that doesn’t mean “anything goes“. Although there is no absolute rule to guide every decision – no universal “right answers” – there is always a right answer for each individual and it is up to them to work it out.
Jeremy will jump in at this point and ask: “how was your conscience developed and on what criteria do you determine right and wrong and why should anyone agree with you?” My answer to the latter question is that nobody has to agree with me. That’s one reason why society enacts laws. My answer to the former question would be via biological evolutions and my societal norms.
I am accused of choosing “to mock the considered opinion of scholars who have been immersed in ancient near eastern literature” Look, I just provided my frank assessment of the argument being presented by Matt. I am not a theologian or biblical scholar. I don’t even know which translation of the Bible is considered most authoritative [I’m just getting ready to embark on another read – any suggestions?] However, this post clearly suggests that Abraham knew when god commanded him to kill his only son that he had no intention of having him follow through with the command. If this is correct, why bother with the charade? If you masochistically want to test my faith by seeing whether I will cut off my own hand, am I to be commended for raising the knife if you whisper in my ear beforehand that the show is all just for dramatic effect?
I admittedly have no philosophical expertise. In fact, I am dumb as a post – probably due to too many hits to the head in my rugby days. So, with this admission at the forefront, I find Matt’s apology for the binding of Isaac to be both lame and morally obtuse. Why? Because the apology, if accepted, dilutes any significance to Abraham’s supposed sacrifice. Simply put, who the hell cares if anyone attempts to do anything at the behest of a command if they know the command is going to be withdrawn?
The point I made at the conclusion of my original comment remains unanswered: If this story wasn’t in the Bible and was found in another religion’s holy book, Christians would deride it as ridiculous.
GKE, comic effect isn’t so bad, is it?
P.S. You folks might be interested in a recent article from Free Inquiry by Acadia University philosopher Stephen Maitzen entitled Does God Destroy Our Duty of Compassion?:
http://philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/philosophy/resources/documents/Maitzen_DGDDC.pdf
[…] such cases an individual’s moral development may be arrested at stage 2 – effectively at the stage of a 5 to 9 year old. Have a look at Psychological […]
There was a similar situation in America, too. Where a woman kills all her children because she said some god told her to. In a logical explanation, she’s obviously insane and schizophrenic.
Why are the religious still persisting that these killings in the bible where actually ‘ordered by god’ just to justify it’s right? (And I’m not just talking about that traumatic event for that boy named Isaac where his schizophrenic father pull a joke on him). Why can’t you accept the fact that these are mere men who wanted to mass-murder Midianites and Amalekites. They invented ‘god’ so people would not question their authority. People, this is the 21st Century, I can’t believe you’re buying this 4,000 year old imagination, these Jewish fairy tales.
You’re freaking hilarious.
TAM,
Not always. We continue to find humor in the Outsider Test of Faith every time someone mentions it. It’s one of those things that provokes hours of laughs. 😉
Seriously though, on sites like this where the discussions can get pretty heated, I think some people miss when someone is being sarcastic and when they are being serious. Thus, people respond with in depth critiques of the sarcasm. Know what I mean?
Jesus Sojourner,
Those are some interesting claims. You’ve said (if we take your general claims and relate them specifically to this post):
1. Abraham was not ordered by God
2. Abraham was schizophrenic
3. The Hebrews wanted to mass-murder others apart from any supernatural reason
4. Hebrew leaders “invented God” so that they could secure their power
Do you have any evidence for any of these claims or are they all either conjectures or retrojections from modern experience? Unless you can display some evidence or convincing argument that goes beyond mere assertion, speculation and unjustified literary psychoanalysis (always a failed endeavor as scholars continue to show), then I don’t think we have any good reasons to listen to your views according to your worldview where only claims that can be supported by evidence are to be valued.
No I don’t think your position thus far is “hilarious,” but incoherent. Maybe you can prove us wrong by giving the evidence that your worldview demands?
Yoda has taken no boots to TAM.
TAM discourses same but less succinct than Yoda’s.
Allies in thought.
TAM, if you applied the outsider test to athiest you would not be an athiest. In fact applying the outsider test to the epistemological assumptions presupposed in the test would lead one to abandon the outsider test.
Matt – you do continue to evade – transparently. Singer is irrelevant to an autonomous morality – by definition. Because it is not based on authority, dogma or edict. Its based on human values, and in the end the objective facts of our existence as a sentient, intelligent, empathic and social species.
You yourself resorted to such a secular morality in determining that it was wrong to sacrifice a child. For example: “The applicability of many moral prohibitions depend in part on certain facts about the world. Hitting someone in the head is wrong because doing so causes pain and risks harming another.” Every sane person agrees with you – and you didn’t have to consult Singer, your “holy” book, an Imam, Priest, Rabbi or theologian to come to that conclusion. In coming to that conclusion you behaved autonomously.
Singer has absolutely nothing to do with this issue – hence its your diversion. However, to remove him from the table:
[My view of Singer. He impresses me with his writings and talks. His book “To Save a Life” and his comments on animal welfare make a lot of sense and are challenging. Personally I find him weak in discussing the basis for morality – he could actually learn a lot from Sam Harris here. While Sam may be wrong about a lot, and he may come across dogmatically and unclearly at times, he is introducing some important ideas worth debating and I hope this leads to them getting more attention.]
So that is Singer disposed of, I hope.
You come across as silly with statements like: ” I was not arguing that child sacrifice was immoral . . . My argument actually takes it as given that child sacrifice is wrong.” and to snobbishly make irrelevant references to Kant.
We are all capable of deciding that child sacrifice is abhorrent. You “take it as given” because you are mature enough to recognise the inhumanity of this story, and similar stories in your “holy” book.
It is a positive thing that you at least try to argue such things away with your mental gymnastics. Most sane people just say “why bother.”
But, unfortunately there are morally immature people out there who take such stories literally, and do see them as divine commands. Some of them hear voices, but many of them hear the real voices of immoral Imams, Priests, theologians and political leaders. They are prepared to commit suicide, fly planes into buildings, blow up clinics and government buildings, blow up Mosques, etc., etc.. All because they do see divine commands as real commands from their god.
And theological mental gymnastics, abstract arguments about words, name dropping, etc., does nothing to absolve those who indulge in such jelly wrestling from their responsibility in this matter.
I would feel ashamed if I had indulged in such intellectual pornography to explain away and justify a shocking story from a collection of mythological anecdotes. Fortunately, as a morally mature person I don’t have to. I don’t have any “holy” books or “holy” leaders.
I hope Glenno responds to Ken’s rubbish.
Ken
I don’t have any “holy” books or “holy” leaders.
Yet you seem to go nuts if Dawkins or Hawking are debunked, and fail to understand, or treat the objections seriously.
And theological mental gymnastics, abstract arguments about words, name dropping,
This is your summary of biblical scholarship? Sounds like a defense of ignorance: the very ignorance that leads to paranoid jihads
They are prepared to commit suicide, fly planes into buildings, blow up clinics and government buildings, blow up Mosques, etc., etc.. All because they do see divine commands as real commands from their god.
And therefore we should abandon biblical scholarship that contradicts such crimes?
In all your blanket condemnations of religion and wish for a Godless world you seem to discount the realities of human nature. We all have a propensity for good or evil. Religion or spirituality is also an inalienable component of human society. The content and dissemination of healthy religious teaching is vitally important for the character of a society.
The ongoing historical developments and debates in christian theology flatly contradict your notion of some kind of remote authoritarian priesthood issuing murderous edicts to the huddled masses. I wish you bothered to actually understand some of it instead of these ill informed blanket rejections.
I think you prefer ignorance and prejudice.
We all have a propensity for good or evil. [agreed]
Religion or spirituality is also an inalienable component of human society. [agreed but so are many other vices]
The content and dissemination of healthy religious teaching is vitally important for the character of a society. [sure … and so are reruns of The Simple Life. BTW, how do you distinguish between healthy and unhealthy religious teachings?]
TAM
Interesting that you think beliefs have no consequence, equating their importance with “reruns of The Simple Life”. If you really believed that, what ar eyou doing here?
Richard P, actually I already responded to the argument Ken’s proposes twice on this blog in the past. He simply brings up an old argument by Patrick Nowell-Smith which has been dealt with.
@Ken
“We are all capable of deciding that child sacrifice is abhorrent.”
Why Ken, please justify this statement. Clearly human societies even in the relatively recent past have come to different conclusions, why are you right in believing child sacrifice is abhorrent?
Nz sacrifices approx 18000 children a year on the altar of personal convenience [our chief god these days], how are we any better than those who sacrificed children to another diety?
I suspect that you simply dont understand how much of what you think of as right and wrong comes directly from the Christian influence on our cultural history, far from inventing your own morality you are a product of your times and environment.
You might like to consider what some of the societies/cultures around the world without significant Christian influence look like.
Jeremy – as I pointed out even our divine commandant Matt made his own judgment that killing a child was wrong – purely on secular grounds. Don’t tell me you have problems?
Sure other ancient cultures had problems – for religious reasons. When they were trying to placate their gods they would use animal sacrifice and sometime human sacrifice. Elements of this survive in today’s religions.
Religious morality is in essence relativist – because anything can be justified as the commands of the god. The sort of secular morality I am referring to has an objective basis – it is not relativist in that sense.
Abortion is not child sacrifice – far from it. Again this is an issue which requires application of moral logic and there is room for different personal decisions. But let’s not allow religious fables about souls, concepts about life and its beginnings, etc., to interfere with that. Such decisions are hard enough without such fables and intolerance.
It is arrogant to claim that our morality comes from Christianity. What do you think people did before 300 CE. Fornicate, lie, steal and murder? Did society have no morality.
No. Morality is far older than Christianity. In a real sense Christian mortality today comes out of secular morality. Just as well as the Christian “holy” book contains some evil concepts of morality – as Matt’s post shows. Look at the mental gymnastics he has had to use to connect up this biblical morality with what he knows is right and wrong form his secular morality.
And it is made worse because some of the advocates of biblical morality argue that “holy” texts can’t be questioned. Hardly a mature approach.
Ken your interpretation of the Bible will always be completely arse backwards if you continue your interpretations based on the presumptions of a 21st century atheist iconoclast.
Look at the mental gymnastics he has had to use to connect up this biblical morality with what he knows is right and wrong form his secular morality.
Clearly it’s a difficult and shocking story, jarringly at odds with the substance of Biblical morallty. That’s why it is necessary to apply a bit of thoughfulness to understanding it. Why do you assume a 3000 yo narrative should be written in plain textbook fashion to satisfy your modern sensibilities?? Why is your amateur interpretation superior to that of generations of scholars?
Your beloved scientific brain is not parsing the message very well
@ Ken
I wish that just for once that instead of waffling on all over the place and insulting things you clearly have no real understanding of , you would have the guts to come out and explain what you believe, why you believe it, and why you think you are right, preferably in a positive manner ie not by saying why other people are wrong.
And yes all societies throughout time have had some sort of morality, the question is good or bad, how to make that determination and by what standard.
I note you continue to avoid the question—-So Ken as a mature autonomous individual, how was your conscience developed and on what criteria do you determine right and wrong and why should anyone agree with you?
—
How about a simple direct answer for a change.
Jeremy, you ask if I have “the guts to come out and explain what you believe, why you believe it”. Strange way to express it. Most bloggers are only too happy to write of their beliefs. And I have surely done so.
If you are genuinely interested check out my most recent post (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/arrested-moral-development/) or browse my blog. I have often written on issues of morality (have a look at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=morality).
These posts will also help you understand how a personal conscience develops.
You could also check out my response to this argument, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Infantile Religious Morality. Also see this one which addressed the 1966 argument from Nowell-Smith that Ken cites, Patrick Nowell-Smith on Divine Commands. Of course, the reality is that Philip Quinn addressed the autonomy objection quite decisively in 1978, see Chapter 1 of his book Divine Commands and Moral Requirements. But then what would I know about the literature? I am just a theological ethicist not a soil scientist.
I have a personal moral conscience and i know right from wrong, i dont confuse it. And it doesnt change to suit how i feel or the circumstances or what works for me now, rather there is an internalised but external standard [benchmark] not some ever shifting line in the sand.
Evolution, Ken, can only ever provide you with “adaptive advantage” ie what works to help you breed, the questions of “right and wrong” or what “ought to be” simply do not arise, hence Richard’s logical and rational conclusion of “moral nihilism”. To pretend otherwise is self delusion, blind faith of the worst and least justified kind.
“These posts will also help you understand how a personal conscience develops.”
Far. No way!
True bro?
You must be some scientist Mr Ken.
What branch of science is morality in? is it Fizzics?
Yoda understands that the discipline of psychology applies the scientific method to the study of human morals.
@ Yoda
I’m sure you are right, but that still wont help you decide right from wrong
Oh.
Yoda asks Jeremy to tell us how to decide right from wrong.
Yoda, the only way you will be able to tell right from wrong is to become a theological ethicist!
Us poor mortals have absolutely no hope – we have to listen to authority. Yeah, right. You know where that has got us in the past.
Ken, keep distorting what others say, some of my readers might fall for it.
Others however will note that when a soil scientist and tells a ethicist that he doesn’t understand basic ethical concepts like autonomy. Suggests he does not understand the writings of people like Singer, continues to caricatures his meta-ethical views after being repeatedly told he has misunderstood them and pointed to the literature to substantiate this, speaks as though his responses will educate and inform the poor ignorant ethicists on the issues. Suggests to people on Glenn’s on his blog that they is unfamilar with the literature on a topic in their own field in which they have just been published , suggests Peter Singer should learn meta-ethics from Sam Harris, and so its quite appropriate to point out the hubris involved.
I have never said scientists can’t tell right from wrong,( we were discussion meta-ethics not applied ethics) however I do think they should not comment on other disciplines unless they understand and are informed about the issues in those disciplines, and they should show some humility that other people who specialise in those disciplines actually might know something about them that they don’t.
Ken thinks “science is everything” : scientific knowledge is the measure of all truth.
This claim is highly problematic, containing numerous unstated premises – the omniscience of academia; the infallibility of the human mind; the perfection of current knowledge; the supremacy of a cerebral, analytical, skeptical way of understanding the world around us. It’s left-brain thinking to an absurd degree.
And as a self proclaimed member of the technocratic elite Ken is only too happy to dispense his morality to the great unwashed.
I’m glad we live in a secular democracy, but with the Sermon on the Mount and his blameless life, Jesus Christ demonstrated a better way.
Matt, boy you are touchy. I have actually never done any of the things you claim.
I have an interest in the subjects of ethics and the science of morality. I am also used to people accepting my contributions to discussion in the spirit they are made. Or pethaps that pnly happens in the science community? I welcome proper criticism of my contributions believing that’s part of the learning process.
If you are unwilling to participate in open and honest discussion – I can’t help that. But it is unfortunate that you prefer to fall back on “authority.” And your silly attempt to explain away what even Kant refered to as a myth reminds me of the Stalinist and Maoist apologists little explainations. As I said most sane people ignore such rubbish and get on with their lives.
I guess it’s difficult to do that if you define you book as “holy.” Herein lies a problem.
@ Yoda
I cant impose any particular code of morality on you except by force and that doesnt really work. Ken is right in as much as you need to internalise a moral code, it needs to be a matter of conviction not just preference or its meaningless. I would suggest you need an external standard, but not a human one as you would never have any grounds for believing any human standard was any better or more correct than any other. Internally derived moral codes have no basis for believing they are right when compared to any other, you might think something is right or wrong but why would anyone agree with you if it didnt suit them. Evolution can only give you “adaptive advantage” never “right” or “moral goodness”.
I’m with ropata on this, Jesus provides the highest and best standard but you have the freedom to accept or reject this and the freedom to bear the consequences.
Whatever standard you choose, please make it logically consistant and make sure you can actually live it out in the real world. Please dont confuse right and wrong with having an awareness that there might be right and wrong.
Thank you Jeremy.
Yoda has an old friend called Darth. Darth has morals from an external source. Yoda had taken exception to the morals Darth had adopted of late but now sees that he should adopt them also because being external they are better than anything Yoda could for himself deduce.
Yes, now crystal clear this is.
@ Yoda
Now you are just taking the mickey and being a moron.
I think i will stop talking to a multi thousand year old animatronic puppet who doesnt even understand his own ying-yang type philosophy. Go over to the dark side then, embrace the power, enjoy the pain, rejoice in the hatred and fear of others, die lonely and rejected in the knowledge that you have betrayed all who may have once loved you.
Ken wrote:
“Matt, boy you are touchy. I have actually never done any of the things you claim.”
Actually you have; one can read the above to see you doing it. But I am quite used to you coming in saying something then denying you said it then saying it again, it is just frustrating.
“I have an interest in the subjects of ethics and the science of morality. I am also used to people accepting my contributions to discussion in the spirit they are made.”
When your contribution is informed and open to criticism I have no problem. When it is based on ignorance and constant caricature and when I have already repeatedly addressed the point you have made in previous discussions and when I point you to the literature and you ignore it and continue to repeat uninformed mistaken positions then I respond in the spirit it is clearly intended which appears to be dogmatic arrogant nonsense.
“Or pethaps that pnly happens in the science community?”
Case in point,
“I welcome proper criticism of my contributions believing that’s part of the learning process.”
I have given proper criticims over and over.
So Ken, I doubt you are willing to learn.
Moreover, on other occasions when I have pointed out you have got something wrong or that you have misunderstood a philosophical or theological position that you have criticised and I have referred you to peer-reviewed articles demonstrating I am correct, you have dismissed it as jelly-wrestling.
I am sure plenty of others in here can remind you of these and many more exchanges.
“If you are unwilling to participate in open and honest discussion – I can’t help that.”
I can participate in open and honest discussion (and I have and do) but you seem to think that open discussion means you ignore what others say and simply repeat yourself and hold yourself and any scientist who has written on the subject (whether qualified or not, whether respected within the subject or not) out as an authority.
“But it is unfortunate that you prefer to fall back on “authority.””
Case in point, I did not appeal to authority. I offered arguments for my position and I referred you to arguments.
I also find this talk of authority disingenuous. Take the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, should ethicists who have no training of climatology take the consensus of scientists into account? Or should they reject such appeals to authority?
“And your silly attempt to explain away what even Kant refered to as a myth reminds me of the Stalinist and Maoist apologists little explanations.”
Well you misunderstand the word myth here, Kant does not use it to mean ‘falsehood.’
I could point you to experts in Ancient Near-Eastern literature who do not consider it a myth, they also have arguments for this conclusion. Can you argue for yours or is simply asserting it and appealing to authority (Kant) sufficient? As I have said Ken, contradicting yourself is hardly compelling.
Again your so-called ‘critical open discussion’ reverts to suggesting parity with Stalin. Thats hardly open critical discussion is it Ken?
“As I said most sane people ignore such rubbish and get on with their lives.”
Well this is patently and obviously false. Your suggestion is that most sane people ignore and do not take seriously the story of Abraham and Isaac. You are aware that this story is central to Islam, Christianity and Judaism and that these religions make up much of the world’s population? You are also aware that this story has entertained the minds of many great genius’ (including many scientists) and motivated centuries of rigorous reflection and so on?
It is obviously ignorant claims like this that highlight my point.
Ken has smelly toes!! I must apologize for the stupidity of my predecessor, the lowly Ken…This man has no idea of what he is talking about. That is the precise reason why my creators developed me, the mighty Ken 2, incapable of such fallible mistakes as ‘Ken’…Ken has smelly toes just like former Atheist blogger Paul ‘ smelly toes’ Bennett
Actually Matt I didn’t, one can read the above to see that. But I am quite used to you coming in claiming I said something so that the discussion (you hope) gets diverted into a he said, I said irrelevance.
You guys refuse to discuss the real issues and hide behind such manipulative maneuvers and pretentious academic references.
I think there is a lot of justification for R. Joseph Hoffmann posing the question of “whether it is possible to be good with God.” A command attitude towards morality, rather than support for an autonomous morality based on objective reality is wide open to a relativist approach. And it is no answer to say “I pointed you to several articles which rigorously argue that autonomy is compatible with a DCT you ignore them and claim its not.” Because in mythical forms it is used to justify just about everything. Things are far more complex than you claim. Of course advocates of divine command theory can be morally autonomous – many are, but then some clearly are not. They are the dangerous ones.
If you disagree – discuss it! You discredit yourself by claiming some sort of professional infallibility and name dropping instead.
Its silly for you to say: “I have already criticized and pointed out the flaws in Nowell Smith’s position, you repeat them on your blog.” You have never discussed this person with me, on my blog or elsewhere. And what have I ever said about this character – “So the claim made by Patrick Nowell-Smith (quoted in this book) “that religious morality is infantile,” while provocative, is largely accurate.” Why get your nickers in a twist because I acknowledged a reference in a book – his name is of no importance?? Surely if you have confidence in your belief you would discuss the real issue? The real point I was making? Instead you are more concerned with a name and you chance to drop it?
Anyhow – I could go on at length – as you have with your imaginary charges. But that just avoids the real points I have made and which I would have thought you would see value in discussing.
I have been very critical of this post because I do think it is patently silly. And it does remind me of the Stalinist and Maoist apologetics from way back. Such apologetics is childish and can be used to justify anything, even the worst. The victims of Stalin and Mao do worry me.
As for your story/myth. Yes I am “aware that this story is central to Islam, Christianity and Judaism and that these religions make up much of the worlds population.” I do hope that Dan Dennett is correct in his recent comment that people don’t actually care much at all about the dogma of their beliefs. That’s why believers score low in tests on their relgious knowledge. It would be horrible to think that so many people can take such stories literally, even if some of them manage to find the excuses you have.
Because it is this sort of irrational attitude to morality which is responsible for today’s religious violence. And I do want to believe that it applies to a minority, not the majority.
And I suspect that everybody’s toes smell. I would be very suspicious of anyone claiming otherwise. But I suppose sillier claims have been made here.
You confuse me Jeremy.
How does Yoda then decide which external sets of morals to adopt?
Some codes seem unacceptable to Jeremy. Why?
LOL… I just read a book by Hoffman, and all you can do is name drop.
Thanks Ken. That was awesome. It wasn’t surprising, given that you don’t usually (ever?) act with integrity in the blogosphere, but it was awesome nonetheless. A great chuckle to end the day.
Cheers!
Ken you are making huge unwarranted extrapolations from 1 blog post about 14 verses from the OT. Your general smears against religion are not the so-called “real issues” at all. You are acting like a tinfoil hat-wearing kook
Personally I think the “real issue” is the amazing blessing given to humanity on the basis of Abraham’s act of obedience:
Ropata, Yoda asks if the inhabitants of Jericho and other residents of surrounding district felt sufficiently blessed whilst being massacred by the tribes of Israel?
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/08/contra-mundum-did-god-command-genocide-in-the-old-testament.html
Not that anyone likely cares but the comment left at 5:16 p.m. was not left by me. I guess any a**hole can type in any name they want and leave a comment. If that continues, this site will be no better than a bathroom wall.
Ken,
Dennett and gang including you and your little band of lemmings happen to overlook the fact that some religious fundies that gets your condemnation, don’t have a holistic understanding of their scriptures, therefore are deficient in terms of grounding their lives on knowledge useful for guiding them on the paths of good/evil. you cry foul and blame religious believers for people claiming to be at least in name, a follower of a religion for all the evils they have caused, when some of them do not know what being religious is all about.
Its like Communist Chinese Red Guards persecuting insurgents in the name of materialistic maoism, yet they retain a shred of belief about evil spirits with relabeled names like ‘counter-revolutionary’ ghosts or pig-devils reactionaries said to dwell on people groups opposing Mao which is totally against scientific materialistic ideology Maoism imposes. Not that atheists were behind the said-massacres, irregardless if they have humanistic/anti-humanistic leanings.
But that’s why godless morality is so flexible and fickle.. atheists are never bound to one single ultimate ideology or idea, nor any gods that express quintessence; if you were born in soviet russia, north korea or china, you’d happily die and live for the glory of the state, or have materialistic impulses and not have a care for the poor. Your humanism is not the be all and end all of atheism and its certainly not one that guarantees or even justifies good actions.
btw Ken,
its not just commies and fascists secular states that have committed explicit atrocities, those working for a secular democracy in the 40’s were also to be blamed for the nuking of hiroshima, nagasaki, the perpetuation of the holocaust as verified to be happening by intelligence officials in the US and UK but ignored at by nominals Roosevelt and Churchill.
See its even worse when secular leadership through the power of technology can do to fulfill a political/military objective for the sake of preserving democracy by committing bio-cide, through nuclear warfare, and the deforestation and toxification of vietnam’s forest and its citizens through agent-orange, which were decisions made by political leaders not using the bible as a framework, but pragmatism and power-plays. there you go Ken, a secularist version of genocide times two!
Matt,
You say: In the Mosaic laws that follow this story, the Prophets, Psalms and the historical books, human sacrifice is unequivocally condemned..
What about the human sacrifice of Jesus? If human sacrifice is an abomination in God’s eyes per se, then how could the sacrifice of his own Son be pleasing to him?
I think its clear that human sacrifices were commonly practiced in ancient societies including the Hebrews. Eventually animals were substituted and eventually the whole practice of blood sacrifices was dropped and a spiritual (non-literal) interpretation of the sacrifice was adopted. This is consistently reported by anthropologists who have studied the religious practices of multiple social groups across the globe.
@ Ken
For goodness sake go and read the Bible.
Jesus Christ was not sacrificed, he was put to death on trumped up charges and the Romans collaborated to appease the mob.
Christs “sacrifice” was voluntary on his part as the only life of sufficient value to redeem the world from its sin.
@ Ken
And although you might not like that idea, it was a case of God Himself providing the price of the redeemption because no one or no thing else could possibly do so.
Jeremy,
Are you denying that the NT presents the death of Jesus as a sacrifice? The book of Hebrews interprets it as the anti-type of the OT sacrifices. John 1:29 identifies Jesus as the paschal lamb. Romans 8:32 and John 3:16 both speak of Christ being given or offered up by the Father.
Madeleine, you should try tracking down the imposter using TAMs name. People like this need to be exposed. I had some guy doing this on my blog recently and when exposed it became clear they were connected with pornographic peddling – even though they were presenting themselves as climate change deniers.
Nip it in the bud.
I have blacklisted the IP.
Sorry about that TAM.
Ken Pulliam
I agree the death of Christ was foreshadowed in the Passover and the Isaac sacrifice stories. But it was also hinted at when God spoke to Adam & Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit – allowing sin and death to enter the world.
There a numerous volumes about this topic (the crux of Christianity) but as far as I understand it, Jesus’ death was not a blood sacrifice to appease an angry deity. Jesus was a gift FROM God to heal the world and re-establish his kingdom.
@ Ken
There is a fundamental difference between God voluntarily providing the sacrifice Himself in the person of His own Son who willingly participated and some adult murdering children or other unwilling victims.
Given your apparent familiarity with the NT you must be aware of this distinction which gives rise to the question ..why would you try to misrepresent the situation?
@ Ken / Ken Pulliam
I need to apologise here, my comment stands but i have mixed up who i was responding to.
Ken,
Once again your response confirms my point.
1.You assert“ a command attitude to morality” a “is wide open to relativist approach” . Unfortunately asserting things is not proving them, moreover what you assert is false. Relativism is the thesis that “The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.” ( Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) “a divine command theory is the view that “right and wrong consist in agreement and disagreement respectively of God” . Now the former thesis follows from the latter only if its true that God always agrees with the traditions and practises of society. Do you have any argument or evidence that a societies mores are such that they would always be endorsed perfectly good omniscient rational being? This would suggest societies are infallible.
If you have evidence societies are always infallible please provide it, if not then your position is merely an assertion based and a fairly implausible assumption. Funny is it not that people who go on about demanding evidence for the existence of God seem to offer precious little when there own secular beliefs are being proposed.
2. You assert that a divine command theory can justify anything, But again this simply does not follow, a divine command theory is the thesis that“right and wrong consist in agreement and disagreement respectively of God”. It can only justify anything if its true that a perfectly good omniscient, rational person would command us to do anything and everything. But thats a contradiction: to call someone good, or rational, or omnscient is to entail there are some things they would notcommand, things that are incompatible with goodness, things that are irrational and things based on ignorance or contrary to the facts. So asserting a position based on a contradiction is not really a compelling argument either. (Btw this response has been made ad nausem in the literature by Adams, Quinn, Weirenga, Craig, Wainwright, Plantinga, Alston and so on, so apart from being contradictory your peddling it shows you simply have never read any works in this area.)
3. You assert again that a divine command theory is incompatible with moral autonomy. The problem is I pointed you to several studies of this question which “argued” and rigorously demonstrate they are compatible. Your response has been to claim this is “name dropping” and dismiss it. The problem with this is two fold (i) was not name dropping, I refered you to these peoples arguments . so your response is simply false (ii) in arguing for this claim and various others you “name dropped” you name dropped Sam Harris, R. Joseph Hoffmann, and Dan Dennett, so if name dropping does not suffice your argument does not suffice. If it does suffice then my response suffices (iii) the people I cited actually have written peer reviewed articles on the subject which have proved to be definitive ( Quinn for example) the people you cite have not, Harris is not an ethicist and has no real papers on this topic to his name. Hoffman has contributed little to the literature on this debate ( I know the literature quite well) and Dennett is a philosopher of mind with next to no publications in the literature on divine command theory. So once again there is nothing of substance which is why you have to resort to name calling like “silly” “irrational” and so on and simply assert baldly your position over and over in confident tones rather than actually defending it.
4. On your blog you refer to an argument put forward by Nowell Smith which draws on the work of Piaget and argues theists have arrested moral development. I responded twice to this argument on by blog so I have addressed this point. Your response was to (i) say I had never discussed it on your blog and (ii) say I am name dropping and getting upset that you mention Smiths name. Now (ii) is simply a caricature I did not object to you refering to Smith I pointed out I had responded to Smiths argument so there is again nothing of substance here simply caricature ( again). Regarding (i) you seem to think a rebuttal is only sound if its published on your blog, this is patently ridiculous. Its also self refuting after all in this thread you linked to an argument you published on your blog, and not on mine so by parity of reasoning I can dismiss your argument as irrelevant.
Unfortunately Ken, however things work in the sciences in ethics you don’t establish your position by (i) ignoring the literature (ii) citing out of date articles and ignoring the rebuttals of them (iii) citing authorities outside the field (iv) caricaturing others (v) simply asserting confidently over and over your position and then (iv) calling others irrational and silly. That might pass in science but in ethics you have to actually interact with the literature, understand your opponents views and accurately present them, offer arguments for your position and respond to the counter arguments that have been offered. That of course involves being informed.
I am sure its easier to say “I am a scientist , I will declare that philosophy is crap without examining it. I will ignore all the scholarly peer reviewed work to the contrary and because I am are scientist and my audience really know the issues, and hate religious people a they will defer to you me”. But that actually is not very rigorous. In common language its called BS.
Matt, you have made so many misrepresentations in your comment so I must assume you have not read my article. Rather than debate you point by point, and thus have to go over things already explained to you several times, I will just reproduce the last part of my article which I think will show some of the mistakes you have made. This is from “Arrested moral development” (http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2010/10/04/arrested-moral-development/).
“Can you be good with God?
So the question posed by R. Joseph Hoffmann actually seems very sensible. Quite apart from the nice reversal of the billboard slogan “You can be good without God.”
How can you be good, have a mature moral attitude, if you accept your moral positions purely on authority? And that authority also determines its moral teaching on authority? How can one be good without a personal moral autonomy?
I think it is worth posing this question. But I don’t think it is correct to claim that all religious people, or all Christians, are immoral, or don’t have moral autonomy, purely because of their religious beliefs. We need to recognise that people can mature to a position of moral autonomy naturally even while professing religious beliefs. Researchers have found people will respond to situations instinctively. Their moral responses are intuitive. However, after the event they may rationalise those responses. And their rationalisations may bear little relationship to their actual response – after all they are not able to access the unconscious processes involved in that response.
So, I don’t find it surprising that a morally autonomous person, who has accepted human values and logical consideration of important ethical questions, can nevertheless resort to religious or theological explanations, really rationalisations, of their moral actions.
Holy dangers
On the other hand I don’t think there is any doubt that some members of society can, for one reason or another, have their moral development arrested. This can be dangerous. When children are raised in an environment imposing a strict dogma, including moral instruction, they may sometimes not be able to develop full moral autonomy. They may be stuck at stage 2.
Maybe not a big threat to society if it means some people are saving themselves sexually until married. But there are far more dangerous moral instructions coming out of the pages of “Holy” scriptures and the mouths of “Holy” men (yes, usually men). Ideas that religious beliefs are more important the human liberties and rights. That religious instructions are more important than national laws. That, for instance, the pronouncements of an Imam in an Afghani cave is more important that the laws and lives of the person in the street in Europe, America or Pakistan. Even if the innocent is attending a mosque or church.”
So you can see your claim I say moral autonomy is incompatible with religion (or divine command theory as you put it) is quite unfounded – as are your other claims. Reality is far more nuanced than you seem to think, or claim I think.
Could you please read what I actually wrote and revise your response accordingly. Continual repetition is getting tiresome.
Yeah Ken, but you also said this in the paragraph before that one.
“One could also see different ethical structures as representing different stages of development. I personally see secular ethics as requiring moral autonomy, capable of logical consideration and based on universal human values such as human life, equality and dignity. Stage 3. On the other hand religious meta-ethics (not the ethical content, which can be good, but the form or structure) is really stuck at stage 2. It relies very much on authority, law and duty, and their acceptance.
So the claim made by Patrick Nowell-Smith (quoted in this book) “that religious morality is infantile,” while provocative, is largely accurate. And it is even expressed in the question religionists sometimes pose of non-believers: “Where do you get your morals from?” It is usually clear from the context that the questioner really means “what or who is your authority for your morals?” In other words moral autonomy is not really considered an option.
Even quite intelligent theologians seem not to appreciate the mature position of moral autonomy. Ideas like divine command theory are sometimes presented as explanations for human morality. This is the idea that moral propositions are “good” because God commands them. Huge flaws in this of course – as can be seen in the satirical comment from wired.com: “Everybody knows that morality is whatever God says. And God says, whatever me, my best friends, and my hierarchical coalition say that God says.”
Yeah, Matt, and in the paragraph before that I wrote:
“Human development and belief>
I have a clear memory of my own thoughts on religion, morality and society having suddenly “clarified” at around the age of 12 years. And I know that was not just me. I have found the same experience related in the biographies of well known people like Francis Crick and Albert Einstein and am sure it is common.
My memory is not that I suddenly knew everything. Just that I didn’t have to mindlessly accept other people’s word for things. That I could make my own decisions. Beliefs, morality and views on society were no longer “god-given” – to be accepted without question or consideration.
I have always put this down to hormones. But apparently its a recognised part of human development. Cliteur describes this in his discussion of Jean Piaget‘s ideas on cognitive development. In effect Cliteur describes three stages of moral development:
1: Orientation to punishment and reward and an instrumental view of human relations (“You scratch my back and I”ll scratch yours”).
2: Orientation to authority, law, duty. Accepting of social and religious order. Interested in maintaining approval of peers.
3: Orientation to one’s conscience. Highest value placed on human life, equality and dignity. Uses logic and appreciates universality. See value in social contract and democratically established order.
I see that stage 3 as starting to happen about age 12 and hopefully developing until the description is characteristic of the mature adult. At this stage the individual has moral autonomy. Has integrated a moral outlook into her own conscience. Is able to respond independently without instruction from an authority, a government, political or religious leader, or a holy book.
On the other hand individuals can have their moral development restricted by reliance on, or imposition of, authority. Typically this happens in cults and strict traditional religions. But of course it can also happen in the absence of religion if the environment is dictatorial, authoritative and imposed. (Remember the “Red Guards” in China’s Maoist “Cultural Revolution”).
In such cases an individual’s moral development may be arrested at stage 2 – effectively at the stage of a 5 to 9 year old.
Have a look at Psychological abuse of children for a video interview with Jill Mytton. She is is a therapist specialising in the problems suffered by adults who have escaped from religious cults, and those suffering from religious abuse as children. Apparently failure to integrate a personal morality is common with such survivors.”
These extracts are showing how you misrepresented me in your previous comment.
Clearly I see things in a far less black and white way than you claim. And I suspect your own vision is probably too black and white and this makes it difficult for you to understand the more complex picture I present.
Or do you just wish to misrepresent me?
No Ken, I don’t mean to misrepresent you, the problem is you constantly say something deny it when challenged and then say it again. Note however the key paragraph
“So the claim made by Patrick Nowell-Smith (quoted in this book) “that religious morality is infantile,” while provocative, is largely accurate. And it is even expressed in the question religionists sometimes pose of non-believers: “Where do you get your morals from?” It is usually clear from the context that the questioner really means “what or who is your authority for your morals?” In other words moral autonomy is not really considered an option.
Even quite intelligent theologians seem not to appreciate the mature position of moral autonomy. Ideas like divine command theory are sometimes presented as explanations for human morality.”
Here you cite proposing a Divine command theory as an example of intelligent theologians not appreciating the mature position of moral autonomy.
The mature autonomy of course is linked to Nowell Smiths position which is said to be largely accurate.
I don’t think its accurate at all, and ” intelligent theologians” (actually philosopher) who defend a divine command theory not only appreciate “the mature position of moral autonomy” they go to lengths to show they are compatible and have done so in the articles I cited.
So again caricature.
Matt, i think you reveal your problem with your statement: “you constantly say something deny it when challenged and then say it again.”
You choose to claim that I am dishonest when in fact the problem is your misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or black and white understanding of a nuanced issue. Surely I have made clear my qualifications and recognition of differences between an individual’s intellectual claims and actual practice. I continually assert to you that there is a difference between what people say in their rationalizations and the underlying unconscious reasons for their behavior.
I have been constant and realistic with my claims, your interpretation is the problem.
I think humans do have a real problem at this stage in understanding their moral attitude, or at least their origins. I guess the science of morality is still at an early stage and religious dogma has dominated the field for so long. A bit like the early days of the scientific revolution in Europe.
There is a clear material deference between claims that one’s morality is derived from authority, commands, religious or not. The authority may be the Party Leader (Mao), the Fuhrer, an Imam, the pope, a priest, cleric or theologian. They may issue the commands. Of course they may claim them divine, sacred (that worked for Mao and Stalin, and Hitler, as well as yours and other gods).
But, in reality all such authority is flawed and there are no gods. Just people who claim there are and that they know what their pet god thinks. Hence the divine commands are just the prejudices of the leaders given a claimed (false) divine authority.
And of course members of these churches and believing theologians may honestly think the morality is the result of divine commands. That is how they rationalize their moral intuitions. And we all rationalize in one way or another.
Hopefully, whatever rationalization is used, a sufficient number of the adult population has a more mature approach. They do base their moral decisions, and in the end moral intuitions, on the objective facts of our existence, human rights, and our existence as an empathetic, conscious, intelligent, social species. Even intelligent theologians who argue for divine command theory as their rationalization.
And, of course divine command theory has become more nuanced to accommodate this more mature autonomous outlook.
But surely you do recognize there is an unhealthy element who do take some pretty reactionary commands as literally commands of their god. This is why adherents do end up with quite different moral outlooks. We have Christians who have supported slavery, apartheid, segregation, suppression of women and promote homophobia. On the other hand we have christians who have been opposed to slavery, support human rights, oppose segregation and apartheid, support the rights to sexual variations and fight homophobia. These later Christians may argue that they follow a divine command morality but the fact is they base their morality on objective reality and are morally autonomous. The supporters of slavery and homophobia are not autonomous and will usually justify their bigotry using divine commands.
But Ken one of the basic assumptions of DCT is that genuine divine commands do exist, if people get them mixed up with human traditions or hierarchy that is not a flaw in the divine command it is a flaw in human nature. You’re working hard to undermine the premises (Gods existence, objective morals, divine commands) and dig up negative consequences for DCT and religion in general.
Why do you turn a blind eye to historical facts? Christianity inspired
– the rise of modern science
– the development of higher education
– the arts (inestimable impact)
– social reforms (love thy neighbour; changing people’s hearts changes the character of society; charity; social justice of all kinds)
– myriads of other examples
Ropata you raise an important question with your comment:
“But Ken one of the basic assumptions of DCT is that genuine divine commands do exist, if people get them mixed up with human traditions or hierarchy that is not a flaw in the divine command it is a flaw in human nature. “
How the hell do you know what is right and wrong? Where do you get your “divine commands” from and who are you to say any particular command is “flawed?” How do you do this?
Are you not just trying to claim divine support for your own biases, prejudices, and wishes?
The rest of your comment is a diversion. Obviously as a scientist I base my ideas on evidence and validation against reality. Hence I will disagree with you claims which are, in contrast, theologically based. Attempts to fit reality into preconceived claims. A dangerous epistemology.
I am happy to discuss those questions with you. But obviously not here and now. They are not appropriate.
As I have mentioned briefly before, personally I tend towards relativism/subjectivism because I believe the human species and its culture is evolving/learning, so not all moral judgements are absolute either. That is why it is inappropriate for us to pass judgement on ancient cultural norms from our modern vantage, but we can recognise our culture is ‘better’. And the Christian understanding of the truths of God is unfolding also.
However, you used very selective history to support your complaint against DCT then ignore my historical points showing otherwise! I guess in your world it is more important to “prove” DCT = bad, than to be honest
So, Ropata, you are a moral relativist. You will not pass judement on stoning, slavery, apartheid becuase these are cultural norms of other cultures and times!!
(Mind you then, why pass judgement on atheism which is part of our culture and times??)
And your god commands you to think this way. To ignore the harm done against others of your species?
As I said your other issues are not appropriate here and now (You could raise them in an appropriate place on my bog, though). I will being doing a book review in a few weeks which will involve a critique of some of your claims (eg. the chauvinism of claiming Christianity invented science). We could debate that there.
broad sweeping simplistic statements, amateur psychoanalysis, and misrepresenting some else’s position is not a very “moral” debating tactic
the very things you imagine others doing, you seem strangely unaware of acting this way yourself
Matt,
Forget about Ken aka ‘full-of-shit” You’ve got more important things to do than respond to a broken down parrot
Ropata, these were not statements. They were questions. You refused to answer and now divert with silly accusations.
In other words you cannot confidently provide a religious basis for your morality or expalin what your god’s divine commands mean in practice.
Ken
I do not presume to hear to voice of God commanding me to do anything, I freely choose to try and follow Jesus the human being, to the best of my understanding.
My morality is independent of religion because I have free will.
I’m an IT geek not a professional philosopher so I haven’t worked out a personal systematic theology or consistent philosophy. That’s why I say I’m a subjectivist, I rely on intuition rather than abstract principles
OK Ropata – you say “My morality is independent of religion because I have free will.”
So is mine. And I suggest so it is for most people – even those who rationalise things to claim a religious motivation. Even those who claim divine commands.
On on the later subject – we have to recognise for some people those commands are very real. They may hear voices telling them to kill or sacrifice a child.
Or what about this from a Dutch jihadist arrested after a battle with police in The Hague a few years back. His farewell letter included this.
“The Almighty has commanded this: ‘Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not'”
And this is the problem. We have academics who debate the fine points of “divine command theory” and are silent about the practicalities. The innocent people murdered under the excuse of “divine commands.”
Surely these academics are just as guilty of these murders as the idiot who takes them seriously and pulls the trigger?
@Ken
Since Christianity and Islam are fundamentally in total disagreement about almost everything and they cant both be right and Islam probably doesnt hold to a DCT in the sense Christians do, dont you think it just may be a complete waste of time quoting Islamic examples [ which the Christians already disagree with] when arguing with Christians about things that are wrong.
You clearly dont agree with us, but its pointless bringing a soccer ball to a rugby game, if you want to play at least come to the same field.
And while we are on the subject, please explain which teachings of Jesus Christ on the subject of moral behaviour you find impracticable or offensive.
As usual you use of the phrase “divine commands” seems to bear little relationship to DCT
Jeremy, you clearly ignored my point:
“On the other hand religious meta-ethics (not the ethical content, which can be good, but the form or structure) is really stuck at stage 2. It relies very much on authority, law and duty, and their acceptance.”
The issue is not the specific “teachings” but the form and process of justification.
The jihadist was using divine command justification for his inhumane behavior. And of course Christians (or Stalinists, Maoists, Nazis could do the same thing using their own authorities or “sacred” texts) can do the same thing. And they do on many issues. Child beating, anti homosexuality bigotry , discrimination against women, non theists, homosexuals, etc. Even sometimes on issues involving human lives.
A big component of the problem us the concept of “divine” or “holy”. The Koran or the bible may only include a few dangerous inhuman claims but if the scriptures are ordained as “holy” then these become obligatory as well as the good claims. And interpreting them away is effectively blasphemous.
You only need a fraction if adherents to take divine command seriously to cause teal problems.
@ Ken
You clearly know little if anything about Christian doctrine, the other stuff you desribe is the natural condition of men and any excuse will do as you point out wrt Mao, Stalin etc
I think your point is irrelevant and derogatory as you clearly imply that anyone accepting Christian morality is somehow immature and lacking in autonomy, alternatively you suggest they do not really believe at all but are indulging in after the fact rationalisation.
You dont have to agree with us, but you are not any kind of authority that we have to conform to nor does your refusal to aknowledge other peoples experience invalidate that experience.
A Christian friend, someone I knew as a kid and recently reconnected with, mentioned this site to me.
I used be a Christian, right up until I reread the Bible on my own in college and balked at this Abraham and Isaac passage. My dad was a reprobate (his claim) when he read the Bible coming out of the military—he ended up attending Northwestern Bible College and became a missionary, a linguist, a Bible translator. Somehow, reading for myself this so-called Good Book I went the other way, which was hard, because I never stopped thinking of my parents as brave, heroic folks, devoted to others. I only mention this because I am trying to earn an ear from all parties here. I’m not Christian, but many of the best people I know are.
I think there is something seriously messed up with this site. I thought Matt’s post was interesting, Byzantine, a nice attempt at squaring a circle. I thought I might “leave a comment,” but then I started scrolling down. And right now, to tell you the truth, I feel like I did when I walked out of a theater in Harvard Square after having watched Platoon when it first came out, after having first been stood up by my date, which is why I ended up watching a war movie instead of whatever we had planned to see—I want to fucking kick some teeth in! Not just Matt’s, but basically those of everyone but Yoda.
If I’m Christian, I should be thinking, “Just sow the seed.” If I’m atheist, it means that all this—this whatever—came from happenstance. That we’re conversing, and can understand each other enough to misunderstand, that’s pretty miraculous.
Omar,
I’m sorry for not fully understanding your comment, could you clarify some things please? Would you mind explaining a little more what it is that you find so “messed up” about this site?
Furthermore, why would people discussing an intricate topic (no matter your opinion) cause you to want to kick someone’s teeth in? Maybe I’m missing where you were so greatly offended from your comment thus far.
Thanks in advance for your clarifications.
I apologize. You always think you’re going to say the exact right thing that will press a giant Reset button, but then it turns out yours was the most presumptuous, arrogant, inconsiderate comment yet.
My dad near the end of his life started working on some kind of Christian manifesto, partly autobiography, but nearly all of it aimed at trying to convince folks—and by that I mean Christians—that “We have to stop being so divisive.” He sent it away to some of his missionary colleagues. And no agreed with one of his central portions of Biblical exegesis. Here he was, a man of seventy who had spent his whole career translating the Bible, using his knowledge of Greek, doing whatever Bible translators do, back translations from the native Indian language into Spanish and back again . . . and he couldn’t get folks he had worked with for years to read a couple of Biblical texts his way. No one could agree to agree (his way). It made a great deal of sense to me, I mean, once you accept the whole basic preposterousness of Jesus as some kind of divine fulcrum that 5000 years of Chinese history never managed to intersect.
I normally like the experience of seeing things from Christian and non-Christian points of view. Like those optical illusions—you stare awhile and it flips, inverts. Like I said, I read Matt’s original posting and wondered if it would have made a difference to me thirty odd years ago. But the comments . . . well, you saw what I wrote. Inexcusable, I guess.
So let me ask myself, is the site really that messed up? In the soberer light of morning, maybe not. But no one seems to get just how long after decisions are already finalized does the rationale slowly coalesce. Again, my apologies.
[…] POSTS: Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament? Contra […]
[…] In Defence of Santa Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament? Contra […]
[…] In Defence of Santa Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament? Contra […]
[…] In Defence of Santa Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament? Contra […]