Or at least that is what it would seem given a recent post by Mr. Craig, famed debater and apologist for Christianity. No one doubts that he is an able debater, but this line of reasoning by him makes me question not just his morality but his sanity. In a post responding to a question about God and the infamous genocides (yes, they were genocides, by any definition) of the Old Testament, Craig defends the senseless slaughter of men, women, children (and occasionally animals, just to prove they were serious).
Craig asserts that critics believe the following; if God truly issued the commands to massacre the inhabitants of Canaan, which He certainly did, then God cannot be moral at all and thus the entire foundation is undermined. This doesn't deter the Great Debater, however, and he defines the moral argument to defend the concept of God.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Such are his three premises, but the fact is that, by our modern definition of morality, anyone who issued a command to massacre an entire people would not be considered moral. Substitute Nazis for Israelites, and Jews in place of Canaanites, and what you have is the greatest atrocity of the 20th Century. I would assert that there is no qualitative difference between the two. Both are genocide, and if you condemn one you must condemn the other. If you do not, you are a hypocrite. It also does not follow that objective moral values exist only because of the existence of God, so the argument fails on its first premise. It may well be that premises (2) and (3) are correct, but one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Using this argument, Craig attempts to slap down his critics by saying, "In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what's the problem supposed to be?" And here, I thought Craig was supposed to be fairly intelligent. The problem, Mr. Craig, is that an entity that claims to be the source of all good and all morality ordered genocide. Surely it isn't hard to see that?
Further, Craig writes that God has the right to take a life, as he is the giver of life. God has the right to command an act, and the Israelites would have been immoral in disobeying that act. But of course, if God hadn't told them to exterminate the denizens of the Promised Land, then it would not have been alright. Nicely played, Mr. Craig. He also, bizarrely, asserts that God was tolerant, waiting a long time before ordering the massacre. Well, how tolerant of the people of Germany, then, for they waited several centuries before committing the Holocaust (though there were intermittent small massacres throughout European history). "By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture, was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice." He immediately turns to a defense of the Israelites killing the Canaanite children. The irony is so rich here.
In ending the article, Craig explains why Muslims murdering non-believers is barbarous when Israelites murdering non-believers is not only right but the MORAL choice. Muslims have the wrong God, that's all. I repeat, if genocide is wrong, then it is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who commits it and for what reason. Isn't that the definition of a moral absolute? If your religion leads you to the twisted position of defending the indefensible, then it doesn't speak well to your claim of having a monopoly on moral authority. William Craig must surely have assumed the mantle of Arnald-Amalric, Archbishop of Narbonne during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in 14th Century France. Approaching a village consisting of a mix of heretics and Catholics, the good Archbishop instructed the troops to kill them all, for "God will know his own."
I'm thoroughly disgusted by this article, and I have hope that all reasonable people of faith will share that disgust. That hope is frail, however, for I think it all-too-likely that many will side with Craig. Here's the full article, in case you'd like to delve further than I have in quoting him: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
I thank you for bringing this new perspective to this story. I've never quite viewed it this way before, and it will require some further study.
ReplyDeleteI viewed the article through slightly different lenses than you, though. What bothered me the most was that he never really addressed the question - he focused on killing women and children, like that is any worse or better than killing grown men.
Like I said, I will have to study this further to see what conclusions I come to. Very thoughtful.