🎉Cyber Week Sale: Get 30% Off Everything!
AU
United Kingdom United States Australia New Zealand India

What We Might Say To Dawkins

 
Carl Laferton | 26 Oct 2011

The evangelist for atheism, Richard Dawkins, has explained here why he won’t engage in debate with the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. Craig left an empty chair at his Oxford debate last night.

In a nutshell, Dawkins accused Craig of defending what he calls “genocide” in the Old Testament, when God told Israel to kill the inhabitants of Canaan. Dawkins’ line was: I’m a busy man, I’m a good man, and I’m not going to waste time giving credence to a guy who says that it’s OK for thousands of people, including children, to be killed, or who believes in a God who says that’s OK.

A couple of commentators, who don’t appear to be Christians themselves, have helpfully critiqued Dawkins’ position: have a look here and here.

But how does the everyday Christian deal with all this? In three ways, perhaps, which we’ll put up in three separate posts. Here’s the first:

What we might say to Dawkins himself: You say that humans are just random collections of atoms. Everything is down to random chance. Yet you refuse to engage with a collection of atoms (William Lane Craig) which says that the random reordering of lots of collections of atoms (the Canaanites) by another bunch of collections of atoms (the Israelites) thousands of years ago was not “morally wrong”.

And anyway, if we’re all just atoms constantly randomly rearranging themselves, then there is no “wrong”. Your outrage is founded on a moral judgement that your views cannot support.

The only justification for being uneasy about what happened is if those humans were more than mere collections of atoms. But if they’re more than that, then where does that value come from? It can’t be bestowed by another human (we’re mere atoms!) It can only be by a “God”. Who you don’t believe in.

4 Comments

Steven Carr

11:01 PM AEDT on January 8th
I believe Craig is now claiming that no children would have been killed if they had toddled away really quickly from the soldiers sent to kill them.

I bet a 2 year old can toddle real fast, if he knows Yahweh has sent soldiers to kill him if he does not flee.

Here is Craig , channeling Osama bin Laden, claiming that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it, and it is not even murder then.

CRAIG

Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.

The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

CARR

Craig’s views are now being picked up by some Muslims.

“In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,
I write this letter to inform you that I departed for the land of the jihad.
To dispel the unbelievers, and to help establish the Islamic state.
I do not do this because I like fighting, but because 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 may not’”

CARR

How does Craig’s claim that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it differ from a jihadist claim that fighting is obligatory if his god commands it?

Carl Laferton

11:01 PM AEDT on January 8th
Thanks, Steven. Some great points there, well worth wrestling with. There are no easy answers.

I suppose I would want to say two things:

If there is no God at all (either the Christian God of the Bible, the Muslim Allah of the Koran, or any other), then why is there any moral issue with the killing of children anyway? Why is it any worse than a fisherman catching a heap of tuna, or a lion killing a load of young gazelles? I’d love to know where you get a moral imperative—an “ought”—from without any appeal to a higher authority. That’s why I said in my post that Dawkins’ problem is that, since he believes we’re all random collections of atoms, he can have no moral problem with the atoms making up the Canaanites being rearranged. Could you explain why you think it’s wrong?

Second, If Allah were the true God, then presumably he could decide in the world that he had made how the people he had made should live. Who would we be to tell him that he was wrong (that would be a little arrogant)? I don’t believe Allah is the true God, which is why I don’t listen to what he purportedly commands. I do believe that Jesus Christ is the true God, because he rose from the dead to prove it. He says he is the God of the Bible, and so I do listen to what he commands. (Have you read the second post that went up yesterday, explaining a little more of why God commanded what he did about the Canaanites? Be interested to know what you make of it.) Unless and until I can raise myself from the dead, I don’t think I’m in a position to tell Jesus what he should be like or how he should run his world. I’m only one human!

Chris S

11:01 PM AEDT on January 8th
I have read all the articles with much interest. In my opinion Richard Dawkins has become the popular face of atheists. This being the case the more I hear about Richard Dawkins the more I find that those who question a creator God do not agree with his ideas and views. Many who seem to agree + comment on Dawkin's post seem to me "God haters" (although I am aware this is probably an incorrect generalisation). I hope that more writers come forward to debate this amnd others issue, it is a shame that those who hold the most extremists views are given large amounts of the press.

I think it is important with Old Testament scripture to remember the the nation was a theocracy (governed by immediate divine guidance). God was not distant. It seems to me that other groups that advocate violence and claim to justify themselves through god cannot speak like the writers and doers of the Bible. They also cannot claim a man was killed but rose three days later and appeared to over 500 brothers.

Richard Dawkins in his article says that most churchmen have wisely disowed the Old Testament accounts. If this is true it is a sad claim. If we deny the OT we deny Christ.

Thomas Seidler

11:01 PM AEDT on January 8th
Yes, this is a big perennial question. As Chris S said, Israel was in a theocracy when this happened, and basically it happened only once: in Moses' day the command went out to clear Canaan & co. God had been waiting 400 years approx since Abraham's day as the iniquity of the Amorites had not reached full measure (Gen 15:16). They had time before the sword fell, they continued in their extremely evil ways, gang rape of innocent strangers (Gen 18/19), child sacrifice etc etc, and more have fun exploring how bad the Canaanites really were via archaelogy. Here is a start: http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm

Also worthy of note is this single occasion when an "utter destruction" decree went out was accompanied & surrounded by such incredible signs and wonders that no one could be in any doubt that Moses was issuing these commands verbatim from the Living Creator God. 10 plagues culminating death of all first born of an entire country; both the Red Sea, and then the Jordan parted; an entire mountain smoking and shaking and burning with fire; the very voice of God declaring the 10 commandments to the point that all Israel, 600k men alone + mixed multitude were in fear of their lives; etc etc etc. Those who did doubt God spoke thru Moses (and there were many: the people, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Miriam, Aaron et al) were destroyed or severely warned by devastating miracles.

Now, other religions who have claimed to hear in their leaders head the voice to kill kill kill, where did they get it from? What proof God spoke to them? And can their subsequent followers generally apply it to any and everybody? Not so in Jesus' system. It was very specific, and became time limited.

After Moses, God never again issued to mortal man haram (utter destruction) edicts to be carried out. The later wars to do so such as Joshua's implementations, and Samuel's are just following commands already given.

So my God, when he choses to deal with absolute wickedness (and it's love of good that makes him hate evil so much he would utterly destroy it) puts a Royal stamp on it so clear it can't be misread. Whoever tries to compare us with Islam is having jokes. The last utter destruction decree to be enacted by God using Israel is by Samuel/Saul against Amalekties as far as I'm aware? Then things begin to shift.

Much could be said about the children: were they better off dying then, as youths? If they were destined to grow up into the wickedness of their parents was not death better, b4 they pile up their guilt? For the infants, who die b4 they know right and wrong, was not death better? Who could have parented them? That is a slightly more complex question.

There is again the modelling of consequences to the world. What benefit is there to stoning someone who does evil? Well, all the others in the community will think twice before they do the same. It's not a blessing to the individual, but to the whole community who may be reformed by such sobering examples. So when God wipes nations out, man, woman and child, it's a sobering warning: God takes sin seriously. Don't mess. It'll affect everyone around you, so don't go down a path of darkness.

And the benefit of modelling the judgement of God. Without holiness none shall see God. Our God *still* is a consuming fire. Compared to what the lake of fire will be like, and what God will do at judgement day, all this kind of stuff is minor. That all will be held accountable, and God is not worried about taking down unnumbered people in the interests of cleansing evil, should be a sobering lesson. Do not mess with the God that made the planet. It's his planet, disrespect him, and trust, watch history, he will disrespect you, and is no respecter of persons.

These nations exercised contempt of God. It was their 400 year cultural DNA, and it's a lifestyle rejection of God that screams out at us in such a clear way: "You do not want to go down this path, it's end is utter destruction...".

I find it helpful. My God is dangerous. Christ took the pain for me. I should have gone down, but there was always room for mercy, for making a deal with God. But do we harden our hearts, and then perhaps get our hearts hardened by the most high? Gibeon is the model to follow: they were on the list for utter destruction but sought mercy and so escaped it (Joshua 11:19-20).

All have the option to criticise God for being angry with what they do; or admit they've ignored their Creator and seek mercy. You'll get a fair hearing and your just deserts, or you'll get grace and heaven through Jesus Christ's taking your utter destruction.

Apologies so long!!! By all means chop, it just burns on my mind... ;) rant off now...

Carl Laferton

Carl is Editorial Director at The Good Book Company and is a member of Grace Church Worcester Park, London. He is the best-selling author of The Garden, the Curtain and the Cross and God's Big Promises Bible Storybook, and also serves as series editor of the God's Word for You series. Before joining TGBC, he worked as a journalist and then as a teacher, and pastored a congregation in Hull. Carl is married to Lizzie, and they have two children. He studied history at Oxford University.