Thom Stark does a very good dismantling of Copan’s book and arguments. He’s also a Christian. It’s free and online.
Sarah x
How about a link?
In one description of the book (The Human Faces of God) Stark seems to suggest that his arguments are designed to show the doctrine of biblical inerrancy should be replaced by biblical inspiration, which was precisely my first point about a possible option for the Christian!
Have you read it? What about it do you find interesting or argument that would apply to what I have said?
Does he challenge the idea that ancient cultures were even harsher than the Jews? Because that point at least is not very controversial and widely accepted, and it is the primary point of importance for my claim that God must introduce moral commands gradually (and it is one with which you seemed to agree at one point).
I think it does. Where did people get the idea of God’s nature? From the inspired writings? So if they could be mistaken about what God actually wanted, as you claim they were, they could equally be as mistaken about the ‘objective’ nature of the God that they said was inspiring them (wrongly). Because ultimately all we have is their subjective interpretation of things.
So you are saying that since all we have is a subjective opinion about God, we don’t know what God might be like.
Again, you are still conflating God’s
existence with our
perception of God’s existence. Those are two different things! You are saying that God could be the source of objective moral value, but we might not know it. Well, this is not an argument that God is
not the source of objective moral value, only that He might be and we might not know it!
In this, you are taking a radical skepticism that you would never apply to any other source. Think about it. You are suggesting that since the OT writers might be deficient in
some respects we can’t believe them about God in
any. But no source is perfect and by this logic, you could never believe anything! ! ! The fact that you hold only the OT to this double standard suggests that you might again look at if you have any biases that are causes you to not consider the evidence fairly.
Second, You don’t think the OT is the
only place we get our knowledge about what God is like, do you? I already mentioned the New Testament and how that is even more important. Philosophical considerations can also confirm much of our knowledge of God.
Since, the Israelites gradually learned about God and his moral laws, it is not surprising that there might be respects where their image of God is not complete.
Lastly, you really haven’t answered either of my suggestions for interpreting the OT and how at most it shows that Israelites were mistaken in attributing such commands to God, and second, that God had to gradually introduce His moral commands to a hard-hearted people.
You seem to have now agreed that without God life has not objective value, purpose, or meaning, but you think that as a society we should lie to each other and pretend it does because if we don’t believe this lie, we won’t be able to live happily. (or as one writer put it, “without such lies, we cannot live.”)
Alternately, maybe God really does exist, in which case human beings do have (objective) intrinsic moral value, as you put it, “no matter what anyone thinks.” The OT gives no reason for doubting this, and even when read in proper context (of the New), gives some reasons for accepting it.
- I would like to see your sources on this one.