Category Archives: Apologetics
Theodicy: God is Good
In an article entitled “Good God?“, atheist Peter Singer addresses some usual answers that Christians forward when faced with the question of why evil exists if God is good. His answers reveal much about the shallow reasoning that atheists display when pondering the tough questions. I will discuss his answers.
Singer starts by reasoning the following: “If God is all-knowing, he knows how much suffering there is. If he is all-powerful, he could have created a world without so much of it – and he would have done so if he were all good.” I agree with the first point. The next two points are asserted without evidence.
Perhaps God could have created a world without as much suffering. Perhaps not. But we fail to overlook what the Bible teaches: God created the through and for Christ–not for us. Therefore, the amount of human suffering is a completely irrelevant factor in determining the sort of world God would create. His criteria remain unrevealed to us.
To assert that “if” He was good He “would” have created a world with less suffering is ludicrous. As finite beings, we don’t know and cannot fathom all of the possibilities. With His criteria for actualizing possible worlds unrevealed, the burden of proof lies squarely on Singer to show why a world with less suffering is better than this one.
The first actual reply that Singer deals with is “. . . God bestowed on us the gift of free will, and hence is not responsible for the evil we do. But this reply fails to deal with the suffering of those who drown in floods, are burned alive in forest fires caused by lightning, or die of hunger or thirst during a drought.” He continues:
Christians sometimes attempt to explain this suffering by saying that all humans are sinners, and so deserve their fate, even if it is a horrible one. But infants and small children are just as likely to suffer and die in natural disasters as adults, and it seems impossible that they could deserve to suffer and die.
This is argument by outrage. God, who is all-knowing, knows what the fate of those children will be with or without a natural disaster. The burden of proof goes to Singer to show that being drown at an early age is a greater evil than whatever would have happened to that child in the future.
Further, the Bible makes no distinction between adults, infants, and children when it says that all have sinned (Rom 3:23). As humans, our very nature is sinful. This is important to remember when Singer goes on:
Once again, some Christians say that we have all inherited the original sin committed by Eve, who defied God’s decree against eating from the tree of knowledge. This is a triply repellent idea, for it implies that knowledge is bad, disobeying God’s will is the greatest sin of all, and children inherit the sins of their ancestors, and may justly be punished for them.
Even if were to accept all this, the problem remains unresolved. For animals also suffer from floods, fires, and droughts, and, since they are not descended from Adam and Eve, they cannot have inherited original sin.
First of all, it was Adam who sinned, not Eve. Second, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Knowing that once man knows of evil he will choose evil, God decreed that it was a sin to eat of that tree. It is not knowledge itself that is evil. All sin, at its root, is disobedience to God, so Singer is right in a sense to conclude that the greatest sin of all is disobedience. Finally, Romans 5 makes it clear that we do, indeed, inherit the sin of our father, Adam: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:18-19, emphasis added).
Assuming that Singer accepts all of that, he still doesn’t see a solution to the problem because animals suffer too. He is still wrong–all creation is now under the curse of sin, animals included (Rom 8:20-23).
Singer, apparently unaware of that, philosophizes on animals for a couple of paragraphs. I’ll skip to the next section, where he says ” I debated the existence of God with the conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza. In recent months, D’Souza has made a point of debating prominent atheists, but he, too, struggled to find a convincing answer to the problem I outlined above.” He then continues:
He first said that, because humans can live forever in heaven, the suffering of this world is less important than it would be if our life in this world were the only life we had. That still fails to explain why an all-powerful and all-good god would permit it. Relatively insignificant as this suffering may be from the perspective of eternity, the world would be better without it, or at least without most of it. (Some say that we need to have some suffering to appreciate what it is like to be happy. Maybe, but we surely don’t need as much as we have.)
Again, I point out that this is mere assertion with no evidence. It is Singer’s responsibility to show, from all of the possible worlds God could have created, that another world would have been better because it contained less suffering and still met God’s criteria for His plan. Since the criteria is unrevealed in Scripture, I wish Singer the best of luck in proving just that point.
Next, D’Souza argued that since God gave us life, we are not in a position to complain if our life is not perfect. He used the example of a child born with one limb missing. If life itself is a gift, he said, we are not wronged by being given less than we might want. In response I pointed out that we condemn mothers who cause harm to their babies by using alcohol or cocaine when pregnant. Yet since they have given life to their children, it seems that, on D’Souza’s view, there is nothing wrong with what they have done.
The hole in Singer’s reasoning, of course, is that a mother doesn’t give life to her children in the same way as God gives life to a person. The Bible teaches that everything was created by Him and for Him, and in Him all things consist (Col 1:16-17). After birth, the child doesn’t absolutely require his mother, but all of creation requires God to hold together. It is a different situation all together.
Singer says, “Finally, D’Souza fell back, as many Christians do when pressed, on the claim that we should not expect to understand God’s reasons for creating the world as it is. . . . But once we abdicate our powers of reason in this way, we may as well believe anything at all.” Neither D’Souza nor I, nor any Christian, nor God Himself, would ever ask a person to abdicate his power of reason. D’Souza is actually incorrect in his statement. God chooses not to reveal His reasons. Perhaps we wouldn’t understand them, perhaps we would. But this isn’t a request to abdicate all reason, this is an appeal to have faith in Him. That He, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, knows better than we do.
Singer concludes “The evidence of our own eyes makes it more plausible to believe that the world was not created by any god at all. If, however, we insist on believing in divine creation, we are forced to admit that the God who made the world cannot be all-powerful and all good. He must be either evil or a bungler.” This conclusion presupposes that the evolutionary view of the evidence is correct and that how things are now are how they always were. Neither of these presuppositions are correct in a Biblical worldview.
Paul asserted that the evidence for divine creation is so plain that men are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20) for knowing that God exists. Why do atheists look at things differently? Because they have no foundation in Genesis–most believe that book is a piece of bad fiction. However, that book is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and must be literal history. If it isn’t, all of the Bible is a lie.
When God created the world, everything is not as it is now. It was all “very good,” as God states when he finishes with creation. The creation that we observe now is the creation that is under a curse, nothing in the world now is “very good.” As Paul stated, “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Rom 8:22, emphasis added). That is the result of the curse.
In all, Singer’s arguments show the usual bankruptcy that atheistic arguments usually show. These are easily answered by considering all of Scripture, especially the foundations in Genesis.
We Missed You, Jeff!
Jeff Haws, the proprietor of The Atheocracy, is always a pleasure to answer for several reasons. First, he’s much friendlier than his counterparts. He is nothing but professional and polite. Second, he’s a journalist. He’s doing what I want to do for a living, so I can take a page out of his book of how to write–not how to believe. We’re obviously on opposite sides of the spectrum. Third, he takes good-natured jabs in the humor with which they were meant and doesn’t blow things out of proportion. He knows when I’m just joking. Finally, he makes the same theological mistakes repeatedly, no matter how many times that he’s corrected, so it is easy to answer him. Just cut and paste.
Jeff has been on hiatus from blogging for the past few months. He’s started again recently. In one of his first new posts, Jeff offers us his own theodicy:
. . . think about how Christians make it a habit to attribute any good in their lives to God while dismissing any misfortune as “That’s life” or “The Lord works in mysterious ways” or “S-word happens (no, Christians would never use bad language).” Why is that? Couldn’t God have been even more helpful to this guy if he had, ya know, prevented the painful divorce, bouts of depression, money problems and other assorted problems in the first place? Of course, then, God might not have gotten the credit. We do know from Christians that God craves our acceptance, belief and worship. If we don’t give it to him, we’re doomed to an eternity of suffering and Savannah-in-July-type weather. So maybe God either causes these problems for Christians or at least allows them to happen so he can swoop in and save the day, thus receiving praise for his heroic actions.
St. Augustine wisely observed, “God had one son on earth without sin, but never one without suffering.” Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his master (Jn 15:20). We should expect suffering in our lives. After all, if Jesus, our Lord and Master, had to suffer, why should we expect a life of wine and roses? Jeff’s theodicy isn’t consistent with Biblical teaching.
Instead, the Bible teaches that we will share in Christ’s suffering (c.f. Rom 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:5; Phil 1:29). We are to endure suffering (2 Tim 4:5; Jms 5:10-11). To what purpose? God brings good from evil. Rather than prevent it, God uses it (see the story of Joseph in Genesis; esp. 50:20).
God doesn’t crave our attention or worship; He commands it. He created life, the universe, and everything–that makes Him deserving of our worship. But it isn’t merely the rejection of God that condemns a person to hell. This is the error that Jeff–and many other atheists–repeatedly make. Rejection of God, though itself a sin, is only part of the reason why a person is condemned for all eternity in hell. Apart from that, everyone commits many sins on a daily basis that would condemn them.
Jeff also acts as if condemnation is something that we earn. Condemnation is something that we deserve. Sin is within our very nature, part of the radical corruption that pervades all of creation following the Fall.
Jeff concludes this post by asking if God is a narcissist. I think that God has earned the right to be a narcissist because of everything that He has done for humanity. He allows suffering, but is always there as a source of comfort. To know Him is to know unequaled peace. Everything is for God’s glory, and that is by God’s design.
Day 2b: Unshakable Faith
It seems as though the audience favorite was Dinesh D’souza tonight. The lanky scholar received thunderous applause after his speech on New Atheism. D’souza had several tough acts to follow, including a very enlightening speech on the bodily Resurrection of Christ from Dr. William Lane Craig and a lecture on inerrancy of Scripture from Dr. Norman Geisler.
I have only one regret for this conference. I probably won’t ever get the chance to do it again. After all, how often do I run into William Lane Craig?
I wish I had challenged Dr. Craig’s view of Calvinism. Dr. Craig fell into exactly the same trap that I describe in my post on predestination, only he runs into it with God’s sovereignty. Dr. Craig assumes that the Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist views of human freedom are one in the same. Dr. Craig affirms the Molinist view of God’s middle knowledge while attacking the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty as deterministic. While Dr. Craig affirms that Molinism and Calvinism are compatible, he does not do the compatibility any justice.
Molinism, in brief, states that God has three levels of knowledge. God’s natural knowledge, stage one, is encompasses every world that is possible. At stage 2, God’s middle knowledge, He knows all of the worlds that are plausible. In other words, at this stage, God knows what His creatures will do when given a set of circumstances. God’s free knowledge, at stage three, is the actual world that God chooses to create from the middle knowledge He has at stage 2. In this way, His creatures are still free to choose but God has chosen their world for them, so He already knows what the choice is going to be.
Hyper-Calivinism, which Dr. Craig views incorrectly as orthodox Calvinism, views reprobation as a positive action on God’s part rather than a negative action. Orthodox Calvinism says that God allows reprobates to suffer His wrath (as all of humanity deserves), while positively pursuing the elect with His irresistible grace. Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, has God purposely bringing sin into the lives of the reprobates so that they will suffer eternal damnation.
Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith details human free will, which clearly states that human will is libertarian (as Dr. Craig affirms) and “. . . is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil” (WCF, IX:I). But chapter IX:III takes into account Scriptural teaching that man’s free will is tainted with sin to such a degree that “a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself [for salvation]. . . .”
This sort of free will is exactly the view that Molinists have. But Dr. Craig is no monergist when it comes to salvation, and that is his error. He wishes to retain a synergistic view of salvation, so he has adopted a view that allows for synergism while retaining some of the vestiges of monergism.
Bottom line, it is still Pelagian in nature.
Dr. Craig really disagrees not with God’s sovereignty in election, but with total depravity. Though he later stated that he affirmed it, I have my doubts that he affirms it in the way a proper Calvinist would. He still believes that man can come to God apart from the unconditional election. Dr. Craig believes in a logically untenable universal atonement, and rejects both irresistible grace and eternal security. As I’ve stated before, all of these doctrines flow from the first point of Calvinism, Total Depravity. Dr. Craig does not accept total depravity despite his statement to the contrary. Total depravity simply does not allow for a synergistic view of salvation.
All that said, Unshakable Faith 2008 was a great event that I encourage readers to attend next year if they can. The planners are already working tirelessly to put something even better together for next year. My prayers will certainly be with them in their endeavors.
Day 2a: Unshakable Faith Conference
The high point of the first half of day 2 of Unshakable Faith was Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of Leibniz’s argument for the existence of God. It goes like this:
- Everything that exists must have a cause, either as an intrinsic necessity or from some external source.
- If the universe has a cause, it must be God.
- The universe exists.
- The universe must have a cause.
- Therefore, God is the cause of the universe.
The solidity of this logic, Craig argues, is very powerful. It is impossible to deny it starting at point 3, so points 4 and 5 flow necessarily and are therefore irrefutable. The atheist must deny points 1 or 2 in order to shake this argument, but they will have much difficulty in doing so. In a future post, I hope to elaborate on the difficulty of denying points 1 and 2, and therefore begin to build a more cohesive case for the existence of God.
The first presentation of the day has convinced me by evident reason that the foundation of any Biblical worldview must reject the evolutionary idea of millions of years. Dr. Terry Mortensen of the Creation Museum presented a case against millions of years, followed with a breakout session on Flood Geology. All-in-all, he presented a convincing exegetical case for a 6,000 year old earth. Time permitting, I hope to elaborate somewhat on that point, standing on the shoulders of the giants of creation science who work at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and Creation Ministries International.
For now, suffice to say that I have renewed my position that a 6,000 year old earth with no death or destruction prior to the Fall is exegetically necessary for a Christian worldview. I am a Young Earth Creationist, no longer am I a Young Earth Agnostic as I have stated in a previous post. I have taken it on faith that God will show me the truth or falsity of that position in His time.
So far, this convention has been an amazing experience for me. I look forward to more after lunch.
Day 1: Unshakable Faith
It is day one of the Unshakable Faith Conference put on at Landmark Cincinnati. The pastors hope that this will become an annual event, but they don’t think that they can top this first year. I’m inclined to agree.
First on the menu this evening was Dr. Norman Geisler presenting a talk that the program title “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” However, it should have been titled “Atheism is Dead.” Geisler effectively deconstructed many of the arguments in favor of philosophical unbelief, instead concluding that atheists are atheists not for philosophical reasons but for personal reasons. Those reasons inevitably point back to the fact that a holy God rejects human sin. We, as fallen beings, love our sins and wish to remain in them. Therefore, we reject God.
Two breakaway sessions ran simultaneously. The first was on the concept of millions of years in regard to the age of the earth and where it came from. I, however, opted to attend the primer on cults with Dr. Alex McFarland. Dr. McFarland presented three questions to ask any cultist, after earning their trust and friendship:
- Can we agree that orthodox Christianity and your church teach different things?
- Can we agree that your beliefs originated from a definite person?
- What do you think of that in light of Galatians 1:6-10?
Then, we finished the evening off with a talk from one of my personal heroes, Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig spoke not only on the reasonableness of faith in God and on Jesus being the Son of God, but he also spoke of his own personal conversion experience in a powerful and moving speech. He then asked for anyone so moved to give their lives to the Lord, which I can only pray that some folks did just that.
I got to shake hands with Norman Geisler and sit in the front row of a William Lane Craig lecture. This is how normal people get around sports stars! I’ll have more to report tomorrow as the conference closes. I thank the Lord for blessing me with the time and the ability to attend this amazing event, and I pray that my report touches the life of someone reading it.
Final Objection to Predestination
Read the entire article here.
I’ve posted much on the topic of predestination lately. I have posted a general definition here, on its definite nature according to the counsel of God’s will here, and finally on the two-edged sword of double predestination here. The two primary objections to predestination are the hyper-Calvinist error of double predestination, and the modernist error of assuming our free will is greater than God’s will.
I have already considered the hyper-Calvinist error in my post on double predestination. Briefly, it assumes that God actively chooses to send one group of people to heaven and one group to hell. It sees God’s as taking a positive action on both sides of the coin–that He actively works sin in the reprobate’s life in order to send that person to hell while actively working good things in the elect’s life to send that person to heaven. No such action is necessary. God merely “passes over” the nonelect and takes no further action in that person’s life. That person will condemn himself to hell. Reprobation, therefore, is a negative action on God’s part.
The other error with predestination is more of a modern error. Modern theologies tend to place a greater emphasis on the human free will than the divine free will. This type of error assumes that our free will decisions can somehow limit God’s actions. Viewed correctly, we derive our free will from God’s decree. We are free, to be sure, but God is more free than we are.
The Westminster Confession of Faith spends a chapter on human free will. Chapter IX, paragraph 1 states “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” Paragraph 2 expounds on this will: “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.”
Paragraph 3 reads:
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (emphasis added)
It is important to remember that, according to the confession, man “has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Rom 5:6, 8:7; cf. Jn 15:5). It is in this statement that we find no contradiction with John 3:16 or similar passages:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (emphasis added)
Put together with “Man . . . has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” we understand, finally, that apart from God’s grace, no one is going to believe in Him. This highlights our total dependence on God, which is something that modern theologies either downplay or forget altogether. Modern theologies would have God dependent upon man.
My own pastor has been teaching against predestination for several Sunday school sessions. Regrettably, I have been unable to attend. This past Sunday, he used 2 Peter 3:9 as the bullet proof text against predestination. This verse reads:
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
The problem is that, based on the teaching that man’s will is now wholly unable to will and do any good, no one is going to reach that repentance that God desires us to reach.
In sum, it is easy to attack predestination when it is isolated from the rest of what Calvinism teaches. But when one considers that systematic theology as a whole (the way that it is meant to be considered), it is much harder to put a hole in it. At one point, it is easy. But when considering all five points of Calvinism, the system becomes a unified theology that is the best way to understand Scripture.
Scientology Hard at Work Suppressing Its Critics
Recently, reports have circulated that actor Jason Beghe, a former Scientologist, has denounced his religion. Beghe is reported as saying that “Scientology is destructive and a rip off.” He goes on to say “[Scientology is] very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological, mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution. If Scientology is real, then something’s f——ed up.”
The video in which Beghe criticizes Scientology has been removed from YouTube, along with two other prominent anti-Scientology accounts owned by Tory Christman and Mark Bunker. YouTube issued the following statement to Times Online regarding the account suspensions:
YouTube takes these issues very seriously but we don’t comment on individual videos. Our general approach is simple: we have clear content policies about what videos are allowed on the site. For example we prohibit clips that infringe copyright or show extreme violence. Videos that breach these rules are removed and we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.
I scarcely have to point out that this is a non-answer. It says a lot about why accounts in general are suspended, but nothing about why the individual accounts were suspended. Neither Christman nor Bunker received any information from YouTube as to why their accounts were suspended, though Christman’s account is back up. No word yet on when or if Bunker’s will be reactivated.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, I think that the church of Scientology has everything to do with this. It is the policy of their church to target critics, whom they call Suppressives (or SPs). The critics are considered “fair game” to do whatever it takes to destroy their character and stop them from criticizing Scientology. This policy of dead agenting is one component of Scientology’s long standing policy of hate to its critics.
In a world that hates the truth, in a world that love its sin, I can see the need for a firm defense of the truth. But truth doesn’t require bullying, fear-mongering, and hatred. Morally, we can all see these things for evil. If Scientology is true, then it has nothing to fear from critics. However, if it isn’t true, and its upper ranks know that it isn’t true, then the need for “fair game” and “dead agenting” becomes very clear.
Did I Contradict Jesus?
Christian, the keeper of the blog Free Thinking Joy, has accused me of contradicting Jesus:
In my remarks about the Ten Commandments, I have come to the conclusion that their real content can be summarized as “Treat others as you would like to be treated by them”, also known as the Golden Rule. Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 7:12, has put it like this: “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you, this is the law and the prophets.” By the way, “law and prophets” means not only the Ten Commandments but all the holy scriptures of the Jews at that time.
Surprise, surprise. Was Jesus a freethinker? In the eyes of the Pharisees, he certainly was. Now compare his “law and prophets” statement with Cory’s claim of the Ten Commandments as God’s absolute rules that have to be followed word by word. He seems to contradict his own master in this respect. (source)
I have not contradicted Jesus. Christian has changed his assumptions. I thought that we were dealing specifically with the Ten Commandments. In that regard, they are Commandments, not suggestions, to be followed to the letter.
In the broader Christian theology, we are in an age of grace–we have considerable latitude in applying these practices to our lives. Righteousness is not obtained by works of law, but by faith. In that sense, the Ten Commandments can become the Ten Suggestions. We follow God’s law to show Him honor, not because we are compelled to in order win favor. Following the Commandments is the right thing to do.
Ten Commandments for Atheists, pt. 2
The ironically named Christian, proprietor of Free Thinking Joy, asserts that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism. It is absurd on its face to think that any of the first four commandments, which center on man’s relationship to God, could be followed or even understood by atheists. Christian’s analysis is flawed, as I have shown in my first post.
The second six commandments give rules for relating to fellow humans. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that any atheist is capable of both understanding these rules and living them out on a day-to-day basis. I haven’t heard of any notable atheists that live otherwise.
The only problem is that the atheist views breaking these commandments as torts rather than crimes. This becomes especially noticeable for the commandments dealing with adultery and murder. A violation of these commandments is absolute, not situational.
5. Honor your father and mother.
Agreed–“Because, once you are a parent, you like to be respected by your own children.”
6. You shall not commit murder.
Christian says, “There have been many violations against the Sixth Commandment in the name of God.” However, there have also been violations by atheists. As I’ve stated in my previous post, the actions of one group have nothing to do with the other group. Since the claim of the post is that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism, merely pointing to another group that violates the commandment doesn’t belong here.
Philosophically, this isn’t 100% compatible with atheism. Natural selection, a component of philosophic naturalism, wants the weak and the sick culled out. This means that murder in some forms, such as euthanasia and abortion, is perfectly acceptable given the right set of circumstances. The general theistic view respects the dignity and right to life of all human beings, regardless of status, sickness, or number of cells. The atheist version makes us little better than animals.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Christian returns to flawed reasoning with this commandment:
The wording is not quite how a secular humanist with a modern sexual ethic would put it. There are modern forms of ménage à trois, and they may work in some cases. But if you do not like your sex partner to have partners besides you, you should keep the same rule for yourself.
This is fine, if one subscribes to situation ethics. The commandments, however, were not designed with that in mind. They were designed to be absolute rules, hence their pronouncement as “commandments.” Very few would argue that they should be called the Ten Suggestions.
That said, Christian’s view grows out of the mistaken assumption that adultery is a tort committed against a spouse or significant other rather than a crime against God. The entire Holiness Code given to Israel is essentially God’s equivalent to a revised criminal code. Adultery isn’t just an offense against one’s spouse; it is a crime committed against God.
These “ménage à trois” that “work in some cases” might be perfectly fine with a spouse. But that doesn’t mean that God will be fine with them; in fact, the Bible teaches the opposite. Adultery, according to Jesus, is committed the moment you look upon someone with lust. With that in mind, we can hardly assume that God would condone the act even if the spouse does.
8. You shall not steal.
Agreed–“you do not want to be a victim of theft.”
9. You shall not lie.
Agreed–“Because you do not want him to do it to you.”
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s property.
Agreed–“Because it is easier to prevent a conflict than solve it later.”
Christian concludes:
I have shown that it may be easier for an atheist than for observant Jews and Christians to keep the first three commandments. The big part of the rest has nothing to do with God, therefore atheists and believers are equally fit to keep it or violate it. The only instance where atheist will lag behind is the Fourth Commandment, but this may not be the most important one.
I disagree that Christian has shown that it is easier for atheists to follow any of the commandments, let alone the first three. The atheist is equipped to keep Christian’s version of the commandments, but that is a false understanding of them. He is dead wrong to think that the rest of the commandments have nothing to do with God, for the commandments are crimes against Him, not torts against humanity. Finally, I agree that the atheist will lag behind on the Sabbath day, for he will not esteem any day above any other. But Christian’s response is to minimize the commandment, which is fallacious. All of the commandments are important or they wouldn’t be on the list.
Ten Commandments for Atheists
“I guess that most atheists may not be aware of the fact that they observe the Ten Commandments better than many observant Jews and Christians,” says Christian, keeper of Free Thinking Joy. Let’s examine his post and see if that is true or if Christian is blowing smoke.
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Christian says:
The observant Jew will certainly fulfill this commandment. The observant Muslim, too. The observant Christian, too. But most certainly of all, any atheist will fulfill it perfectly. He is the only one who can be certain. All others must ask themselves whether they really might worship the wrong god, and who the big Me really is.
This is silly. Christian thinks that by worshiping no gods at all, that he is fulfilling this commandment. He wishes. The Ten Commandments set the stage for the Jewish holiness code, the Greatest Commandment of which is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and might” (Deut 6:5). Not loving God at all isn’t fulfilling this commandment–it is grossly violating this commandment.
2. You shall not make yourself an idol.
Christian’s take:
Observant Jews (and Muslims) will fulfill this commandment in the real world, but not in their mental imagination. Observant Roman Catholics violate it grossly, making crucifixes and Mother of God statues, even praying to them. Observant Orthodox Christians violate it grossly, making icons and kissing them in prayer. Only atheists will fulfill the Second Commandment perfectly, in the real world as well as in their imagination.
Christian assumes that an idol is only a statue or an image. John Calvin, however, rightly recognizes that idolatry can be much more subtle than that. Calvin writes:
Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God – how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance?
. . . Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:11-12)
Calvin asserts that fashioning your own god is idolatry. Put another way, an idol need not be a statue, a picture, or other physical entity–it can be anything that takes the place of the One True God. In the case of many atheists, that is science or other mental reasoning. They worship it and make it inviolate the way that a Christian worships God and makes Him inviolate.
Because Christian misunderstands what an idol truly is, he fails to realize that atheists are actually the worst violators of this commandment.
3. You shall not use the name of the Lord in vain.
Christian says:
Observant Jews have taken the Third Commandment very seriously. They considered every use of the name of God as wrongful and therefore avoided even to pronounce it. This position comes very close to atheism. Any atheist may be ready to share this view, stating that there are really great things behind our visible world, things that we never will be able to fully understand, and that we should not use the name of a god to denominate them. Devout, fundamentalistic Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims. Only atheists can be a hundred percent sure that they never will violate the Third Commandment.
First, I don’t see how the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the name of God comes close to atheism. The Jews still believe in God, and they hold a special reverence for His name. Second, Christian asserts without backing himself up that “Devout, fundamentalistic (sic) Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims.” I can’t respond since I have no idea what he’s talking about. From these premises, however, it doesn’t follow that atheists can be 100% sure that they will never violate this commandment.
The excellent Parchment and Pen theology blog has defined the third commandment here as making a pronouncement in the name of God that did not come from God. Perhaps Christian is following that premise, in which case I can agree that the atheist is less likely than a theist to make a false pronouncement in the name of God.
Traditionally, Christians have understood this commandment as forbidding the use of God’s name for all but reverent and prayerful uses. In other words, God’s name shouldn’t be used as a swear word. While I agree with C. Michael Patton’s definition linked above, I also firmly believe that God’s name shouldn’t be used as or with vulgarity. In that respect, the atheist isn’t safe from violating this commandment.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Christian admits that this would be hard for an atheist to follow, but then asserts (again without evidence) that Christians don’t pay this commandment any mind either. Amazingly, the actions of one group of people bears little relevance on another group of people. The commandment is still grossly violated by atheists; whether or not theists are following or ignoring it is completely irrelevant.
The remaining commandments are covered in the next post.
Back Rome Again 