rainbow walking

I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists’ argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

The argument, as set forth by the Christian apologist, is often expressed in one of two ways, and more often switched in mid-stream to justify not only that God is good but that free moral agency is proof of His goodness. The arguments are expressed thusly:

Argument 1

1. Free moral agency is a good thing (in spite of the plethora of evils it makes available as choices)

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. God is good.

Argument 2

1. God is good

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. Free moral agency is a good thing

Let me just say that I concur with premises 1 and 3 respectively, that free moral agency is a good thing.

The Fallacy Exposed

The inherent fallacy of these arguments are not only in their assumptions but in the improper usage of free moral agency and the ramifications this holds for the Christian.

1. The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives. Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it. The apologists’ version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures. As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God.

2. The Christian, by virtue of his commitment to God, is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and is not free to alter it without drastically altering the very foundation of Christianity.

3. Following this logic to its bitter conclusion we see that Christians are not free moral agents and thus are either:

(a). not good or

(b). not created by God

4. It is a fallacy for Christians, who are not free moral agents, to argue free moral agency as justification for a claim that God is good yet created a world where the innocent suffer.

Now, by expanding the apologists’ argument further thusly:

1. God is good

2. Free moral agency is a good thing

3. God created man as a free moral agent

4. Man, endowed with free moral agency, is a good thing

We begin to see that the apologetics in defense of Christianity are then problematically multiplied.

So the next time an apologist pulls the free moral agency argument out of his hat in defense of an all good God your best response would be:

“Then why are you a Christian?”

Tercel

Hi Rainbow Walking,

It seems to me the idea of "freedom" especially with regard to moral agency is not a concept that is particularly easy to pin down, although I do think some careful thought could establish some of the important ideas behind the concept. This is to say:
You say that "The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives." But does this accurately reflect what a Christian is meaning when they refer to moral choice? I can only speak for myself on this matter, but when I talk about "free" anything, I am more often that not thinking about the ability to accept God or reject Him. In the case of "free moral agent", what comes to mind is the idea of one who has the ability to accept God's morality or refuse it.
To me, freedom is about mainly having the choice: The choice to accept God's existence, to accept that He cares about what we do, to accept that we have done wrong, and to accept God's forgiveness for it; Or to refuse forgiveness, to deny my sins, to deny that He cares, and ultimately to deny that He exists.

You say "Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it." But as I understand freedom, this does not register to me as a valid point: We have our freedom in choosing to accept the moral code of God's making or not.

You seem to have anticipated my thoughts on the matter, as you wrote "The apologists’ version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures."
However I would not go quite as far as say "as defined in the scriptures". Paul wrote in Romans that though the Gentiles did not have the Law, their consciences acted like one and that was sufficient. I do not believe God's will is known solely through scripture, rather, I believe he works in everyone's hearts revealing his will.

Because here we reach the stage where our opinions clash, you wrote "As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God."
Can they? I would deny that anyone has created their own moral codes independently of God. I believe that wherever men have care about morals, there God has been revealing His will. Morals created independently of Christian revelation? Sure. Independently of God Himself though... ?
Ultimately I think, the only "Morals" that are created independently from God are the negative "Morals" that conveniently say the particular sinful behaviour that the maker likes indulging in really isn't immoral at all. And of course, for such a person: if God's morals happen to say different, then God's existence can be denied too...

HRG

This is of course one of those statements which is not falsifiable, but for which - short of an universal revelation by said God - no objective evidence can be brought.

To me, it looks like saying "every time my cat dreams about mice, it causes a muon to decay", "every time we see lightning it means that Thor is angry", or - (remember?) - "miracles can happen when the PHI-field is switched on". In all those cases, the antecedent (God, my cat's dreams, Thor or the PHI-field) cannot be independently observed, and postulating it has no predictive power (God is inscrutable, my cat doesn't tell us when it dreams etc.).

I doubt whether such claims even have any objective meaning at all.

What about the evolutionary advantages of altruism and cooperation (Robert Axelrod) ?

Please present an objective procedure for determining what God's morals happen to say.
regards,
HRG.

sighhswolf

Tercel,
I realize this is an old argument, but how do you account for societies, cultures that had no introduction into the world of christianity, and therefore had no knowledge what so ever about god and his dictated moral directives?

A rudimentary moral code can and does exist outside of the world of organized religion.
If mankind had not developed some form of moral code, the human race would, in all probability not have survived.
Consider our very early ancestors and the extremely dangerous world they lived in. They lived in a hostile enviornment and were barely able to find sufficient food and shelter and protect themselves from predators.
If they had not developed a system of working together as groups, sharing the burden of finding food and shelter, and caring for the young, it is doubtful that the race would have been able to sustain itself.
Now it is just my opinion but, a communal living arrangement necessitates a rudimentary moral code.
The idea that as a human being you are better off
with others of your own kind, rather than being alone to face all of the terrors, would indicate a conscience action to think not only of the individual, but of others as well.
The idea of a moral code is based in part on the premise of thinking and reacting in a positive way within the cultural boundries of a group,
in an effort to be civil and help each other survive.
So I cannot agree that "morals" or "moral codes" could not have been developed independently of a supreme being.
I would go farther and say that the advent of organized religion, has actually destroyed the "moral codes" of our ancestors in many instances by promoting an elitist attitude and seperating humans by religious beliefs.
A moral code that allows one to murder their neighbor with the sanction of a divine being is not what I would consider as morality.
I dont want to get into the whole objective and subjective morality thing that has been done to death but, I would not have expected a divine being who loves his creations, and who is by the definitions of christianity the author of all things good and moral, would have instructed his
earthly representatives to murder, rape and to engage in all forms of attrocities on their fellow man with his specific instructions on the methods to use.
My personal thoughts about this very subject
lead me to the non-believer status I now have adopted.
Wolf
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

rainbow walking

Tercel: Hi Rainbow Walking,

Rw: Hi Tercel, let me congratulate you on a well prepared and thought provoking post on Science and God. I was impressed immensely.

Tercel: It seems to me the idea of "freedom" especially with regard to moral agency is not a concept that is particularly easy to pin down, although I do think some careful thought could establish some of the important ideas behind the concept. This is to say:
You say that "The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives." But does this accurately reflect what a Christian is meaning when they refer to moral choice?

Rw: No Tercel, it doesn’t and I was careful to articulate the difference. It is, in fact, in that difference that the fallacy resides.

Tercel: I can only speak for myself on this matter, but when I talk about "free" anything, I am more often that not thinking about the ability to accept God or reject Him.

Rw: Yes I know this is uppermost in the mind of a believer when talking about freewill: the freedom to accept God or reject him. However, to establish God’s acceptance as a moral choice you must first establish God as a moral/good being and, thus, worthy of being chosen. That is precisely the conflict at issue here. The Christian ASSUMES this as a given and proceeds to build his case from there.


Tercel: In the case of "free moral agent", what comes to mind is the idea of one who has the ability to accept God's morality or refuse it.

Rw: Yes, I know, and it has all too often been accepted as the default mindset, when in reality, it requires one to first accept that there is a God and that he is a moral being worthy of acceptance. Both assumptions are negated by the reality of suffering. These assumptions are not necessary to, and as I’ve demonstrated are, anti-thetical to the proper conceptualization of a FREE moral agent. Can it be shown that acceptance of these moral strictures alleviates suffering? Can it be shown that only those who have rejected these strictures are suffering or cause suffering? Can it be shown that God or not God is the primary moral choice?

All of which then brings us to the example of Jesus Christ. According to the believer Jesus manifested the perfect example of compliance to God’s law and wound up suffering and dieing on a cross. So we can see that, even within the Christians confines, free MORAL agency doesn’t respond to the question of suffering, in fact, we can deduce from the biblical accounts that suffering appears to be a prerequisite of proving ones faith. It is the will of God. Ones behavior and reaction to suffering is a determinative in his Christian walk. Now how do you correlate this with a being who is moral and worthy of acceptance? Especially with a being that allegedly possesses the attributes that would easily enable him to devise another means of testing the faith, love and dedication of his constituents?

If it is the case that the primary purpose for free moral agency is to facilitate the choosing of ones cause for suffering, i.e. for the cause of Christ or for some other cause, then free moral agency doesn’t answer the question of suffering in a world allegedly created by an all good God. It confirms what the un-believer already acknowledges: that suffering is a fact of reality. If God created this reality to express this fact then he is either not good and worthy to be chosen or he is not capable of creating anything better and hence not omnipotent.

Of course a free moral agent is free to accept the dictates of any moral code and adopt it as his own. But to be genuinely free, as the apologists’ argument requires, he must also be free to establish his own morals independent of any assigned authority. A Christian who accepts the existence of God and embraces that acceptance also accepts the moral code allegedly established by this God and is therefore not free to alter it. He is no longer a FREE moral agent. He belongs to another. But, as shown above, since he is now to endure his suffering for the cause of Christ, we can see that all he has essentially accomplished is to assign another value to his suffering. The PRECEDENT (suffering) remains unanswered except as a result of free moral agency improperly applied. It just doesn’t follow. Yet, properly applying free moral agency doesn’t alleviate suffering. It just shifts the assignment to another cause.

The glaringly obvious contradiction is that suffering remains a fact of reality regardless. The dilemma for the apologist is to rectify this fact of reality with a God who allegedly created this reality, resplendent with all the facts that make it real, including suffering. The church has resorted to the embarrassingly ridiculous tactic of blaming man, endowed with free moral agency, for the suffering. But man, according to this same doctrine, didn’t create this reality. He just has to adapt to it by adapting it to himself. His morals are his method of adaptation. But man’s reality, by its very nature is constantly changing, forcing him to change his morals and his methods to adapt to the changes. This is THE reality of man. That is why FREE MORAL AGENCY is absolutely necessary to man’s survival. A man who has bound himself to a morality foreign to his reality loses touch with, and cannot efficiently adapt to, the reality in which he exists.

Tercel: To me, freedom is about mainly having the choice: The choice to accept God's existence, to accept that He cares about what we do, to accept that we have done wrong, and to accept God's forgiveness for it; Or to refuse forgiveness, to deny my sins, to deny that He cares, and ultimately to deny that He exists.

Rw: Have you ever asked yourself why an omni-max God would create a reality where His forgiveness became a necessity of that reality? Why would an invisible being be offended, requiring you to seek forgiveness, for your utilization of your free moral agency to reject his existence when he’s done nothing to conclude that he even exists? Why not beg the wind to forgive you for cutting a path through it on your way to your car?

Tercel: You say "Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it." But as I understand freedom, this does not register to me as a valid point: We have our freedom in choosing to accept the moral code of God's making or not.

Rw: Yes, a moral code which you cannot alter without such alteration being construed as rejection, a moral code that, by your own confession, you continually fail to comply with, requiring you to beg forgiveness. You have restricted and compressed your view of freedom as being measured only by your ability to accept or reject one particular moral code. Have you ever thought of establishing your own moral prerogatives tailored to your own life and needs? You are not free so long as you hold this black/white view tied to this one code.

Tercel: You seem to have anticipated my thoughts on the matter, as you wrote "The apologists’ version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures."
However I would not go quite as far as say "as defined in the scriptures". Paul wrote in Romans that though the Gentiles did not have the Law, their consciences acted like one and that was sufficient. I do not believe God's will is known solely through scripture, rather, I believe he works in everyone's hearts revealing his will.

Rw: This is a good point Tercel. What precisely are the attributes of God’s morality? Outside of the ten commandments and possibly the golden rule what ethical standards can you derive from that code pertinent to your reality today? Not one apologist to my knowledge, has ever stated the precise detailed version of this moral code. Can you?

Tercel: Because here we reach the stage where our opinions clash, you wrote "As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God."
Can they? I would deny that anyone has created their own moral codes independently of God. I believe that wherever men have care about morals, there God has been revealing His will. Morals created independently of Christian revelation? Sure. Independently of God Himself though... ?

Rw: Well, this may be one of the substances of your faith and you are entitled to believe this if you wish. But all this proceeds from your basic assumption of God’s existence and goodness.

Tercel: Ultimately I think, the only "Morals" that are created independently from God are the negative "Morals" that conveniently say the particular sinful behaviour that the maker likes indulging in really isn't immoral at all. And of course, for such a person: if God's morals happen to say different, then God's existence can be denied too...

Rw: And this is proof of the limitation you have willingly embraced in your thinking. Black or white. God or no. But then, there is reality to contend with. Conflict and change, my friend, conflict and change. That is the reality in which we reside. And it ain’t black and white. I wish it were. The conflict breeds and blurs with the changes and vice versus. Is God the defining line or is man? Who is in THIS world and who isn’t?

Tercel

[quote]Originally posted by HRG:
Are you suggesting we should only ever accept principles that are falsifiable?

You're confusing beliefs with predictive theories. (Something it seems to me that you do regularly)
My belief that something is true, doesn't need to be falsifiable or have objective evidence. Note: "All my beliefs are falsifiable" is a self-contradicting belief, so it “All beliefs should have predictive power”. Explanatory theories are what need predictive power, falsifiability, objective evidence etc. Beliefs don’t.

Who cares? Subjective beliefs don’t need “objective meaning”, whatever that might be…

What about them? I can understand why (and agree) there might be evolutionary advantages in helping others of your species and whatnot… But I see no reason to construe this as meaning that the only morality is “herd” morality, or that God had no place in the development of morality: Introducing evolutionary theory into it does nothing to remove God as I see it.

Since no human is perfect, we cannot point to a set moral system and say “this is God’s”. I think the best understanding of God’s morality has come through the Christian revelation, but as an errantist I accept that it is still not perfect and I am inclined to think there is no wholly objective procedure of locating the flaws but rather we must still trust to one degree or another in God’s guidance for our interpretations of scripture.
So if you want a wholly objective procedure, then I can but recommend that you examine all the different cultures in the world (or as many as are feasibly possible) and attempt to draw some generalisations of what the vast majority of cultures have felt about each issue with regard to morality. It is in this core section of agreement that I think God’s revelations to all can most clearly be seen.

Tercel

Tercel

Is that a problem? As I understand it, the argument from suffering attempts to disprove the Christian worldview by demonstrating it as inconsistent with the observed world. It is a proof by contradiction: 1. the Christian worldview is assumed, 2. shown to lead to a contradiction with observed reality, 3. and then declared false.
Now the relevance of “free will” to the argument is in part 2 of the argument, as it is raised to counter the claim that the observed world contradicts the Christian worldview. Now by part 2 of the argument, we have already assumed the truth of the Christian worldview in part 1. Hence I don’t see the requirement of having to assume the existence and morality of God as a problem for the “free will” defense, as assuming exactly this is what is required in part 1 of the arguments.
You say that “Both assumptions are negated by the reality of suffering”: But is the Christian point that, “yes this would be true if our belief did not include the idea of this free will thing”. The argument from suffering attempts to show the Christian’s position as inconsistent. The Christian is free to invent as many ideas as they like (devil, free-will etc) assuming the truth of their own system as much as they want: What is being required of the Christian is to simply demonstrate a possible way in which their beliefs do not conflict with reality.
But whatever “proper” conceptualisation you think a free moral agent should have, isn’t it up to the Christian to define what they believe and up to you to try and prove “contradictoriness” with what they give you as their beliefs?

I don’t think it’s difficult to realise that if everyone accepted the Christian moral structures then the world would contain significantly less suffering.
No. Need it be?
I don’t think so. But again, why does the Christian need to prove all their beliefs? Surely to refute the argument from suffering, the Christian need only demonstrate that there exists at least one possible way that their beliefs can be consistent with observed reality?
Aren’t two things been confused here? Jesus manifested the perfect example of compliance with God’s morality, yes. Yet he still suffered. Why? Because others who weren’t complying with God’s revealed morality chose to inflict suffering on him. To obey God’s morality is never presented as being about saving oneself from suffering inflicted by others: Rather, it is about not inflicting suffering on others yourself.
Neither would I agree that suffering is a prerequisite for proving ones faith. Indeed, James wrote that he proved his faith by his actions, and indeed Jesus commented in a similar vein that good trees produced good fruit and bad trees bad fruit. Suffering, I think, can prove faith, and can increase it.
I am not sure I even see a conflict here… If God cares and has moral wills about our behaviour in general, then why should our behaviour as a reaction to suffering be an exception?

Perhaps this is true under your definition of free moral agent. But as I asked above, why must the Christian confine themselves to your definition: It is after all, their beliefs that are being attempted to be proven inconsistent.
I would say the Christian IS still a free moral agent, because they can still choose to reject the decision of acceptance they have made.

I don’t see what you’re getting at here. I don’t see suffering as something you can alleviate by changing your own morals/causes etc. Suffering is, I think, something we inflict on others. As such, I think applying the idea of free moral agency can explain suffering as it shows the suffering as a direct result of actions of others who were not acting fully in accord with the moral decrees of God.
Of course: I enjoy thinking about all the complex questions. My thoughts on the matter tend to go two (not necessarily exclusive) ways. One, it seems the question can be solved if we do some qualification of the omni’s. Say Omniscience. God, I think, is omniscient with regard to this particular world of space-time… but what about the parts of creation beyond this universe? Say the creation of Satan: Did God know Satan would choose to oppose God before God created Satan? Etc. By qualifying a few of the omni’s in some small ways such as this, I think we can sufficiently answer many of the deep questions without even touching any of the standard Christian ideas of God being omni-max with regard to this universe.
Two, I appreciate that I’m not omniscient. I’m not really in a position to make any authoritative declarations on how God could have done it better. In fact, my experience has been that the more I understand (or at least think I understand) some of the ideas behind what I see as God’s plan, the more I appreciate what God has done and why he has done it that way.

As I see it, to affirm the reasonableness of these other moral codes is to affirm moral relativism. Moral relativism is (to put it mildly) not a concept which I see as having a very philosophically stable basis…

As I pointed out to HRG, we’re all human and we’re all fallible. I don’t kid myself into thinking that I know God’s morality perfectly.

Tercel

Vorkosigan

I don’t think it’s difficult to realise that if everyone accepted the Christian moral structures then the world would contain significantly less suffering.

Yes, but Tercel, in the last two posts you argued that Christian moral structures are difficult, if not in principle wholly impossible, to identify.

In any case, communities that have accepted Christian morality -- Calvin's Geneva, the Catholic Church heirarchy to name only two....they are authoritarian hells that inflict suffering on their subjects and the innocent bystanders around them. What you see as "Christian morality" I see as authoritarian power and control. That is why I do not think that Christian morality would be a very good thing.

Alternatively, we might note that the more Christian parts of the US are precisely those parts that are high in socially regressive attitudes and actions. Similarly, the US is more Christian than Europe, but Europe leads the US handily in most areas of social behavior.

I realize you can argue that such people are not True Christians, but that just begs the question of the problem of identifying something out there as "Christian morality."

What is being required of the Christian is to simply demonstrate a possible way in which their beliefs do not conflict with reality.

This is a good answer. However, the argument from evil traditionally hinges on the suffering of the innocent from actions of others, as well as natural evils, pointless suffering, etc. Free will doesn't enter into them. What possible free will reason could my sister have for dying slowly of an extremely painful degenerative nerve disease? Not to mention being afflicted with a learning disability, awful skin, weight problems, and -- pure torture -- nerves wired wrong so she doesn't taste food properly. How much suffering is enough, Tercel? At what point do we say "Either the Deity is not loving, or there is no Deity." After all, it is that such evil conflicts with the central Christian claim that god is loving and all-powerful.

Vorkosigan


Vorkosigan

MadMordigan

The Christian is free to invent as many ideas as they like (devil, free-will etc) assuming the truth of their own system as much as they want:

Did you just say invent ? Oh my, Occam must be turning in his grave.

all is being required of the Christian is to simply demonstrate a possible way in which their beliefs do not conflict with reality.

Not an actual way of course, only a possible way.

So if I understand this correctly, we should believe in an incoherant concept we are unable to verify (your god) because its possible something else we are unable to verify (free will) renders that concept coherant? And of course, if that something else in incoherant as well (where is free will in heaven?), then we should believe it in because its possible that something else we are unable to verfiy (your god's desires) will make it coherant?

Just how many unverifable concepts do we need to hear before the whole thing sounds like a sham ?

Pomp

Tercel,

JUst a couple of quick comments for you:

The argument from suffering attempts to show the Christian’s position as inconsistent.

I disagree or, at least, I claim that this is not what I attempt to do with the argument from suffering.

The Christian is free to invent as many ideas as they like (devil, free-will etc) assuming the truth of their own system as much as they want: What is being required of the Christian is to simply demonstrate a possible way in which their beliefs do not conflict with reality.

I agree completely. No argument that I've ever seen renders Xian beleif inconsistent or incoherent. What argument's such as rw's do, however, is greatly multiply the ad hoc justifications necessary to maintain a consistent Xian theology and, therefore, demonstrate just how unparsimonious such belief is. The number of plates the apologist must keep spinning to defend his faith is a useful demonstration for creating the cognitive dissnance that led many of us reject theistic belief.

One, it seems the question can be solved if we do some qualification of the omni’s. Say Omniscience. God, I think, is omniscient with regard to this particular world of space-time… but what about the parts of creation beyond this universe? Say the creation of Satan: Did God know Satan would choose to oppose God before God created Satan? Etc. By qualifying a few of the omni’s in some small ways such as this, I think we can sufficiently answer many of the deep questions without even touching any of the standard Christian ideas of God being omni-max with regard to this universe.

This is another example of the sort of ad hoc justification I'm talking about. Sure, we can maintain a belief in an omniwhatever god if we're willing to qualify the omni's and make exceptions in certain circumstances. I can maintain a belief that the earth is composed entirely of marshmallow, if I qualify that by saying "except for mounatins, and trees, and people, buildings, cars and, well, everything but marshmallows."