In the Bible, (1 Sam 15:3 to be exact) God orders the killing of infants. In defense of God's command, Norman L. Geisler, Ph. D., argues that since God is the originator of life, he has the right to take it away if he wishes. We, as humans, do not have this same right because we did not create life. The quote is as follows:
"An atheist once brought up this issue in a debate, and I responded by saying, 'God created life and he has the right to take it. If you can create life, then you can have the right to take it. But if you can't create it, you don't have that right.' And the audience applauded.
People assume that what's wrong for us is wrong for God. However, it's wrong for me to take your life, because I didn't make it and I don't own it. For example, it's wrong for me to go into your yard and pull up your bushes, cut them down, kill them, transplant them, move them around. I can do that in my yard, because I own the bushes in my yard.
"Well, God is sovereign over all of life and he has the right to take it if he wishes. In fact, we tend to forget that God takes the life of every human being. It's called death. The only question is when and how, which we leave up to him." (p. 119)
There are numerous problems with this. One main problem is that the premise "If a being creates life, then he has the right to destroy it" is false. Imagine there existed an evil being who created life. He tortures people for the fun of it and kills them for the same reason. Certainly, this being killing people for the fun of it is wrong. However, if it's the case that whoever creates life has the right to destroy it, then killing people for fun would be okay, given that you created them in the first place.
What matters is not whether the being created life. What matters is the reason(s) that one has for killing. This can be seen by noticing that humans have the right to take life in certain circumstances. There are cases where killing would be permissible and even obligatory (in times of war, to protect a loved one, etc.).
Another problem with this is how he talks about ownership. He makes an analogy between God owning human lives and us owning the bushes in our yard. The major, rather obvious problem with this is that humans cannot legitimately be owned. Person A cannot own person B legitimately. Sure, one may have a case where a slave is owned by his slaveowner, but that would be wrong. To say that slavery is wrong means that no person can own another person legitimately. Hence, the analogy fails to establish its point.
If God owns our lives in any sense, then he is evil. The same way that a slaveowner is evil. The same way that a person who created beings for the sole purpose of owning them would be evil. Only person A can legitimately "own" Person A's life. Certainly humans are not property.
So, those are the problems with the defense that since God created life, he has the right to take it away. Affirming this implies affirming the general principle that if a being creates life, then he has the right to take it away. This general principle has 2 main problems:
1. It fails to call evil a being who creates life for the sole purpose to enjoy destroying it.
2. It relies on the idea that a being can own a human. Only an evil being would attempt to own a human.
Therefore, the general principle fails to justify a God who would command the killing of infants. Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D., is wrong.
For a more thorough discussion of the killing of infants and various attempts by Christians to justify it, go here.
Posts
Readers’ wildlife photos
34 minutes ago
8 comments:
I think the argument is made in defense of a perfect, good, and just God. It implies that God's reasons are just and we as humans cannot comprehend or see it.
I don't think so given Geisler's quote which I gave. He said, "If you can create life, then you can have the right to take it."
But surely, Geisler wouldn't agree that who he was talking to is a perfect, good, and just being.
if thats the case, then ok.
but if you added another condition, being what i said earlier, then would it be ok?
One problem with your argument(correct me if im wrong) is that it seems like there is no morally right way to take someones life. Because it would seem to me you would agree if we could prevent a death then it would be our moral obligation to do so, right?
Thats why theres the eternal afterlife, so God simply moved them from life to afterlife? Perhaps in a violent way...but whos to say old age is a good way?...i duno...
So, if God were perfect and created life, would it follow that he had the right to take it away? Well, I guess in certain situations he would have that right. It's hard for me to see how the fact that he created us gives him that right. Perhaps because we owe him something because he is doing us the favor of creating us.
If there was a balance of good over bad in taking someone's life, then he would have that right.
My problem is that it's difficult to explain why the situation I cited is a situation where God has the right to take life. God, even though he is perfect and created us, can't always have the right to take life. There must be some situations where it's wrong for him to take someone's life. Therefore, one would have to explain why it's okay or right for God to take life in this situation. (That of the Amalekites, specifically the infants)
I don't agree that it is always our moral obligation to preserve life. I believe there are times when it's permissible or even obligatory to take someone's life. Say, when they are suffering greatly and the only end to their suffering would be if they died.
I do believe, however, that we have a prima facie obligation to preserve someone's life. That being, preserving someone's life is a good thing. There can be bad things that outweigh the concern one should have for another's life, but all else being equal, it's something we should be concerned about. I also believe this obligation is very hard to override, that there isn't much that can outweigh a good person's concern for their life. Given all this, if one kills another, he must back it up with good reason before one should accept it as a good/permissible act. Otherwise, one should be at least skeptical about whether the act was permissible.
If one knew that the being who committed the act was perfect, then that would be enough to show that the act was okay. Of course, it depends on how sure a person is that the being is perfect. If someone doesn't know whether a being is perfect and then hears about the being killing children, then one should probably think the being isn't perfect. If one is somewhat sure the being is perfect and hears of the killing, then one should probably at least be skeptical of the perfection of the being after that point.
So, I think it depends on your epistemic situation. If one isn't sure about whether the God of the Bible is perfect and hears of the killing story, then that should make him skeptical of the being's perfection.
Any way you take it, the cited killing lowers the probability that the being who ordered it is perfect. Perhaps other evidence can raise that probability back up to a reasonable place, but my point is that it is problematic to explain why God would order the killing of these infants.
Hello. I appreciate your argument. However, you make a fatal error in your example. You assume a moral law many times in your post but you do not justify your standard of good and evil. You assume that certain things are good and certain things are evil, for example the evil god (which is a contradiction in terms, God being perfect and evil being imperfection). But where are you getting the standard from? Geisler would argue that the very nature and character of God is the standard. Thus what God does is good, even if it means taking the life of an infant because He is the standard of goodness.
Geisler, would add to his statement that not only is God the creator of life, he sets the the standard by which good and evil are measured, thus the standard by which life is to be taken or given.
Now, this does not mean that if he does evil it becomes good, no, rather that he always does what is good because it is in his nature to do it. It is not an arbitrary thing for God to do good rather than evil. This moves us the the issue of the Divine Command theory. Now you claim to be against relativistic thinking, but where is the standard coming from where you are judging God?
Ravi Zacharias said:
"Is human morality arbitrary or ultimate? If it is arbitrary, then we have no right to condemn anyone else’s moral choice, including God’s. Conversely, if the moral law stands above us, then where do we locate it? This question ultimately undermines the mine that the skeptic places under the Christian.
These two choices — whether the law is arbitrary or ultimate — exist for us because our finiteness allows no other possibilities, and our character cannot be the absolute source. If "man is the measure of all things," we would be forced to ask, "Which man?"
But in relation to God who is infinite, the moral law is neither arbitrary nor over Him; rather, it is rooted in His character, which is perfect and unchanging. He alone eternally and perfectly exists. Just as the reason for His existence is in Himself, so too is the moral law. The reason for our existence is outside of ourselves, as is the moral law."
Your thoughts?
Please respond to socratricknight@yahoo.com
I'd rather respond here if you don't mind. I appreciate your questions about whether I can justify an objective standard of right and wrong without the need for a God.
I believe that I can. I made a post talking about the divine command theory and why the response "God cannot command bad things because it's not in his nature" doesn't get around the Euthyphro dilemma. Here is a link to the post. My post shows that you have to have a standard apart from God. Throwing God in to explain morality doesn't cut it.
As far as defending the fact that some things are good and other things are evil and where I'm getting the standard from, I'm not really sure why it has to "come" from anywhere. I don't think a perfect thing needs to exist so we can compare imperfect things against it. I can tell if something is a perfect sphere without having to posit a perfect sphere that exists somewhere.
I would say the same thing goes for imperfect human characters. I can point out flaws in people without being able to point to a being without those flaws.
I'm not a moral relativist, so I'm not really sure what Zacharias' quote has to do with me. I don't really think morality can be "created" in any real sense of the word. It sort of has to transcend any being's desires or character, even God's.
I would say it's much like science. In science, we can say the earth is round, it's an objective fact, and no one hears any weird objections like, "Well if God doesn't exist, how can you say that's an objective fact?" I think claims about morality (whether a certain act is right or wrong) are claims about reality. I believe it's a claim about what we have reason to do.
To justify my view of morality would take a lot of work. Basically, I agree with Alonzo Fyfe's moral theory titled "Desire Utilitarianism." Here is a link to his book on ethics. Here is an article explaining what Desire Utilitarianism is.
So hopefully that's a good partial answer to your questions.
Geisler's new book 'Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely About Right and Wrong' clarifies his position. I think many of you who disagree with his earlier works can be satisfied with his clarification.
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459
That book looks interesting. I wonder what clarification he made. Care to fill us in?
Post a Comment