How would you answer this atheist's question?

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

At Paul talks about how we aren’t responsible for what we don’t or can’t know.
Also known as invincible ignorance.

(I apologize, I know this sounds “weasel-y”, but I’m trying to stay on the thread topic )

 

[Freddy]

At Paul talks about how we aren’t responsible for what we don’t or can’t know.
Also known as invincible ignorance.

Which doesn’t answer the question. It just absolves you of responsibility.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Fair enough.
A command from God is meant to be obeyed.
The problem is “did this command really come from God?”

Which is why, in 2020, I would have no reason to believe that a command to kill somebody came from God.

 

[Gorgias]

Your conscience is simply telling you not to do something because it is shameful. Because it is cowardly. It processes the emotions and tells you what you should do.

No, I think that this approach is backward.

In a certain sense, this is an a posteriori approach – your experiences are forming your morality. I think that’s mistaken: it means that you don’t know something is morally good or morally evil until you’ve experienced it. After all, you admit that ‘shame’ is a response to a known experience. (You wouldn’t know that a certain act is immoral unless you had previously experienced it, and previously formed a judgment.)

On the other hand, I would assert that a moral code is more like an a priori approach: you can know moral good and moral evil prior to the experience. Yes, Catholics would say that the source of that knowledge is God. Yes, we have to appropriate that knowledge and use it to form our consciences. However, it’s knowledge in advance, and not after the fact, that is available to us. (Yes, we also can use our experiences to help form our conscience, but the truth about the moral content of the act – and not just our experience of the act when it happens – that’s available to us!)

Yet again, if you want to say it’s God given then be my guest.

So, it’s not just that the choice is “God given” vs “emotion/shame”. I think that the issue is along the lines of ‘a priori’ / ‘a posteriori’.

Are you saying that if God gave the command to kill someone in Abraham’s time it would be morally acceptable, but if He gave exactly the same command now it would be immoral?

It seems that you are saying that God’s moral standing is relative to the times.

No. It’s always immoral to murder. Culpability, on the other hand, depends on knowledge. Abraham’s knowledge and our knowledge are vastly different, and therefore, culpability is likely to be vastly different.

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

Yet we will have people on the forum who believed that He killed them Himself on ocassion. I fail to see the difference.

So one of these points of view is incorrect, obviously. The universe of Catholics who “believe that God killed children himself” is extremely small, and umm…extreme. You might be living in a fishbowl of your own making here. But of course, the atheist point of view needs that fishbowl for it’s relevance, so…

And you can’t possibly “fail to see the difference”. You can’t possibly be that morally numb.

The post immediately above yours notes that discussions have been going on for years as to the problem of God commanding a father to kill his son. Not whether it happened but how are we to understand it.

And I have been involved with a long debate with quite a few forum members recently as to why God was justified in killing children in Soddom and Gomorrah. Not a debate as to whether it happened. But how God was justified in doing it.

Needless to say that I don’t believe either event took place. But you need to bring your point up with those whom you suggest hold what you term ‘extremist’ views with the forum members themselves. This is the ‘Catholic fishbowl’ in which I swim.

And no, I really don’t see any difference worth discussing between someone who orders a person killed and someone who actually does the killing.

You obviously know intuitively that it’s not in God’s nature to commit or order cruelty. Ok great.
Why do you waste your time debating ad nauseum with people who you know have it all wrong? (I happen to agree with you on that…)

What’s in it for you to debate fundamentalists on conceptions of God that are wrongheaded?
Is it possible that you are engaging in self affirmation?

 

[ralfyman]

There’s an answer to the question given in this thread:

Abraham and Isaac Sacred Scripture

I asked this question to CA staff apologist. This is the answer that I received. Perhaps it will help you. I haven’t had time to read all the links yet, but wanted to make it available here. How can a good God command a moral evil (Abraham/Isaac)? Because this is a very difficult subject to explain in the short context of an email, the information listed below should prove helpful. The following is an excellent article on moral absolutes: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FR92202.htm Why …

 

[Freddy]

Fair enough.
A command from God is meant to be obeyed.
The problem is “did this command really come from God?”

Which is why, in 2020, I would have no reason to believe that a command to kill somebody came from God.

Presumably God would know what it would take to convince you. But why wouldn’t He give the command in 2020 but might at other times? You have implied that child sacrifice was known in biblical times so does that mean God would think ‘He’ll accept this command now because he doesn’t know it’s wrong yet’.

‘Can of worms’ doesn’t begin to describe the problems here unless you take these stories as metaphorical.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you saying that if God gave the command to kill someone in Abraham’s time it would be morally acceptable, but if He gave exactly the same command now it would be immoral?

It seems that you are saying that God’s moral standing is relative to the times.

No. It’s always immoral to murder. Culpability, on the other hand, depends on knowledge. Abraham’s knowledge and our knowledge are vastly different, and therefore, culpability is likely to be vastly different.

But I wasn’t talking about the culpability of the person being ordered to kill. As Scarlett implied, there is no culpability if God commands it. But the suggestion has been made that God would command it in Abraham’s time but not now. And the reason given was that now we know it would be wrong.

So again, that implies that God would only command us to do something if we didn’t know it was immoral.

And the first part of your post needs a longer answer than I have time for right now, but I’ll address it shortly.

 

[Freddy]

You obviously know intuitively that it’s not in God’s nature to commit or order cruelty. Ok great.
Why do you waste your time debating ad nauseum with people who you know have it all wrong? (I happen to agree with you on that…)

What’s in it for you to debate fundamentalists on conceptions of God that are wrongheaded?
Is it possible that you are engaging in self affirmation?

As an atheist, I can’t know it intuitively. It’s something that has been told to me very many times. And it makes sense in regard to the concept of God that almost everyone has of Him.

And I’m not sure that those who believe the story of Abraham (and to some extent Soddom and Gomorrah) would appreciate being classed as fundamentalists. I’ve had a few slaps on the wrist by the mods for using the word because presumably people consider it a derogatory term.

And I’m discussing it because the op asks about a question an atheist has asked. So it seems to make sense to me to put an atheists view forward when applicable. The guy who asked the question I think thought it a connundrum. It certainly is. And not just for those who don’t believe.

And I don’t need a comfort blanket of self affirmation. A decision in that regard was made a very long time ago. I’m not here to shore up that decision.

 

[Pattylt]

It’s funny, I guess, that this story never bothered me…unlike some others that bother me greatly.

In Abraham’s time, child sacrifice was expected and performed all the time. God is commanding Abraham to slay his child at first so He can then teach him that child sacrifice is abhorrent to Him. Allowing the command to be carried out was never going to happen. It’s how God showed Abraham that He was a different type of God from all the other gods worshipped. Now, had God allowed Abraham to carry it out! That would have made Him a monster. God was showing him that He wasn’t.

 

[Gorgias]

But the suggestion has been made that God would command it in Abraham’s time but not now. And the reason given was that now we know it would be wrong.

So again, that implies that God would only command us to do something if we didn’t know it was immoral.

If the intent of the inspired Scriptural author is to show that Abraham now trusted God implicitly, then the point of the narrative isn’t “God commands murder”, but “Abraham trusts God to know better than he does”, especially in the context of a narrative in which God ultimately does not command murder. However, if you wish to assert that the fundamentalist, hyper-literalistic interpretation is correct, you’re welcome to argue for that heuristic. I think you’d be mistaken, though.

 

[Freddy]

It’s funny, I guess, that this story never bothered me…unlike some others that bother me greatly.

In Abraham’s time, child sacrifice was expected and performed all the time. God is commanding Abraham to slay his child at first so He can then teach him that child sacrifice is abhorrent to Him. Allowing the command to be carried out was never going to happen. It’s how God showed Abraham that He was a different type of God from all the other gods worshipped. Now, had God allowed Abraham to carry it out! That would have made Him a monster. God was showing him that He wasn’t.

But God let him believe that he had to kill his son for him. The mental trauma would have been unbearable. Imagine the anguish of trying to decide whether to obey or not. And then to effectively tell his son that he must kill him for no other reason than to pove his love for God. Surely any man would say that a God that needed that sort of proof wasn’t a God that deserved respect?

I can vividly imagine Abraham staying the knife and then screaming: ‘This was a TEST?’ Most people seem to think that Abraham would be thinking ‘Gee, well that was lucky, eh Isaac?’ All I can see is apoplectic anger. Try imagining the tale in a modern context. It’s unbearably cruel.

I don’t know why this story was written because nobody comes out of it looking good.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But the suggestion has been made that God would command it in Abraham’s time but not now. And the reason given was that now we know it would be wrong.

So again, that implies that God would only command us to do something if we didn’t know it was immoral.

If the intent of the inspired Scriptural author is to show that Abraham now trusted God implicitly, then the point of the narrative isn’t “God commands murder”, but “Abraham trusts God to know better than he does”, especially in the context of a narrative in which God ultimately does not command murder. However, if you wish to assert that the fundamentalist, hyper-literalistic interpretation is correct, you’re welcome to argue for that heuristic. I think you’d be mistaken, though.

No, I don’t think the ‘hyper realistic’ version is correct. I don’t think it happened at all. I think it’s a story which attempted (past tense) to show that God must be obeyed whatever the cost. And as has been said, at the time when child sacrifice might have been acceptable, the story might have rung true.

But the point is that people treat the story as an actual event. Which simply doesn’t stand up now from a moral perspective. If it was true then, it should be true now. If it was morally acceptable then to order a killing (and forget culpability), then it should be morally acceptable now. But it isn’t. It is and always has been terribly wrong to kill your own child for whatever reason.

So if someone says that it’s a story written at the time to indicate aspects of our relationship with God in terms that could be understood at that time, then I’m all good with that.

But if someone wants to suggest that it actually happened and that everyone comes out of it with a happy ever after, then I’m at a loss to understand the thought processes behind that suggestion.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

You have implied that child sacrifice was known in biblical times so does that mean God would think ‘He’ll accept this command now because he doesn’t know it’s wrong yet’.

I didn’t imply it.
I explicitly said it.
We have stories in the Old Testament of God commanding to put somebody to death.
This doesn’t scare or shake me.
God created life, so He can take it.

 

[Gorgias]

I think it’s a story which attempted (past tense) to show that God must be obeyed whatever the cost.

Umm… especially when the lesson is “there’s isn’t the ‘cost’ that you presume there is”…?

But the point is that people treat the story as an actual event.

There are people who treat Bigfoot as real. And the moon landings as false. Do you take those approaches as valid, too?

If it was morally acceptable then to order a killing (and forget culpability), then it should be morally acceptable now. But it isn’t. It is and always has been terribly wrong to kill your own child for whatever reason.

Agreed. So… why beat up Catholics with a stick we think is rotten, too?

But if someone wants to suggest that it actually happened and that everyone comes out of it with a happy ever after, then I’m at a loss to understand the thought processes behind that suggestion.

Do what I do: smile. hand them a cookie. pat them on the head. walk away.

Remember, though: the problem isn’t the “it actually happened” notion. The problematic part is those who assert “God wanted Abraham to kill his son.” That’s the part that’s cringeworthy. And wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your conscience is simply telling you not to do something because it is shameful. It processes the emotions and tells you what you should do.

No, I think that this approach is backward.

In a certain sense, this is an a posteriori approach – your experiences are forming your morality. I think that’s mistaken: it means that you don’t know something is morally good or morally evil until you’ve experienced it. After all, you admit that ‘shame’ is a response to a known experience. (You wouldn’t know that a certain act is immoral unless you had previously experienced it, and previously formed a judgment.).

Yes, it does seem backward. I agree. But bear with me…

A lot of people assume that ‘doing the right thing’ is some type of Platonic ideal. Maybe written on our hearts by God. Or that it’s part of natural law in some way (which is actually closer to the truth). And that, hey - if we do the right thing then it seems to work. Which people think of as a verification for doing it. And people assume that that is the natural order of morality:

1. This is what we know is correct (don’t kill and don’t steal) and therefore we must do it.
2. When we do it then there are overall positive outcomes (you don’t get killed and nobody steals your car). Which proves 1.

Except that that is effectively backwards.

Groups of humans would survive in earlier times better than an individual (sharing of labour, food, protection etc). It’s common throughout the animal kingdom. It’s a given. So those who tended to form groups - those who were more sociable, survived more often than those who were individually minded. It was selected for as regards humans.

And some of the traits which we could term ‘sociable’ would be a willingness to share food and labour for example. A group of individuals who didn’t wouldn’t last as a group. So the members of groups tended to have these arbitrary characteristics. And again, this is common throughout the animal kingdom. And I say arbitrary because this wasn’t originally a conceptual decision by individuals made to better increase their survival rates. Bats and monkeys for example don’t actually make conscious decisions about how best to survive. It’s purely instinctive.

As it was with us.

Cont’d…

 

[Freddy]

…cont’d

So we found ourselves in groups and then later on in tribes and then societies where the arbitrary characteristics that allowed these structures to form were naturally passed on to each generation within those groups. And what started as an arbitrary characteristic became the norm. Because it gave an evolutionary advantage. No more or less than walking upright or developing an opposable thumb.

Now we don’t call having an opposable thumb as being ‘good’. We certainly consider it useful. It’s definitely an advantage. As we should treat the emotions that we have that allow us to survive as a society in the same way. We didn’t decide that sharing food was a good thing to do any more than we decided that having an opposable thumb would be a good thing to have.

So now what we have is this:

1. This worked to enable us to survive as a society and it is now an inherited trait.
2. It still works so we’ll describe it as being good.

So rather than stating something is good in the first instance and saying ‘we must do it’, we have evolved to do it and have then described it as being good. It’s simply ‘that which worked to enable us to survive’.

Now naturally there are counter examples to this. And exceptions. And members of society who don’t ‘follow the rules’ to gain an advantage over those who do. That’s a given.

But to give an example to indicate all of this, think of something that we consider to be morally wrong. Say having sex with a family member. That’s wrong in all societies. And the main reason is because it is genetically harmful. It’s an evolutionary dead end (there are societal reasons developed from that but it originates from that evolutionary problem).

If it was an evolutionary advantage to breed within a family group then incest would have been common from the very outset and that trait would have become an evolutionary developed characteristic throughout society. And it would then not be considered morally wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You have implied that child sacrifice was known in biblical times so does that mean God would think ‘He’ll accept this command now because he doesn’t know it’s wrong yet’.

I didn’t imply it.
I explicitly said it.
We have stories in the Old Testament of God commanding to put somebody to death.
This doesn’t scare or shake me.
God created life, so He can take it.

But you don’t believe He would ask you to do it.

Freddy:

But if someone wants to suggest that it actually happened and that everyone comes out of it with a happy ever after, then I’m at a loss to understand the thought processes behind that suggestion.

Do what I do: smile. hand them a cookie. pat them on the head. walk away.

Remember, though: the problem isn’t the “it actually happened” notion. The problematic part is those who assert “God wanted Abraham to kill his son.” That’s the part that’s cringeworthy. And wrong.

If I involve myself in a thread then I can only respond to the posts made within that thread. Ninety nine percent of what is discussed in this forum is based on events I don’t believe happened. If I ignored those then I may as well sign off. But I’m interested in how people interpret these events.

And the story obviously tells us that God didn’t actually want Abraham to kill his son. We know that. What I find difficult is that some people find it acceptable that it was entirely correct to test him in such a way. To make him make the decision to kill his own son.

‘It was a story for the times’ is an entirely reasonable suggestion. Anything else has me scratching my head.

 

[Gorgias]

But you don’t believe He would ask you to do it.

That’s because I don’t live in a culture that believed in child sacrifice. Let’s pick a better thought experiment, shall we?

Let’s suppose that, in 1000 years, the burning of fossil fuels and the consumption of meat is perceived of as ‘immoral.’ Let’s further suppose that you hear a voice tomorrow – which you believe comes from God – and that voice tells you to drive to Kansas City and have a nice steak. Would that be believable to you? Would that be horrifying to your descendants 1000 years in the future?

That’s the context we’re talking about here.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you don’t believe He would ask you to do it.

That’s because I don’t live in a culture that believed in child sacrifice. Let’s pick a better thought experiment, shall we?

Let’s suppose that, in 1000 years, the burning of fossil fuels and the consumption of meat is perceived of as ‘immoral.’ Let’s further suppose that you hear a voice tomorrow – which you believe comes from God – and that voice tells you to drive to Kansas City and have a nice steak. Would that be believable to you? Would that be horrifying to your descendants 1000 years in the future?

That’s the context we’re talking about here.

Good point. But again you are talking from the perspective of Abraham. In any case…

Is burning fossil fuels immoral? Well, at one time it wouldn’t be. But if now it’s reached the point where it’s damaging the environment then we have to limit the amount we burn. And quite possibly eliminate it completely. But has it always been immoral? I’d say no. It’s like drinking alcohol. It won’t do you harm if you are careful about your consumption. But if it starts doing you harm then you need to cut down or cut it out (one reason I don’t drink too much - I’d hate to have to give it up).

Is eating meat immoral? A different matter. I’d say always it’s ok. I can’t see a reason why it would be morally acceptable now and wrong in years to come. It’s either right or wrong. The only thing that will change is societies view on the matter. It subjective.

And in either case we could talk about personal culpability. But…

Is killing a child wrong depending on the times? In this context no. It’s always wrong. There’s no other way to look at it. It’s always wrong. Can we grant Abraham some leeway regarding culpability as we did above? Yes, we can. But can we excuse God for forcing a man to choose between obeying Him and killing his son or disobeying him? Absolutely not.

God is ordering an immoral act. The fact that he didn’t mean for Abraham to go through with it doesn’t excuse it. The immoral act is in the command. Not the final intent.

Imagine telling someone that you will kill their family unless you blow up a theatre. And you go through with it, making and planting the bomb right up to the point where you are going to detonate it. And then I say: ‘Nah, it’s ok. No need to actually do it. I just wanted to see if you would’.

Are you innocent in any of this?

The story probably worked as a warning at the time it was written. But it doesn’t stand now and it cannot be defended.