- Drog hasn’t shown himself and so it can’t be certain that he has the power he has been claimed to have.
- Even if the story is true, Drog is a moral monster and should not be obeyed for that very reason. Let us look at reason 2) for now. Assuming that Drog really existed and had the power claimed, would it be right for aDrogeists to promote the idea that Drog should not be obeyed, given he has the power to vaporize anyone he wills?
In terms of actual atheist arguments, scenario 1) is actually the one they focus one. Scenario 2–“even if God existed and commanded it, it would be an immoral God that does not have my allegiance”-- is more of a hypothetical afterthought. In other words, it is the very immorality of the notion – as they see it - that is yet another reason
why they would hold to 1, and exclude 2 as a reasonable possibility.
The futility of stance 2) is “Might makes Right.” There’s no other way to put it, ultimately. If God has ultimate power, it is futile to resist – even if he orders genocide.
seems to me that using a “moral” rationale in this case would be precisely the immoral thing to do because apparently Drog is not persuaded by human moral claims and to insist that humans “do the moral thing” and disobey his command would be to, paradoxically, bring about the deaths of any humans who are convinced by the “moral” argument being used.
I think we should keep in mind that
few atheists explore 2 as more than hypothetical, and actually believe that God or that hell exists. So, indeed, they truly do not believe in 2) as a real contingency, and are staking their claims on option 1) (that this “ridiculous” request comes from power-hungry or controlling human beings, not from a loving and all-knowing God). Perhaps you are calling their bluff in that they are not taking “2” as a serious option. Obviously, they don’t take 2 as a serious option, else they likely would have to acknowledge that “might makes right.”
Still, there is a scenario in which a Christian would be courting certain destruction, as a matter of principle. Namely, if an earthly dictator had told a Christian to violate a fundamental tenet of Christianity, on pain of death, a Christian might decide to become a martyr, and to die for his beliefs. He might even encourage others to die for their beliefs, as happened in Roman times.
Thus, I submit it would not be
wrong for the atheist to take that stand and to say, “rather invite damnation, than subscribe to such a cruel set-up of the universe” ; nonetheless, that atheist would be dying in the name of the humanistic principles of (as he sees it) kindness and fairness. He would be martyring himself – and encouraging others to martyr themselves – for a humanistic ideal. It might seem “dumb” and futile but, then again, many felt that the early Christians, who went to their deaths like lambs to the slaughter, were also behaving in a completely futile manner.
that Drog is not ordering anything immoral by his mandate that everyone wear red, so no one would be contravening any moral principles
In and of itself, asking someone to wear red is not immoral by any humanistic standard. However, saying, “I will destroy you, if you do not wear red”,
would be immoral, or tyrannical. In the actual world of human beings, anyone who tells you “wear red, or I’ll destroy you, and don’t ask me why” is going to have lots of fun in store, going far beyond that particular command. It would be indicative of a larger pattern of tyranny.
assume***** It would seem to me that an atheist who argues that God should not be listened to because anyone making such a command is a moral monster is taking the same position as those aDrogeists who, wrongly, I think, would advise, to the peril of anyone who listens, that Drog should not be obeyed because he is a moral monster. It would be morally wrong for these aDrogeist promoters to advise against following Drog’s commands because it would inevitably bring about their deaths
I still think you are making a pragmatic argument that Might makes Right, that would work just as well on a mundane level. For example, if the Jews are being targeted for genocide, it would be morally ambiguous to ask them to refuse to leave, on principle, and to meet whatever fate was in store for them. Indeed, the fact that they are told “you have a week to vacate the country, or we will kill you” is not a morally justified ultimatum–you would have to be very generous to call it “fair”, simply because there was prior notice – but – pragmatically – it is an ultimatum with severe practical consequences. Might makes right - if no one is powerful enough to stop the one making this ultimatum, that is an incontrovertible reality. You
will be killed, and “resistance is futile.”
Still, this doesn’t take into account the willingness to die for one’s principles (“live free or die”), whereby one is willing to die for one’s notion of what is right and just, and humane. Ironically, in real life, there have been tyrants who have been “swayed” by that kind of boldness and courage (if they see someone willing to die, who is not afraid, and who is standing on principle, that person has earned their “respect”).
Again, though, it’s fair to point out that atheists don’t get all that far with scenario 2). They fixate on scenario 1) as what they believe, and scenario 2) never goes beyond that of a vague hypothetical – no less hypothetical than asking a Catholic, “what would you do if God were really Satan, and asked you to commit acts of great brutality and cruelty, on pain of eternal punishment?” Speaking for this earthly life, we know what Christians would do in such a situation, which is to consent to being thrown to the lions.
