Randal Rauser's Blog, page 57
May 12, 2020
Should Christians defend parental honor killing? Many already do.
The post Should Christians defend parental honor killing? Many already do. appeared first on Randal Rauser.
May 10, 2020
May 9, 2020
Can God Command Anything At All?
Yesterday, I tweeted some criticisms of Christians who crucify their moral intuitions on the altar of their particular readings of biblical violence. As you can imagine, the effect is like jamming a stick into a hornet’s nest and jerking it around. Within minutes a mixture of dazed and angry hornets come shooting out.
Today, I picked up the conversation with one fellow, Alex, who did not agree with my views. Alex was neither dazed nor angry, however, and he made his case in a straightforward manner. Our exchange also outlines in broad relief some basic positions and — in my view — fundamental errors with Christians who adopt a particular reading of biblical violence.
Two points are worth noting here. First, at the end of our exchange, it becomes clear that Alex rejects trinitarianism. However, as I point out, that is not directly germane to the question we are discussing since many trinitarians adopt readings of biblical violence that are closely aligned with those of Alex.
The second point is that I press Alex — as I always press biblical violence folks — on the question of whether God could possibly command rape. The argument can be stated like this:
If x is not worse than y then if God can command y God can command x.
Rape is not worse than genocide.
Therefore, if God can command genocide then God can command rape.
God can command genocide.
Therefore, God can command rape.
To be sure, I didn’t relay that argument in my exchange but it is in the background. And now, without further ado, we can set up the conversation with my comment on another guy with whom I’d been debating:
Randal: This fellow [not Alex] on Twitter just referred to my objection to the genocidal slaughter of Canaanite infants and children as my “hangup”. As if moral revulsion at the disembowelment of a toddler is an irrational emotional inhibition on my part.
At that point, Alex joined the conversation in response to that tweet. I’ve relayed our exchange below.
Alex: God is the sole giver and taker of life.
Randal: It doesn’t automatically follow that God will command people to hack apart infants. You’re missing a few premises, it would seem.
Alex: No, but it does follow that if he did, it’s a moral imperative to obey him regardless of our emotional response to his mandates.
Randal: It also follows that if God commanded you to rape then you ought to rape. But the question, of course, is whether it is possibly the case that God commanded rape. Do you think that’s possible?
Alex: I don’t see how anyone would benefit from such a command, but our emotional response would be irrelevant to the fact that his sovereignty gives him the moral right to perform such a command.
Randal: So on your view, God might possibly command a man to rape a little girl?
Alex: Again, I (a human who isn’t by any degree omniscient) don’t see how that would benefit anyone. God doesn’t take pleasure for sexual acts, either. You can make up whatever repugnant scenario and reject it but if God commands it, by definition it’s moral. Is worship conditional?
Randal: Jesus says that if you want to know what God is like, look to him (John 14). Do you think the God revealed in Jesus could possibly command a man to rape a child?
Alex: I don’t see for what purpose he would do that. God probably killed babies so they don’t grow up to become enemies of his followers. I don’t see why God would want to have a child be raped.’
Randal: You already pointed out that human beings are not omniscient so the fact that you cannot conceive of a reason for God to command rape doesn’t mean he wouldn’t.’
And by the way, there are other ways from keeping infants from growing up to become enemies apart from butchering them as infants. Jesus actually had some great thoughts on this. Stuff about loving your neighbor as yourself, for example.
Alex: That’s correct. So I can only give a flawed, partial opinion to a question as to what God “possibly” could command.
Randal: You have staked out a position that God can possibly command anything given that he is “sovereign”. This view steamrolls your own God-given moral intuitions as well as the revelation of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Alex: So when you see something in the old testament that you don’t like you go “no, that can’t be true because I don’t like it” or “no, that can’t be true because I can’t imagine Jesus doing it?” I believe Jesus is loyally submissive to God for all eternity.
Randal:‘If you want to accuse me of “not liking” genocide I guess I need to plead guilty. It sounds like you’re an adoptionist. I believe Jesus is God the Son, the image of God who reveals the Father to us.
Alex: Why do you try to have God contradict God? If infallible revelation says both God slaughters children *and* you should love your neighbor, both are true.
Randal: God doesn’t contradict God. You are the one embracing a contradiction. Jesus should be your hermeneutical lens through which you read Scripture.
Alex: Does your view stem from trinitarianism? Mine doesn’t, I don’t read my bible backwards.
Randal: I can see that. But actually, trinitarianism vs unitarianism underdetermines this question. It depends on what you believe about whether Jesus reveals the nature of God and whether you believe our moral intuitions have any value. You, clearly, do not. But have a nice day.
Alex: Probably our differing view of Jesus is the crux of the question, then.
Please don’t think I believe God commands rape. That is a very extreme hypothetical scenario. But: our moral intuition is limited. This includes how we interpret Jesus’ revelation of God which imho must never override OT revelation. God always, always knows best.
Randal: Rape is no more “extreme” than the eradication of entire civilian populations.
Alex: My flawed human intuition agrees.
Randal: Let me suggest that you should consider whether your hermeneutics and theology are more flawed than your moral intuitions.
Let’s now return to my argument. You see, I’d be very unhappy if you stopped there. Instead, keep going:
6. God cannot command rape.
7. Therefore, God cannot command genocide.
The post Can God Command Anything At All? appeared first on Randal Rauser.
May 8, 2020
May 5, 2020
May 3, 2020
God and the Invisible Gardener of Naturalism
In this video, I address the popular story that compares theological claims about God to claims about an invisible gardener. I point out that the objection applies equally to atheistic claims such as the popular theory of naturalism. I also note that it simply misunderstands the nature of theorization.
Since this video has no visual accoutrements and I ain’t George Clooney, I have included an audio link below in case you want to imbibe the content without the demand of sitting in front of a screen.
The post God and the Invisible Gardener of Naturalism appeared first on Randal Rauser.
May 2, 2020
May 1, 2020
April 30, 2020
Sean McDowell’s 5 Reasons the Bible is True: A Response
Let’s start with the video. Don’t worry, it’s only 52 seconds.
5 Reasons the Bible is reliable in one minute! VIDEO. pic.twitter.com/mX7VelC8VC
— Sean McDowell (@Sean_McDowell) April 25, 2020
I think this kind of stuff does more harm than good. First off, most of Sean’s points pertain not to the Bible simpliciter but rather to specific historical claims about Jesus. In that regard, it’s a bit of a bait and switch. Incidentally, I see this a lot among Christian apologists: they’ll talk about the unique historical veracity and manuscript evidence for “The Bible” when, in fact, they are really talking about the New Testament and, primarily, a specific subset of claims in the New Testament pertaining to Jesus and the early church.
In case you were wondering, yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls do establish a high degree of stability on textual transmission in a book like Isaiah, but there is still no agreement among scholars as to when the Book of Isaiah originated or how many author(s) or redactors it might have had. The answers to those questions remain hidden in the fog of the distant past. Yet, none of that essential nuance makes an appearance in this 50-second video.
Second, the whole notion of applying the “true or false” categorization to a book which consists of a diverse library of texts which have a range of purposes apart from stating “facts” belies the evangelical reductionism of Sean’s thinking.
Third, it’s cherry-picking and selection bias. Archaeological evidence that David existed does not warrant general confidence in the historical veracity of the entire Deuteronomic history. You might say, “Give Sean a break, he only has a minute!” except that the second you look closer, you’ll encounter a myriad of controversies with the historical aspects of the Deuteronomic history.
Fourth, the line about the evidential power of “fulfilled prophecy”, while beloved of evangelicals, is very weak. For one thing, it masks the fact that many of these “prophecies” are not veridical validations but rather reinterpretations of the OT in light of Jesus. Matthew does this a lot. Mind you, this is not a critique. It’s just a recognition that Matthew is making theological points, not providing apologetic prooftexts.
Yet other “prophecies” were written after the fact: Daniel, for example, was plausibly written in the Maccabean era in which case the text did not predict the as yet rise and fall of kingdoms in the Ancient Near East: in other words, the text is likely retrospective rather than prospective.
And the next time a Christian tries to persuade a Jew that Isaiah 53 predicted Jesus, you’ll see the limits of this apologetic. It is equivalent to a Mormon trying to convince a Christian that Ezekiel prophesied the Book of Mormon. I’m not suggesting that the Mormon’s claim is evidentially equivalent to the Christian’s. I think the Mormon claim is bogus and the Christian’s interpretation is correct. But in terms of a simple reason to have evidentially grounded confidence, it is misleading, at best.
Kudos that the video is only 50 seconds. But to be honest, I don’t know that even 50 seconds spent perpetuating errant and misleading notions about the Bible is time well spent.
The post Sean McDowell’s 5 Reasons the Bible is True: A Response appeared first on Randal Rauser.
April 28, 2020
If Naturalism Functions as a Religion, Does it Follow that Naturalism is a Religion?
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” explores the story of science and the universe with reverent awe and spiritual delight.
In my experience, self-described naturalists tend to get irritated when you point out that naturalism often functions as a religion. Perhaps it is because they recognize that there is little space between functions as religion and is a religion just as there is little space between functions as a house and is a house.
Granted, for purposes of city property taxes, that garden shed in which you’ve taken up residence may not qualify as a house, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the place where you sleep each night: that which functions as your house is your house.
Many naturalists seem to think that because naturalism is not widely recognized as a religion, that it is exempt from functioning as a religion and thereby being a religion. But that’s mistaken. Just as a garden shed can become your house regardless of whether the city recognizes it as such, so naturalism can be your religion.
So how would you know if naturalism was functioning as your religion? Start with this: does naturalism occupy significant overlapping space with that which is typically occupied by religion? For example, religion typically provides an account of the ultimate nature of reality and the means to live rightly in accord with it and to gain knowledge about it. Does naturalism do that?
Well yeah, of course, it does. Naturalists claim that all that exists is one kind of thing which they call nature. They thus explicitly deny the metaphysical claims of many other religious perspectives. In addition, naturalists claim that science provides the one unique authoritative means of inquiry into that one metaphysical reality called nature.
Religions also standardly provide an eschatology — a vision of the future — and that often includes a mixture of hope and stoic resolve. Naturalism does this as well. It’s greatest prophets — folks like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson — wax eloquently about the depth of cosmic time, the prospects of our future existence among the stars, and the staggering finitude of individuals and the collective whole against this vast stellar backdrop.
One key aspect of religion is worship. But we should be careful here because people often think of worship in an overly narrow sense as if it is essentially tied to singing songs in a group, dropping money in a collection plate, and engaging in acts of prayer to a personal deity. Those are token examples of religious acts common in western monotheistic religions, sure, but beware that you don’t confuse token and type. Houses are not limited to those abodes that are charged property tax and acts of worship are not limited to those that consist of acts of piety in western monotheistic religions.
Other religious traditions exhibit their own worshipful practices such as meditative acts of mindfulness oriented toward a transcendent cosmic reality. And anybody who has listened at any length to the above-mentioned prophets will recognize the reverent awe they grant to nature and science looks very much like the reification of worshipfulness to its essence. And once again, if it functions as worship, we should recognize that that is what it is: worship.
So the way I see it, naturalists should go ahead and recognize naturalism for the religion that it is. Continue to praise the potential of science, ruminate on the fleeting mortality of the individual, speculate hopefully of the expansion of our species to the stars, and lapse into silence at the dizzying expanses of the heavens. Embrace your religion for what it is. We won’t judge you, I promise.
The post If Naturalism Functions as a Religion, Does it Follow that Naturalism is a Religion? appeared first on Randal Rauser.
