If I were an atheist...accounting for the slaughter of peoples in the Bible
If I were an atheist and sought to discredit the existence of God especially as he is portrayed in the Old Testament I don’t see how calling him evil for the kinds of things he commanded such as the killing of women and children would be an argument against his existence. Such would be a confusion of categories. How could I call a non-existent being evil? My negative criticism would only serve to affirm the existence of such a deity, but that he is evil nonetheless. Secondly, I’d be operating from the assumption that “if” God exists then he must necessarily be good, but how would I account for such a presupposition? Why does he have to be good? Why is it that “if” he exists then he has to be good? Hmmm…so if I were an atheist and denied the existence of God I would still have to account for the atrocities committed in the Old Testament. I could simply deny that they actually occurred, but would this help my cause? We know that such atrocities at the hand of humans are not only possible, but are realities as confirmed even in recent history. I’d need only to look to Hitler’s final solution and then fast-forward to Rwanda and Darfur. Humans indeed are capable of such evils.
Ok. So I’d deny that national Israel actually heard from God (since there is no god), but that they instead only acted “in the name of God” in order to justify wiping out entire peoples. Now why they would feel the need to invent a god to justify their actions raises new questions. Nevertheless I’d approach these events and treat them as purely historical while disregarding the reasons the Biblical authors offer up as justification for wiping out other nations such as “God told us to.” Removing the God factor for the moment does not eliminate the fact that these events still took place, but I’d lay the responsibility entirely upon man i.e. national Israel. I must still answer the question of why national Israel eliminated entire peoples. By re-reading these accounts purely as historical record I would most likely conclude that Israel wiped out the competition for no other reason then self-preservation. They were fighting, in their minds, for their own survival because they saw the surrounding nations as a threat to their existence. If this is so, then is this not in keeping with natural selection in evolutionary theory? If so, on what grounds would I be morally outraged? Why not accept that evolutionary processes as they work themselves out in human history? Why stand in judgment over evolution? Who am I to dictate to evolution what it naturally does? Am I not a product of it? I ought to rest my faith in evolution and trust its processes. Has not evolution brought us to our present intelligence? Let us be thankful that we are not Neanderthals. We could’ve been lower on the human evolution scale, but we are not. Has not each event in human history served at least in some measure to contribute towards evolution's larger purpose? My language betrays me since there actually is no purpose in these processes. Anyways...what if the Canaanites were deemed inferior and their elimination was a sort of quarantine so as to eliminate inferior stock in human development? Now we know that in evolutionary thought there are no “supernatural” categories such as to account for god so then even the human phenomenon of belief in god[s] must be accounted for within our DNA. Something within our DNA is causing us to believe in god. Have we, through evolution, developed a “god gene” i.e. a gene that predisposes us to “spirituality”? A plausible theory could be that evolution has given us a “god gene” so that it empowers us to perform some of the most atrocious, but necessary acts in “the name of natural selection.” Evolution fools us to act “in the name of God,” while having its own purpose (for lack of a better term) served in the larger context of human evolutionary development. Why did Israel feel the need to invent a god to justify their actions? Evolution made them self-delusional so that they acted in harmony with evolutionary processes. There really is no god[s], but evolution has deceived us into thinking that a god[s] exist so that our actions such as the wiping out of other peoples in the long haul contributes to human evolutionary development in whatever form that may be. If this is so then I don’t see the reason to be morally outraged and speak in terms of good and evil, but only in terms of what advances the evolutionary process. Let’s just let nature have its course.
Ok. So I’d deny that national Israel actually heard from God (since there is no god), but that they instead only acted “in the name of God” in order to justify wiping out entire peoples. Now why they would feel the need to invent a god to justify their actions raises new questions. Nevertheless I’d approach these events and treat them as purely historical while disregarding the reasons the Biblical authors offer up as justification for wiping out other nations such as “God told us to.” Removing the God factor for the moment does not eliminate the fact that these events still took place, but I’d lay the responsibility entirely upon man i.e. national Israel. I must still answer the question of why national Israel eliminated entire peoples. By re-reading these accounts purely as historical record I would most likely conclude that Israel wiped out the competition for no other reason then self-preservation. They were fighting, in their minds, for their own survival because they saw the surrounding nations as a threat to their existence. If this is so, then is this not in keeping with natural selection in evolutionary theory? If so, on what grounds would I be morally outraged? Why not accept that evolutionary processes as they work themselves out in human history? Why stand in judgment over evolution? Who am I to dictate to evolution what it naturally does? Am I not a product of it? I ought to rest my faith in evolution and trust its processes. Has not evolution brought us to our present intelligence? Let us be thankful that we are not Neanderthals. We could’ve been lower on the human evolution scale, but we are not. Has not each event in human history served at least in some measure to contribute towards evolution's larger purpose? My language betrays me since there actually is no purpose in these processes. Anyways...what if the Canaanites were deemed inferior and their elimination was a sort of quarantine so as to eliminate inferior stock in human development? Now we know that in evolutionary thought there are no “supernatural” categories such as to account for god so then even the human phenomenon of belief in god[s] must be accounted for within our DNA. Something within our DNA is causing us to believe in god. Have we, through evolution, developed a “god gene” i.e. a gene that predisposes us to “spirituality”? A plausible theory could be that evolution has given us a “god gene” so that it empowers us to perform some of the most atrocious, but necessary acts in “the name of natural selection.” Evolution fools us to act “in the name of God,” while having its own purpose (for lack of a better term) served in the larger context of human evolutionary development. Why did Israel feel the need to invent a god to justify their actions? Evolution made them self-delusional so that they acted in harmony with evolutionary processes. There really is no god[s], but evolution has deceived us into thinking that a god[s] exist so that our actions such as the wiping out of other peoples in the long haul contributes to human evolutionary development in whatever form that may be. If this is so then I don’t see the reason to be morally outraged and speak in terms of good and evil, but only in terms of what advances the evolutionary process. Let’s just let nature have its course.
Comments
Let me try and explain to you why you believe in a god. When you were a child people older then you told you there was a god, when they were children they were told the same. People all over the world believe in different gods because they are all different stories made up to help cope with death and to bring about rules and laws. Government used to be religion. High priests and witch doctors would be the final say in how to govern because they got their instructions for "god". So they had all the power, Zeus, Mithra, Krishna, Horus, all created and all of the commanded people to be a curtain way. With laws that if broken rendered punishment, a lot in the way of what happens after you die. So the people who made up these stories were trying to control the populous with fear and false hopes. They did a great job as humans were uneducated and easily fooled back then just as a lot are today. People did this all over the world and there were a lot of different gods worshiped long ago just like today, but long ago most people were polytheistic which means the believed that more then one god existed. Today however we are living in a very monotheistic world so there is more fighting about who's god actually exists, which is hurting society as a whole. When your bible was put together there were a lot of "christian" books and a lot of christian groups believed different things. So when today's bible was created by Constantine and By the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. it was argued over and agreed upon by men each supporting there own interests to please an at the time pagan ruler Constantine. Constantine had many pagan influences put into his religion to please the pagan followers in his land, Christmas= Saturnalia Etc. If you look at the catholic church today you see how much pagan influence is there it is obvious from the lighting of candles to the Mary worship. After this many horrible things were done if the name of jesus christ and his father.
Why do atheist point out the evils of god in the bible? For your bible to be valid your god much be without sin. Proving that he is evil with your own book invalidates the book entirely. That is why.
You are aluding to the "Problem of Evil" (PoE).
PoE runs roughly like this:
1) God exists AND is Omnipotent, AND Omni-benevolent (all-good).
2) For someone to be Good, he must (necessarily) oppose evil to the best of his ability.
3) Omnipotence = unlimited ability.
4) Evil exists
5) Therefore the description of God is self-contradictory, therefore describes that which does not exist.
Plantinga's rebuttal of these arguments can be found pretty readily.
Basically, 1) on what grounds does the atheist claim 2nd and 3rd premise. (2) Are there morally valid reasons to permit evil for a period of time? (3) Does it logically follow that God has done wrong by creating in man the capacity to choose good or evil independently?
If any of these (or other) questions give a logically possible answer (however improbable you may think it) then the all-or-nothing accusation against God shifts. It moves from evidence of his existence being a logical contradiction, to the Atheist being morally outraged by the notion of God. Reply: Why should I be subject to your subjective opinion?
1) "People all over the world believe in different gods because they are all different stories made up to help cope with death and to bring about rules and laws."
-- FALLACY. Bare assertion. (both by you and the textbook the idea came from),
2) "So the people who made up these stories were trying to control the populous with fear and false hopes." -- FALLACY: Appeal to omniscience. How is it that you managed to interview the founders of ALL major religions, and have determined their motives? In your own words, "Wow"
3)"They did a great job as humans were uneducated and easily fooled back then just as a lot are today." -- FALLACY. arrogant Ad Hominem attack. Assumes historical people are idiotic. Simple familiarity with any of the historical writings of the period will disprove this. Also assumes that all Theists are necessarily uneducated and easily fooled. Prove that this is so.
4)"long ago most people were polytheistic which means the believed that more then one god existed. Today however we are living in a very monotheistic world so there is more fighting about who's god actually exists," -- FALLACIES several problems with this: reveals profound ignorance of patterns of worship past and present. ridiculous use of "long ago" and "Most", asserts unproven causal relationships.
5) "When your bible was put together there were a lot of "christian" books and a lot of christian groups believed different things.it was argued over and agreed upon by men each supporting there own interests to please an at the time pagan ruler Constantine. Constantine had many pagan influences put into his religion to please the pagan followers in his land," --WRONG AGAIN: shows ignorance of the development of the N.T. Origin used NT roughly 100 years before Constatine. Far more books were universally agreed to than disagreed about. No other work of Antiquity is as historically verifiable as the Bible, particularly the NT. You are obviously repeating something you were told, by someone who was ignorant of the subject.
6)"catholic church today ... pagan" -- AGREED. However Scripture (OT and NT) describes and predicts such cycles of apostasy and renewal. Catholics in many important ways forsook their historical Christianity. Reformation is evidence of its enduring character.
7) After this many horrible things were done if the name of jesus christ and his father. -- part-to-whole FALLACY. 3rd Reich, Pol Pot, and Soviets were Atheists, do you share their violent tendencies?