Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article II) A Look At Sinful Men In the Bible

[Note: Profanity, Blasphemy, Insults and the Like will result in the poster being banned without warning.  if you wish to disagree with this article, do so in a civilized and respectful manner]

Preliminary Note

This being part II of a series (it was originally going to be a trilogy, but is moving up to five as I edit), this article is limited to the actions of men in the Bible which are considered immoral. The cases I am writing of here are in response to what seems to be a common set of complaints.  Please remember, I can't cover every event in the Bible.  I can't anticipate every accusation.  Nor can I anticipate every misinterpretation of the Old Testament.  So consider this a sample of the ones brought to my attention.  An omission of a reader’s favorite example was not done to "kick it under the carpet" but was done to discuss some of the more common ones.

The incidents most cited are Lot in Sodom, actions in the Book of Judges (from which comes stories many are scandalized by) and the story of David and Bathsheba (from the perspective of David's actions, not God's action [that will be in article IV], so the article will be limited to these. I believe the principles in rejecting these charges of an “immoral Bible” also apply to others.

Now there are acts of men in the Bible being commanded to do certain things by God.  However, since God is the one commanding them, these will be looked at in the next article.

Introduction

What are we to make of those accusations of immoral acts "supported" in the Bible?  The accusation generally runs along the lines that people in the Bible do some wicked things, so the Bible can't be considered a source of authority.

While most of the individuals who take this view are ones who seem to be looking for whatever reasons they can grasp to condemn the beliefs of Christians, that doesn't take away the fact that some people are indeed scandalized — and perhaps earnestly — by some of the actions of characters in the Bible.  What are we to make of what the Bible records?  Does the Bible give sanction to men doing things which seem evil today?

Literalism and Context

To begin with, there is a problem of assumption which, whether sincere or malicious, seems to be a key point of the atheistic scandal with the actions of the Bible, and that is taking things literally without considering the context of the writings.

Just as when I wrote about Biblical Literalists who interpret everything written in the Bible as expressing literal history without considering the genre and the culture of the times, I believe certain atheists do the same thing.  While they do not accept the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, they do seem to think that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally using the understanding of the individual reading it.

In any case, Literalists of both sides don't seem to consider the possibility of their own interpreting being in error.  I think the issue of the objection to “Evil acts of the Bible” is of the same mindset as the Biblical Literalist, but with the opposite conclusion. 

Both hold everything is intended to be literally true from the interpretation of the reader.  The difference seems to be that because the Biblical Literalist knows God exists but takes everything literally, he must try to defend everything done in the Bible.  Meanwhile the atheist, who attacks certain actions in the Bible, assumes God does not exist and holds everything is understood literally and thinks all of the actions viewed are seen as being good, even if the acts are bad.

Both mindsets fail to consider whether the Bible passages were understood properly.  Looking at the charges, I find most of the attacks against Scripture on the "Bad God, Bad Bible" grounds do not understand what it was like to live in a culture of semi-nomadic Middle Easterners some 3,000 years ago.

This is the underlying principle to these accusations, which I believe can be demonstrated as false by looking at the Scriptures themselves.

Bad Acts in the Bible?  Of Course.  Approving Bad Acts?  Not At All.

Let's start with one of the more appalling incidents in the Bible, an event taking place Sodom in Genesis 19 which leads up to the destruction of that city.  What generally shocks the reader is how Lot tries to dissuade the inhabitants of Sodom… by offering his daughters instead:

^1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, ^2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” ^3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ^4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ^5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ^6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, ^7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. ^8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Now I have heard people point to this and say that this was an evil act on the part of Lot to offer his daughters to be raped, and they argue this proves the Bible can't be good.  The problem is: where does it say what Lot did was good?  This is an assumption which one does not find proof for in the Bible.

Now it is true that the customs of the time and region (for all the region, not just the predecessors of the Jews) held the hospitality offered to a guest to be sacrosanct, but we see nothing in this passage to indicate Lot was doing good by offering his two daughters to be abused instead.  Lot may have sincerely thought this was his duty of course, but it does not follow that such an act was good before God or to the writer of Genesis or to the reader at the time of the book being written.  Haydock's commentary on the Old Testament mentions this comment by Menochius:

Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil.

Now I don't think it was a "less evil" myself, but the commentary raises an interesting point.  We have an account of what happened, but not of the motivations behind it.  The atheist may argue that there is no proof this was Lot's motivation.  The response is: Neither is there proof that Lot's actions were seen as good.

This then is the issue: We have an account of what happened, but not why it happened or motivations for the people acting.  So to try to argue the Bible thought Lot's action was good is to commit eisegesis (inserting meaning into the text), and commits the fallacy of argument from silence ("there is nothing disproving what I say, therefore it must be true").  In light of what the Bible will go on to tell us about the evil of prostitution and fornication and rape, it seems more likely that the ancient reader of these texts would have seen them as appalling was well.

In short, all the ink (or bytes) spilled in indignation over this is based on something assumed but not proven: That the Bible was portraying Lot as behaving rightly.  I find it interesting that in Genesis 19:30-38, we see this was not the end of the folly of Lot and his family.

So before saying "How wicked the Bible is" one should first be certain they interpret it correctly, knowing the message it is seeking to convey (The depravity of the people of Sodom being punished by God in this case) and not assume that everything which occurs was met with approval.

The Book of Judges Speaks of Good… and Evil

The Book of Judges is another one which has many scandalous actions which offend our modern day sensibilities.  In reading this we need to remember we are seeing tales of depravity, not tales of heroes, and we see the description of a spiritual breakdown of Israelite society after the death of Joshua.  We are basically seeing Judges (non dynastic military leaders of Israel in times of crisis) who are called to deliver the Israelites from oppression.  These judges are people who are portrayed as being flawed individuals who choose wrong things at times.  Samson, for example, seems to be more of an anti-hero than a hero for example.  The example of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11) tells us of a man who, in making a vow, did something explicitly forbidden by the Law: Human sacrifice.

Those who make the claim of the Bible promoting wicked behavior tend to make use of these verses concerning Jephthah to claim God sanctioned this act:

^30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, ^31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”

^32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand.

To say that God granted victory because of the vow is to commit a post hoc fallacy.  If God intended Jephthah to deliver the Israelites from oppression, He could have delivered them in spite of Jephthah's vow.  The assumption that God granted victory because of the vow is to assume a God who can be swayed by bribes.  This is an interpretation without evidence to support it.

Notice at the end of the chapter (verses 39-40) we see that the action was remembered with mourning for the daughter, not the anime-like "tragic but necessary action":

And it became a custom in Israel ^that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

So it goes.  In each of these chapters we see people of differing moral qualities.  God may call these Judges to help Israel in times of oppression, but nowhere do we see any praise for the wicked actions.

This becomes especially clear from Chapter 17 to the end of the book (Judges 21:25).  In this section we see a sort of lament to bookend the accounts of the people written about in them.  Chapters 17-19  in this section begins each chapter with "In those days, when there was no king in Israel" and each chapter shows practices which we would find reprehensible. (Chapter 20 does not because it is a continuation of chapter 19).  Commentators on Scripture refer to this time as a time of anarchy in Israel where there was no authority to enforce the Law.

In these chapters we see accounts of idolatry (chapter 17), banditry (chapter 18), cowardice, rape and brutal murder of a concubine (chapter 19), an intertribal war (chapter 20) and the wink/nod at the abduction of young women to be wives for the almost exterminated Benjaminites (Chapter 21).  The book of Judges concludes, saying: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

However in none of these sections do we see anyone tell us God commanded them to do these things, or see the Scriptures say these things were good.  Rather we see numerous acts of sin with the refrain of how, because there was no king, people did what they thought was right.  Men may make vows to do wicked things, and may even be ignorant of the evil they are doing.  However, as we see no evidence of approval for these acts, and indeed the book of Judges follows the Torah which condemn them, it seems to be baseless to say this book endorses immorality.

The book of Judges seems more of a condemnation of moral anarchy of Israel during these times than an endorsement of the behavior within the book, and as such I don’t consider the accusations made of a "wicked Bible" using this book as valid.  Such an accusation seems to be taking the events out of context.

King David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

This incident contains both an act of a man, King David, and an act of God spoken through the prophet Nathan. I will deal with the human aspect in this article and the Divine aspect in Article IV.

I was surprised that some atheists have pointed to this sordid case as an example of a Bad Bible given how it turns out.  However, since it has been brought to my attention, we can look at it.  The story is found in 2 Samuel 11-12.  The gist of it is that David stays at home when his armies are at war, sees a woman bathing on the roof of a nearby building, has sex with her and gets her pregnant.  He tries to conceal this sin by attempting to get her husband to go home and sleep with Bathsheba (to cover up the sin). When Uriah shows himself to be too devoted to go home while his men are in the field, David orders him to be killed in battle.

Pretty reprehensible, right? Some atheists have used this as a charge against the Bible. After all, David was a Hero and he did something wicked.

Unfortunately for this argument, the Bible also calls this reprehensible.  The prophet Nathan goes to David and we have the following account in 2 Sam 12:

^1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ^2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ^3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ^4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ^5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ^6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

^7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; ^8 and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ^9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. ^10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ^11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ^12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’” ^13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ^14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

Again, this act of immorality was condemned and not condoned by God. Indeed, God sent Nathan to carry His word to David. Those who think such a verse promotes immorality seem to base such an idea on this line of thought:

1. The Bible speaks approvingly of David
2. David did evil
3. Therefore the Bible approves of the evil David did.

But the whole point of Chapter 12 is God did not approve of what David did and, in fact, decreed punishment.  Since this punishment leads to actions of God (and a new set of objections against the Bible), that part will be discussed in Article IV of this series.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the actions of men which are pointed to in the Bible as being immoral are in fact considered by believers to be immoral.  Because of this, the accusations of the "Immoral Bible" on these grounds are more of a straw man argument than anything legitimate.  Just because the Bible speaks of men who obeyed God does not mean they were sinless.  The entire point of the Bible is that humanity is alienated from God and needs salvation.

Only through the taking things out of context and failing to understand how the Christian reads the Bible can the accusation be made that the Christian approves of these actions.

With the next two articles (needs to be split… currently over 6000 words), which I suspect will cover the issues most will be interested in, we will look at things which were not done by men on their own action, but were the commands of God. 

Article III will be about discussing certain principles Christians believe when looking at the commands of God.  Article IV will then be about looking at the actual commands of God on the topics of God's judgment of David and on the topic of slavery. Articles IV and V will be based on the principles discussed in Article III.

Immoral God and Immoral Bible? (Article II) A Look At Sinful Men In the Bible

[Note: Profanity, Blasphemy, Insults and the Like will result in the poster being banned without warning.  if you wish to disagree with this article, do so in a civilized and respectful manner]

Preliminary Note

This being part II of a series (it was originally going to be a trilogy, but is moving up to five as I edit), this article is limited to the actions of men in the Bible which are considered immoral. The cases I am writing of here are in response to what seems to be a common set of complaints.  Please remember, I can't cover every event in the Bible.  I can't anticipate every accusation.  Nor can I anticipate every misinterpretation of the Old Testament.  So consider this a sample of the ones brought to my attention.  An omission of a reader’s favorite example was not done to "kick it under the carpet" but was done to discuss some of the more common ones.

The incidents most cited are Lot in Sodom, actions in the Book of Judges (from which comes stories many are scandalized by) and the story of David and Bathsheba (from the perspective of David's actions, not God's action [that will be in article IV], so the article will be limited to these. I believe the principles in rejecting these charges of an “immoral Bible” also apply to others.

Now there are acts of men in the Bible being commanded to do certain things by God.  However, since God is the one commanding them, these will be looked at in the next article.

Introduction

What are we to make of those accusations of immoral acts "supported" in the Bible?  The accusation generally runs along the lines that people in the Bible do some wicked things, so the Bible can't be considered a source of authority.

While most of the individuals who take this view are ones who seem to be looking for whatever reasons they can grasp to condemn the beliefs of Christians, that doesn't take away the fact that some people are indeed scandalized — and perhaps earnestly — by some of the actions of characters in the Bible.  What are we to make of what the Bible records?  Does the Bible give sanction to men doing things which seem evil today?

Literalism and Context

To begin with, there is a problem of assumption which, whether sincere or malicious, seems to be a key point of the atheistic scandal with the actions of the Bible, and that is taking things literally without considering the context of the writings.

Just as when I wrote about Biblical Literalists who interpret everything written in the Bible as expressing literal history without considering the genre and the culture of the times, I believe certain atheists do the same thing.  While they do not accept the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, they do seem to think that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally using the understanding of the individual reading it.

In any case, Literalists of both sides don't seem to consider the possibility of their own interpreting being in error.  I think the issue of the objection to “Evil acts of the Bible” is of the same mindset as the Biblical Literalist, but with the opposite conclusion. 

Both hold everything is intended to be literally true from the interpretation of the reader.  The difference seems to be that because the Biblical Literalist knows God exists but takes everything literally, he must try to defend everything done in the Bible.  Meanwhile the atheist, who attacks certain actions in the Bible, assumes God does not exist and holds everything is understood literally and thinks all of the actions viewed are seen as being good, even if the acts are bad.

Both mindsets fail to consider whether the Bible passages were understood properly.  Looking at the charges, I find most of the attacks against Scripture on the "Bad God, Bad Bible" grounds do not understand what it was like to live in a culture of semi-nomadic Middle Easterners some 3,000 years ago.

This is the underlying principle to these accusations, which I believe can be demonstrated as false by looking at the Scriptures themselves.

Bad Acts in the Bible?  Of Course.  Approving Bad Acts?  Not At All.

Let's start with one of the more appalling incidents in the Bible, an event taking place Sodom in Genesis 19 which leads up to the destruction of that city.  What generally shocks the reader is how Lot tries to dissuade the inhabitants of Sodom… by offering his daughters instead:

^1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, ^2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” ^3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ^4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ^5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ^6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, ^7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. ^8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Now I have heard people point to this and say that this was an evil act on the part of Lot to offer his daughters to be raped, and they argue this proves the Bible can't be good.  The problem is: where does it say what Lot did was good?  This is an assumption which one does not find proof for in the Bible.

Now it is true that the customs of the time and region (for all the region, not just the predecessors of the Jews) held the hospitality offered to a guest to be sacrosanct, but we see nothing in this passage to indicate Lot was doing good by offering his two daughters to be abused instead.  Lot may have sincerely thought this was his duty of course, but it does not follow that such an act was good before God or to the writer of Genesis or to the reader at the time of the book being written.  Haydock's commentary on the Old Testament mentions this comment by Menochius:

Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil.

Now I don't think it was a "less evil" myself, but the commentary raises an interesting point.  We have an account of what happened, but not of the motivations behind it.  The atheist may argue that there is no proof this was Lot's motivation.  The response is: Neither is there proof that Lot's actions were seen as good.

This then is the issue: We have an account of what happened, but not why it happened or motivations for the people acting.  So to try to argue the Bible thought Lot's action was good is to commit eisegesis (inserting meaning into the text), and commits the fallacy of argument from silence ("there is nothing disproving what I say, therefore it must be true").  In light of what the Bible will go on to tell us about the evil of prostitution and fornication and rape, it seems more likely that the ancient reader of these texts would have seen them as appalling was well.

In short, all the ink (or bytes) spilled in indignation over this is based on something assumed but not proven: That the Bible was portraying Lot as behaving rightly.  I find it interesting that in Genesis 19:30-38, we see this was not the end of the folly of Lot and his family.

So before saying "How wicked the Bible is" one should first be certain they interpret it correctly, knowing the message it is seeking to convey (The depravity of the people of Sodom being punished by God in this case) and not assume that everything which occurs was met with approval.

The Book of Judges Speaks of Good… and Evil

The Book of Judges is another one which has many scandalous actions which offend our modern day sensibilities.  In reading this we need to remember we are seeing tales of depravity, not tales of heroes, and we see the description of a spiritual breakdown of Israelite society after the death of Joshua.  We are basically seeing Judges (non dynastic military leaders of Israel in times of crisis) who are called to deliver the Israelites from oppression.  These judges are people who are portrayed as being flawed individuals who choose wrong things at times.  Samson, for example, seems to be more of an anti-hero than a hero for example.  The example of Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11) tells us of a man who, in making a vow, did something explicitly forbidden by the Law: Human sacrifice.

Those who make the claim of the Bible promoting wicked behavior tend to make use of these verses concerning Jephthah to claim God sanctioned this act:

^30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, ^31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.”

^32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand.

To say that God granted victory because of the vow is to commit a post hoc fallacy.  If God intended Jephthah to deliver the Israelites from oppression, He could have delivered them in spite of Jephthah's vow.  The assumption that God granted victory because of the vow is to assume a God who can be swayed by bribes.  This is an interpretation without evidence to support it.

Notice at the end of the chapter (verses 39-40) we see that the action was remembered with mourning for the daughter, not the anime-like "tragic but necessary action":

And it became a custom in Israel ^that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

So it goes.  In each of these chapters we see people of differing moral qualities.  God may call these Judges to help Israel in times of oppression, but nowhere do we see any praise for the wicked actions.

This becomes especially clear from Chapter 17 to the end of the book (Judges 21:25).  In this section we see a sort of lament to bookend the accounts of the people written about in them.  Chapters 17-19  in this section begins each chapter with "In those days, when there was no king in Israel" and each chapter shows practices which we would find reprehensible. (Chapter 20 does not because it is a continuation of chapter 19).  Commentators on Scripture refer to this time as a time of anarchy in Israel where there was no authority to enforce the Law.

In these chapters we see accounts of idolatry (chapter 17), banditry (chapter 18), cowardice, rape and brutal murder of a concubine (chapter 19), an intertribal war (chapter 20) and the wink/nod at the abduction of young women to be wives for the almost exterminated Benjaminites (Chapter 21).  The book of Judges concludes, saying: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

However in none of these sections do we see anyone tell us God commanded them to do these things, or see the Scriptures say these things were good.  Rather we see numerous acts of sin with the refrain of how, because there was no king, people did what they thought was right.  Men may make vows to do wicked things, and may even be ignorant of the evil they are doing.  However, as we see no evidence of approval for these acts, and indeed the book of Judges follows the Torah which condemn them, it seems to be baseless to say this book endorses immorality.

The book of Judges seems more of a condemnation of moral anarchy of Israel during these times than an endorsement of the behavior within the book, and as such I don’t consider the accusations made of a "wicked Bible" using this book as valid.  Such an accusation seems to be taking the events out of context.

King David, Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite

This incident contains both an act of a man, King David, and an act of God spoken through the prophet Nathan. I will deal with the human aspect in this article and the Divine aspect in Article IV.

I was surprised that some atheists have pointed to this sordid case as an example of a Bad Bible given how it turns out.  However, since it has been brought to my attention, we can look at it.  The story is found in 2 Samuel 11-12.  The gist of it is that David stays at home when his armies are at war, sees a woman bathing on the roof of a nearby building, has sex with her and gets her pregnant.  He tries to conceal this sin by attempting to get her husband to go home and sleep with Bathsheba (to cover up the sin). When Uriah shows himself to be too devoted to go home while his men are in the field, David orders him to be killed in battle.

Pretty reprehensible, right? Some atheists have used this as a charge against the Bible. After all, David was a Hero and he did something wicked.

Unfortunately for this argument, the Bible also calls this reprehensible.  The prophet Nathan goes to David and we have the following account in 2 Sam 12:

^1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ^2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ^3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ^4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ^5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ^6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

^7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; ^8 and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ^9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. ^10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ^11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ^12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’” ^13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ^14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

Again, this act of immorality was condemned and not condoned by God. Indeed, God sent Nathan to carry His word to David. Those who think such a verse promotes immorality seem to base such an idea on this line of thought:

1. The Bible speaks approvingly of David
2. David did evil
3. Therefore the Bible approves of the evil David did.

But the whole point of Chapter 12 is God did not approve of what David did and, in fact, decreed punishment.  Since this punishment leads to actions of God (and a new set of objections against the Bible), that part will be discussed in Article IV of this series.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the actions of men which are pointed to in the Bible as being immoral are in fact considered by believers to be immoral.  Because of this, the accusations of the "Immoral Bible" on these grounds are more of a straw man argument than anything legitimate.  Just because the Bible speaks of men who obeyed God does not mean they were sinless.  The entire point of the Bible is that humanity is alienated from God and needs salvation.

Only through the taking things out of context and failing to understand how the Christian reads the Bible can the accusation be made that the Christian approves of these actions.

With the next two articles (needs to be split… currently over 6000 words), which I suspect will cover the issues most will be interested in, we will look at things which were not done by men on their own action, but were the commands of God. 

Article III will be about discussing certain principles Christians believe when looking at the commands of God.  Article IV will then be about looking at the actual commands of God on the topics of God's judgment of David and on the topic of slavery. Articles IV and V will be based on the principles discussed in Article III.

On False Comparisons and Other Errors Used In Attacks on the Christian Faith

Read more »

On False Comparisons and Other Errors Used In Attacks on the Christian Faith

Read more »

Thoughts on the So-called New Atheism

Read more »

Thoughts on the So-called New Atheism

Read more »

On Probability, AD 1491, and The Relation Between What We Know and What Is

I've on occasion run across an atheist who has argued that, while yes there is no proof that there is no God, it is the "more likely" conclusion that God does not exist.

The argument is an interesting one, but the problem is, it is based on assuming what we do not know in relation to what is.  If we assume we know 95% of everything that is, then there is a danger of assuming that the 5% we think we don't know is going to be more of the same.

Yet, if we don't know what is in that unknown portion, we have no idea whether what we don't know is 5% or 50% or 99.9% of what is.  Nor do we know what is in that unknown portion.  Perhaps it is the knowledge which will cure AIDS.  On the other hand it could be the knowledge that an AIDS cure is as false as the idea of alchemy.  Some of these things can be known over time.  Other things we probably will never be able to discover.

The Example of Columbus' Errors

Christopher Columbus for example assumed that the distance of Eurasia covered 225 degrees of the globe, leaving only about 135 degrees of the globe to cover.  He calculated the circumference of the Earth to be the equivalent of 22,500 kilometers (13,980 miles) based on what he knew (the estimated length of the Eurasian land mass) and assumed he only had to travel the equivalent of 2300 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan.

However, the size of the ocean between Europe and Asia was in fact about 8.5 times longer than Columbus had estimated (19,600 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan).  The circumference of the globe was about 40,000 km (about 25,000 miles).  So we can see here that Columbus made an error based on assuming that what he knew in relation to what he did not know.  (Columbus' critics actually recognized that with a distance of over 19,000 miles to Japan [using Ptolemy's accurate estimate], no ship of the era could reach Asia from the West without the crew starving to death).  This is an example of an error based on erroneous scientific calculations assuming they were correct.

There was a second error which was something they could not know.  The educated people of the time, even those who accepted the ideas of Ptolemy (who more accurately estimated Eurasia to be about 180 degrees of the globe, not 225 degrees)  believed that it was one massive ocean between Europe and Asia.  What they could not know was there was another landmass between Europe and Asia going west.  This is an example of an error based on assuming that what we do not know will be in keeping with what we do know.

One couldn't prove or hypothesize the existence of the Americas from the knowledge of European sciences.  The Americas existed, even though prior to 1492 there was no reason to believe they did.

Teacups Around Pluto and "I don't believe America exists…"

The people who might deny the existence of another land mass ("A-americanists" to coin a non existing phrase) would have seemed quite reasonable in 1491.  Sure there were some reports of a Viking "Vinland" which was believed to be an island like Greenland, and sure there are some dubious reports of the Chinese reaching it in 1421, but from what Science could know in 1491, anyone claiming the existence of another continent could be greeted with a 15th century equivalent of Jeffery Stingerstein's "Teacup argument," which runs as follows:

"I can no more prove that heaven does not exist than I can prove that there is not a miniature teacup orbiting the planet Pluto, but it does not make it ridiculous for me to say that there is no such teacup in orbit"

and not be seen as unreasonable… in 1491.  However, once it became clear that this landmass was not Asia, but a new continent (Vespucci first argued this in works published in 1504 and it was accepted by 1507), such an argument would be demonstrably false.

How this is Relevant

I am sure some atheists would object at this point saying that the example of Columbus is invalid… after all, America was discovered and verified, but if what the Christians say about God is true, the existence of God cannot be discovered in that way.

This would be to miss the point however.  Based on what was known in 1491, one could theoretically take an atheistic attitude directed towards the existence of another landmass and such an attitude would not be able to be rebutted.  In this hypothetical case, a person who claimed to have knowledge through revelation of this landmass could be ridiculed for his "mindless faith."

Yet the knowledge which one had in 1491 would be inadequate to make the claim that a landmass between Europe and Asia did not exist, or even that it was "most likely" that such a landmass did not exist.  Knowledge in 1507 showed this assumption was false, but even before 1492 this knowledge was false.

Recognizing the Difference Between "IF" and "IS"

Likewise the claim that what we know of science makes it "most likely" that God does not exist is equally foolish.  What we do not know, we cannot make assumptions on.  We can indeed make predictions based on the premise of "if this is true…" or "if my calculations are correct…" but these predictions have to recognize that IF is not the same as IS.  Because if what we think is correct turns out to be false, what we assume will turn out to be false.

Much of what is unknown may possibly be something which logically follows from what we do know.  However, we cannot say that there is no "unknown continent" out there which may show that what we think we know is actually false.  We can only say that, based on science alone, there are certain things which cannot be answered.  [From this admission, one can investigate whether or not one can know things outside of empirical knowledge, but that is outside of the scope of this article].

The Inevitable Objection and the Reply

Some will object here, claiming that we are applying a double standard, that if they cannot disprove the existence of God, neither can we prove it and therefore what I have written applies to Christians too.  The reason this objection is not valid is because Christians do not attempt to prove the existence of God based solely on what we know from science, but the atheist who invokes the "most likely" argument does.

The atheists I have discussed the issue of "more likely" with tend to base their argument solely on science without considering whether the claims of science even permits the assertions they make.  To claim "God does not exist" is to claim knowledge about what Science does not have and cannot prove.  To make the milder claim that it is "more likely" that God does not exist is to make the only slightly less unlikely claim that what we do not know is nothing more than an extension of what we do know.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the argument that God does not exist, or even that it is "more likely" that God does not exist cannot be supported by science.  If we let 'A' be that which we can know scientifically and let 'B' be things which are, and A (is less than) B, one can neither argue rationally that God does not exist nor that it is "more likely" that God does not exist based on science.  This doesn't mean science is useless.  It means we are not to invoke it for things it cannot speak on.

Ipse Dixit and Illogic

Ipse dixit: an assertion made but not proved

 

One of the interesting things I have noticed about the attacks on Christianity in general are the claims which are made without proof.  Things get repeated over and over, but when the claims are investigated, there is no valid proof for the claim.

Indeed, it appears that often instead of a proof for an unsubstantiated charge, instead an evasion is employed to put the burden on those they disagree with.

I'd like to discuss some of these tactics which commonly appear on the internet debates.

The Double Standard

Christianity of course has proofs for its claims, under the proper understanding of the term (demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of.)  Not all may accept the arguments in favor of the Christian view of course.  However, when one limits "proof" to scientific evidence, and argues therefore Christianity cannot be proven true, how is one to respond?

The Double Standard is important to remember here.  If one argues that Scientific evidence can't establish the existence of God, therefore it is probable God does not exist, one is justified in applying the same standard to the atheistic claim: Can we establish the claims of atheism to be true by scientific evidence?

I've found in general that the atheist will then be forced to admit that their argument is not based on scientific evidence, but on arguments which they believe demonstrates what they believe.

The problem is twofold:

1. If the claims of Christianity are to be held to scientific evaluation, then so must those of atheism… and we remain at the level of neither claim being established.  Therefore atheism cannot be established as being "true" or "most probable" Ipse dixit.
2. If atheism rests on the claim of arguments of probability and argued propositions, then Christianity must also be evaluated by the same standard.  Can the claims of atheism be established as proven?  If not, then ipse dixit applies again.

The problem is, the double standard in attacking Christianity demands scientific proof to establish the existence of God, but declines to provide such for the truth of atheism.  This is a double standard.

Ipse dixit in this case is the claim that "there is no proof for God, therefore atheism is more probable."  It is claimed, but it is not proven.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

This is a popular fallacy in internet debate.  The general strategy works this way:

1. Debater makes a claim ("God does not exist")
2. Another person questions the claim ("On what basis can you claim this?")
3. Debater insists that questioner prove their point ("Well, then prove God does exist.")

The reason this is not a valid tactic is that the debater in this case is not offering any proofs for the claim (ipse dixit), but is demanding the person questioning it disprove them.

Some of the cheap ways used to shift the burden of proof are:

• "You can't ask someone to prove a negative."  (Answer: If you are so foolish to state a universal negative, that is your problem.  You've still made a claim which needs to be proven.)
• "The person making the greater claim has the burden of proof." (Answer: Really.  So if you argue we need to kill a million people, and I say we need only maim 500,000 people, only you have to prove your point, and not I?)
• "You can't prove what you believe either." (Answer: You made the assertion, so it is the reasons for your claim that are immediately relevant.)

Statements like these abound on the internet to be sure.  The problem is they are used as an evasion of providing proof.  This leads us to the next area of fallacy.

The Red Herring

The Red Herring is the introduction of material which seeks to derail the topic of the debate by introducing a claim and demanding it be dealt with, even though it is not the topic of the debate to begin with.

For example, if we are discussing Stalinist persecution of Christians, and someone chimes in with "What about the inquisition?" the answer is "what relevance does this have to the topic?"  If we are debating the problem with the policy of the Stalinist state, an event which took place 400 years prior is not relevant.  It could be relevant if we were debating whether or not the state had the right to restrict religious freedom in general, but if this was not the topic, the introduction of the new claim is merely a distracting tactic.

Of course not all counter examples are indeed Red Herrings. 

The topic of religious persecution is a popular one on the internet.  It does require paying attention to what is the topic.  If someone is discussing the Spanish Inquisition and I respond with "What about Stalin?" that is indeed a red herring and a tu quoque, because whatever Stalin did has no bearing on whether or not the Inquisition was a thing which should have been done. 

However, if someone says "Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history," using the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples, and I counter with the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Stalinist purges, Mao's actions in China and so on as examples of bloodshed done for secular motivations, I am not using either the Red Herring or the tu quoque, as I am responding to the thesis ("Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history,") with valid counter claims (secular wars and persecutions) which challenge the accuracy of the thesis.

The person employing the Red Herring is in fact seeking to evade the question of the debate by misdirecting it.  So when we are considering an example, we ought to consider first of all whether it is relevant to the topic at hand.

The tu quoque fallacy

Often used with the Red Herring, the tu quoque seeks to shift the blame or the focus by claiming that the other person is being hypocritical.  It differs from the double standard when it is has no bearing on the discussion.  For example:

Father (To teenage daughter): You shouldn't smoke

Daughter: Why not?  You do!

Whether or not the Father smokes is not relevant to whether or not one should smoke.  For all we know the Father is hopelessly addicted and doesn't want his daughter to go through the same problems he has.  Even if there is a case of hypocrisy, this doesn't change the issue in question of whether or not it is true.  Even if a person in question is hypocritical (a member of the clergy speaking of chastity while keeping a mistress) it does not affect the validity of what he is promoting or denouncing.

You'll often see the Spanish Inquisition invoked on the discussion of religions being persecuted by the secular state for example.  The Spanish Inquisition was indeed a blot on history, and there is no need to defend it (though it is important to refute claims about it which are false). However, the existence of the Inquisition is irrelevant to whether the secular state has authority to restrict religion.

(If you're arguing that the Inquisition is bad then it isn't a counterexample to the claim that state interference with the Church is bad.  It actually says either both are wrong or both are right.  However, one can condemn Stalinist oppression of religion without saying the churchmen involved with the Spanish Inquisition were right).

The tu quoque proves nothing, and is merely a cheap tactic to distract.

The Ad Hominem

The ad hominem can be blatant ("you are a tool," "you are narrow minded," you're a fascist!" and so on) or it can be more subtle, attacking the person because of the position he holds ("David Berlinski must be a fundamentalist because he supports Intelligent Design"  [Berlinski is actually a self-professed "agnostic Jew"]) but the tu quoque essentially ignores the argument and attacks the person making it.

It is popular of course.  Political columnists like Molly Ivans, Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter have employed it to mock those who disagree with their views (humorous to the person who agrees, annoying to the one who does not).  The problem is, when you recognize the ad hominem in their writings, it still may be funny (again, it depends on your preferences), but it proves exactly nothing.

I find that when people get to the ad hominem attack, even if they may sound impressive or intimidating, have merely demonstrated they have no answer for your argument.  The ad hominem refutes nothing and proves nothing.  It merely demonstrates the person's hostility to a position, and depending on the level of extremity shows the character of the one making the attack.

Conclusion: The Emperor Has No Clothes

When one strips away the logical fallacies like this, the ipse dixit becomes clear.  They are employed as a distraction away from the claim which is made, but not proven.  The claim is made repeatedly, but never proven.  Distractions are made to put those who object on the defensive.  Over time it becomes widely accepted.  Even so, "The emperor has no clothes" and the statement remains unsupported.

As GK Chesterton once said, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."  If it is popular to attack fundamentalists, for example, this does not make the attacks on the claims of fundamentalists "right."  If a movement which favors homosexual marriage labels those who oppose as "homophobic" it is still an ipse dixit making a statement without backing it up.

Of course we who are Christians need to be careful not to make use of these errors ourselves against those we debate.  It is emotionally satisfying to apply a sarcastic ad hominem.  It feels satisfying to remind the atheist of Stalin when he goes on a tirade against Christianity.  But, if we apply logical errors to attack others rather than to establish what we believe we are not proving our own point.  Instead we are causing scandal by making it appear that we have no basis for our beliefs.

Unfortunately it is easy to fall into the traps of illogic.  We are not only people of intellect, but also of emotion.  Nobody wants to look foolish.  So we can respond in annoyance, in anger.  We can misunderstand the subject of the argument and fall off track.

However, we need to remember that when we defend Christianity, using errors like these fail to show the truth of what we believe.  We can appear as petty and vindictive as those who use them to attack our faith.  We should remember the wisdom of CS Lewis and his "Apologist's Prayer"

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seem to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity
Thou, who wouldst give no other sign, deliver me
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all me thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take me from all my trumpery lest I die.