Episode 046: The Non-moral Goodness of God

In the podcast you comment about ideas for future articles etc. Is this the best place to do that?

Hey Glenn!

This was a great lil’ episode. Love your work.

Just wanted to clarify are you moving more towards a divine command theory or away from a divine command theory of morality?

Roy

Listening to WLC’s Defenders podcast and it’s just on the section on the argument from evil … because of this episode of SHTMLF, listening to him is like running your fingernails on a chalkboard every time he says ‘God has a morally sufficient reason’ … I’m not sure if I should be grateful for this Glenn — I hate that sound 😛

Frank

Just a few initial thoughts … I think Glenn was saying God is non-moral (not immoral) and morality for humans is a result of God’s commands to us. However, saying God is non-moral does not exclude his nature of love, justice and beauty, etc which would be reflected in his commands.

Why do you say objectivity can only exist outside of intelligence itself?

These are not answers to your questions … just some extra data to bring into the picture:
– 2 Peter 2:4-10 talks about how God can rescue the righteous (specifically Lot and his family – presumably the others weren’t innocent as you say).
– As far as I understand, Sola scriptura is not the same as Biblical inerrancy
– Glenn is not an inerrantist
– God also brings severe judgement on Israel (Numbers 25; Joshua 7:16-24). The Joshua one may have included young children too.

Glenn I was actually going to ask you about some of these more difficult passages (eg Numbers 31). I’ve read and heard a few things on it, but haven’t heard the clear and convincing version yet (ie the Glenn Peoples version).

Hi Roy, thanks for the reply. Tell me, is this not a declaration under divine inspiration as to the moral perfection of God?

“I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”

Deuteronomy 32:3-4
New International Version (NIV)

If the writer of this blog is not saying God is moral, then what is he?

My thought about moral objectivity is this:

The Encarta Dictionary defines objectivity as: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices”

Obviously God reacts very much with his emotions when flailing against his ‘enemies’ throughout the Old Testament. There can be no doubt that the morals this character uses is not, therefore objective.

William Lane Craig describes ‘objective morals’ as something being right or wrong whether humans believe it to be so. However, for morals as a universal concept to be truly objective they must be outside all emotion and, yes, intelligence, otherwise the actions are not objective.

The Bible makes it quite clear that God responds and reacts according to the faithfulness or not of ‘his people.’ There can be no question of any objectivity here.

Babies and children were ‘executed’ in sodom and Gomorrah, some Canaanite cities, Jerusalem 70CE, and later presumably in Revelation when God brings judgement on mankind. If it is moral to treat the innocent like this, how could the Mosaic laws on abortion and accidental death of unborn babies have any meaning?

Is it any more moral to destroy a culture for sacrificing children to pagan gods and then offering up the innocent children of the pagans as spoils of war?

Thanks again.

Don’t mind me. I’m quite happy not to talk about the episode with anyone. I just don’t want to follow Frank down the path of talking about the same old, without him actually wanting to say anything about the podcast (and when I can tell he didn’t listen to it). This isn’t a forum to just introduce whatever a person wants to talk about, and to set the topic of the discussion. We’ve met before and I’ve seen it before. I’m not offended, I’ve just grown impatient with it, so figured it was best not to engage.

Roy, I have attempted to do so with Glenn on a number of occasions. However, our gracious host has also on a number of occasions preferred the ad hominem attack to reason. Frankly (no pun intended), I think the boot is on the other foot.

My motive is to ask genuine questions of those I consider intelligent (there, will that do?)

Do you have answers to my questions, Roy?

Okay Frank …

Let me ask you a few questions first, just so I have a clearer understanding of your philosophy.

1. What is the origin of the universe?
2. Are there objective moral facts? If so, what makes them objective?
3. Do we have objective meaning in life? What is it? If we do have objective meaning, then what makes it objective?
4. What happens when we die?

Now that you’ve listened to E46 – would you like to modify your statement at all before we talk in earnest?

“However, our gracious host has also on a number of occasions preferred the ad hominem attack to reason.”

Frank, we both know there are no examples of me doing that to you. In the past I think I extended to you far more patience than many would. What is bothersome about your comments is that you don’t interact (even a little bit) with the content of the podcast episode, you just decide to commandeer the comments section for this episode to talk about whatever you wanted to. You haven’t made a single substantive observation about this episode, you’ve just launched into your “canned” (as Sandra put it) complaint about the Bible, which has nothing to do with this episode. If you feel the need to write posts on those other topics that interest you, start a blog. I recommend http://www.wordpress.com.

If that’s the sort of observation on my part that you think is ad hominem, you’re mistaken. You coming along and telling fellow guests that I’m unintelligent – that’s ad hominem. Now you’re welcome to engage this topic, but otherwise I do ask why you’re here at all. You’ve effectively derailed actual discussion about this podcast episode at an early stage and undermined the possibility of genuine discussion on this issue in this thread. This is what happened in the past (and not “ad hominem” attacks on you by me at all). So I ask you to do one of two things: Actually interact with it in some meaningful way, or desist from commenting altogether. While you aren’t banned (nobody is), I am putting your comments into moderation to be reviewed before they appear. They will be approved if they are remotely on topic. Please exercise self control in responding to my request.

EDIT: For those who wish to see the thread that Frank refers to, in which he alleges that I was engaging in ad hominem attacks on him, here it is.

Private, I’ve had a few discussions on Unbelievable. I discussed God and morality with Arif Ahmed, I discussed physicalism and dualism with John Haldane, and more recently I discussed the evil God challenge with Stephen Law. I’m pleased you liked this episode. 🙂

Kevin – fair comment. I think Davies goes a bit far in saying that all the biblical talk of God’s “righteousness” is bound up with God’s covenant with Israel, even though some of it clearly is.

But apart from the response Davies offers to the observation about God being called righteous, I think there are a couple of others.

First, even though the biblical writers (so say I) conceive of all morality (not that they would have used that term) originating in God’s commands and desires, they would nonetheless often have conceived of God, in his actions, as exemplifying what it looks like to live in accordance with those commands (whether God was required to or not). If God’s commands do reflect his good character as I have said, this makes sense. As a result, much of God’s “conduct” (I use that term loosely) will indeed conform to revealed standards of righteousness (e.g. telling the truth, upholding justice). So God can still be called “righteousness” (and not merely good) in that sense.

Secondly, I think it would be a mistake to hold the biblical writers accountable to linguistic conventions that they in all probability weren’t familiar with. The enterprise of modern meta-ethics with all the distinctions it makes simply didn’t exist in biblical times (obviously), so to call God good, righteous, excellent, wonderful or any other number of things, could quite plausibly be done interchangeably. They weren’t as anal as I’m being about which word they might have used. What really matters is what they would have thought about God being subject to a higher law, and as far as I can see, there is no good indication that the biblical writers thought this.

Simply loved this episode. It cleared a lot of stuff up for me.

I loved this episode, it happens to be something I’ve been thinking about. I think the nature of the fall is that our sense of the good is split, into the moral good and the aesthetic good. This is because we have acquired a taste for the forbidden, and so there is a world of required good that we don’t want. This is life under the rubric of the knowledge of good and evil! Much much more on this here if you are interested: two-kinds-of-good.

We read this duality into God’s concept of the good, but God does not have this false dichotomy. This is the real solution to the ancient question of the Euthyphro Dilemma; we do not need to worry whether God does what is right because it is lawful or if what is lawful is right because God says so. God always acts from love with a singular and pure desire and this is always aesthetic AND moral at once. Much more here if interested: the-euthyphro-dilemma

(I read your posting policy and I’m posting these two links because I think they sincerely add to the dialog, and I didn’t want to post a book-length post into the comments!)

“8. Did morality exist before your god allegedly told Moses about it?

9. Where did, for example, the Confucians get their (secular) morality from? Where did the Mayan, or the Mesopotamians, or the indigenous people of Australia, or Maori get their morality from?”

Why do skeptics always confuse the question of the basis of people’s knowledge or right and wrong with the question of the ontological foundations of moral obligations. Its not like the distinction isn’t spelled out in every philosophical discussion on the subject and widely appreciated in every other philosophical discipline.

Part 2

So why don’t the people who hit the dislike button, substantiate their dislike by having a go at answering some of those straight forward questions. They extra ones were

1. What happened and what was it like before you existed?

2. Why can’t you live with uncertainty? Have you tried philosophy? It will teach you how to live with uncertainty as that is one of its purposes.

3. Why are you so special?

4. What is eternity?

5. What is morality?

6. What is the human purpose of morality, particularly in a non Theist society.

7. Ethics is not quite the same as morality. What’s the difference?

And for failing to answer any questions so far, you get bonus questions.

10. What was the purpose of morality in Neanderthal society and in Homo sapiens prior to three thousand years ago?

11. How can you have duty to something you have no comprehension of?

It doesn’t take any thinking to hit the dislike button, so why not stretch yourselves.

Buzz, amidst all the other stuff, there was actually something relevant in your multiple comments, so I’ll only comment on that.

Did the Dreamtimers 50,000 years ago have morality?

No doubt.

How did they aquire it?

In spite of your claim to not being confused, the question here suggests that really you are. Even if they acuired it without any reference to God, this is only an epistemic matter (the question of how beliefs are formed). This does not even scratch the surface of what makes those beliefs correct (or not). So let’s say that the dreamtimers acquired their belief through moral intuitions, which unbeknown to them were brought about via an evolutionary process. But the real issue hasn’t been touched yet.

What did they know of ontology and could they have had morality while being confused by the Rainbow Serpent banging on about ontological foundations.

I don’t know how much they knew about ontology, but they certainly knew about it without using that term (for example, they knew that things existed). And yes, of course they could have had moral knowledge while being confused about the rainbow serpent. But this shows nothing.

So again, your declaration notwithstanding, you’re confused.

Glenn,

Interesting podcast. It seems like you devoted your time to expounding your view and answering certain challenges to its consistency/coherency. However even if your view is meaningful and coherent, it still remains to show that your view is warranted. So I am curious, what is your motivation for holding to DCT? That is, assuming DCT is coherent, why do you think that DCT is true?

Moreover, do you agree that we understand the meaning of our moral vocabulary independently of DCT? If so, then it seems to follow that, in order for DCT to be true, it must accord with what we already mean by our moral vocabulary.

(I realize these questions are not entirely on-topic, but hopefully not so much that you mind me asking here.)

Regards,
Ben

Will the article adress the objection from arbitrariness, also will we be able to read the article via theis blog?

Zia, this podcast episode addresses the arbitrariness objection, as does a previous episode, “parodying Plato.” I’m sure i have blogged on it before too, and in the articles section I address it in an article called “Is there an echo in here?” The article I am now writing is a positive case, not a response to objections. (I haven’t provided links as I am on a mobile device)

I think it is time for me to come clean on where I’m coming from, Glenn.

A couple of months ago quite by accident I came across a photo unrelated to my actual search of a grisly scene involving the beheading of what I judged to be a 13-year-old girl. The remains of the two separated parts of her little body were laid out in an open coffin in front of an assembled crowd and flanked by a grieving woman, presumably her mother.

In the few seconds I could disrupt the dignity of this victim I asked myself: What could this girl have done to deserve this? Then I realised it was the wrong question; it should have been, not what DID this girl do, but What COULD this girl do to deserve this?

I am not an atheist as has been suggested, but I do have a legitimate claim against a ‘morality’ that only could have brought this grisly sight about. Surely only a ‘theocratic’ authority could have done so, not a secular one that has consistently moved away from ‘eye for an eye’ to possible rehabilitation – not that a 13-year-old could have been guilty of anything that could deserve death.

Two questions, therefore, I would like to ask regarding the Joshua Wars:

1 Even positing that the Canaanite adults were guilty of ‘sins’ against the Almighty, were their future interests served by first sending in a prophet to proclaim their imminent doom so as to give them a chance to repent of their sins? (this is not even to mention the women/mothers who were culturally-required to follow the will of their husbands)

2 Knowing that the girl in my illustration could not have been responsible for her action (a Western view), surely this was a murder victim and not a justly executed person. Could it EVER, therefore, be just to execute children and babies on the basis that they could not know/are inexperienced/ the difference between good an bad?

Even the title of your podcast is: The Non-Moral Goodness of God. This presupposes that there is a ‘non-moral badness,’ surely.

Isn’t DCT simply taking sides in Euthyphro’s Dilemma: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

The Dilemma also makes statements about the so-called ‘objective morality.’ If it is God’s goodness that is presumed then the goodness is not objective – it is the standards of the deity.

Copan’s attempt to minimise DCT by suggesting hyperbole is not a satisfactory answer either. It fails to speak to the ‘morality’ of child-killing. After all, what’s the moral difference between destroying a culture that practiced child-sacrifice, then offering the fallen children as the spoils of war?

Glenn, I am not an atheist, merely someone who has questions that need to be answered. Sorry, so far I have drawn a blank.

“What do you make of the meaning of the conquest narratives, Frank? They argue that many moderns misunderstand the conquest narratives, which are actually intentionally hyperbolic, using a well known convention of battle chronicling of the time.”

Actually, presently I tend to gravitate towards Copan’s assertion’s, but what would Copan say about the story of Achan who, along with his family, was stoned for not taking Moses’ words literally (Joshua chapter 7)?

Copan’s got a point, though. In his interview with Justin Brierley (9 April, 2011) he makes the claim that if the Israelites had wiped out (genocide) the Canaanites, then where is the archaeology?

Karen Armstrong (familiar with that name, Glenn?) in her book, The Bible, an Autobiography, points out that ancient Israelites would not have questioned the stories being told them as they saw them as exegesis and growing in poignancy and inspiration as they changed in the telling, rather than in reading the written history. This view is corroborated in Bruce Feiler’s book Walking the Bible – A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses.

Finkelstein and Silberman seem to have a point – that what we read in the Old Testament may very well be that the Israelites were in fact themselves Canannites who became monotheists. There is at least one other historical precedent for this in the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, father of Tutankhamen. The ‘Israelites’ may well have been rebelling against the atrocious cultural crimes of their fellow tribes, much like the secular West rebelling against the excesses of present religion in the formulation of charters.

So perhaps Copan’s broad-context musings are right.

Morally, as it stands, though, taken literally, there is no distinction between Hitler’s annexing Poland and the Israelites forced occupation of Canaan.

The trouble is that we 21st century ethicists expect at least a higher quality of evidence that would our forebears. Since archaeology began in Napoleon’s time we can now examine that past in far better ways.

A question for you Glenn, how does Copan’s thesis progress the moral argument?

Part 1
Glenn says “So it’s hypocrisy then.”

No. I wasn’t thinking hypocrisy at all.

But now that you’ve mentioned it. 🙂

I can see when I’m being ridiculed and having the mickey taken out of me and have no problem with that so I responded in kind, which is why there was a smiley face at the end, which you removed in your cut and paste.

As put downs go, Matthew produced a good one and it would have stopped some people bamboozled by the unsubstantiated claims of DCT.

There were serious points in there as well. And as I pointed out, being widely accepted doesn’t make something totally accepted or true or worthwhile. And there’s the ifs and givens that your argument requires. Like you said – you did not address these objections.
I’m pointing out that it is you who has the error regarding the basis of moral truths, so your confusion comment is meaningless. You forget that we have different world views and yours is wrong.There is only a technical error if I use your Theism as an ordering principle. I don’t. Matthew points out what Theists see as my error by taking the mickey. I point out your error by taking the mickey. I know you think you are not in error but that is another error you make.

Focusing discussion on what beliefs are based on when we are still looking at how they aquired beliefs without any alleged input from your god is a red herring from Matthew. Lets focus on my questions to you first.

Its another point that your ontology basis for morality does not have legs, I don’t use it so I don’t need to create a category for it. People can work out morality for themselves as you acknowledge our distant ancestors did, without being given any divine commands.

Part 3

As to my questions being off topic. Roy asked some good questions that stumped Frank, which was Roy’s intention. They didn’t stump me as I’ve picked up the answers from wide inquiry and thinking and Frank now has some answers to use next time these cliches are rolled out at him by an Asecularist. Since Roy asked some interesting questions, I did the same as they were part of what Roy asked.

There is a case to be made that under your guidelines, Roy was off topic asking those questions and you should have cautioned him and he shouldn’t have asked them as he technically dragged the thread off topic. But I think he made for the start of an interesting discussion. Hats of to Roy for asking questions.

And in his next post Roy really went off topic inquiring into Frank’s personal life. Does that fit your guidelines? Just asking, as its not clear, but it must as you didn’t read the riot act to him. Reading the riot act in the public square requires a public square response.

Roy’s initial questions link into the thread topic of moral goodness as do my answers and the questions that flow from them. If I can paraphrase Roy – Now that you’ve thought about the questions – would bloggers like to modify their statements at all before we talk in earnest?

I observed that a number of people hit the dislike button on my questions. It is quite reasonable to ask them to explain their dislike. Is it not? This is a public square. I’m prepared to put my views out there, the people who hide behind a dislike button should be prepared to do likewise. How am I to know what they think there is to dislike if all they do is blow raspberries.
As a Secularist, I was asked questions. I answered them and asked some follow up questions which have not been answered except by use of a put down which is fine, but it doesn’t answer the questions very well.

Hello Roy, could you follow Glenn’s example and have a go at answering some of the questions. I answered yours. Try # 1,2 4 and 6 if all of them is too much.

Part 5

Morality is the rules of social living and moral obligation is found in society – its about political ideas. Your ontology doesn’t drill down far enough. Actually it doesn’t drill down at all, it lets balloons go up in the air til it can’t see them and then makes pronouncements on whats happening to them.

Since morality is a human creation, our cave dwelling ancestors could work out what to do to create society and since then we’ve been slowly evolving our response to this obligation we call society. Society naturally uses this natural process. Not always successfully but the basis is there whether people are aware of it as a concept or just get on using it as it works. Note that morality doesn’t evolve, whats absolute is absolute but other areas are conditional (this is not the same as relative) but society’s moral standards do evolve, eg slavery is wrong but most Christians used to think it was not wrong till, some liberals and agnostics and Quakers started agitating and changed the moral standard. Slavery was still wrong back then but it took a while to get it to change. That required another political idea to start to come of age. Equity.

But that’s a separate long post for another thread.

Buzz, stop it. You’re not being persecuted or insulted when people point out that you’ve grasped the wrong end of the stick. My comment about hypocrisy seemed on the mark: Someone pointed out that you had made a basic error and you did indeed brush it off, labeling it a trifecta of fallacies (which fallacies, we may never know), and yet you insist that everyone seriously engage your own questions and objections.

But now let’s look at what you’re saying:

We also agree that they worked out this moral code without any alleged intervention from your god. That is, your alleged god did not reveal anything to them as there is nothing in their culture to indicate that your god communicated with them.

This constitutes confusion. I’m not saying that you feel confused, but you’re muddling up different issues. You’re assuming that if the Maori (or other people) didn’t believe that God was responsible for their moral knowledge, then it’s a fact that God wasn’t responsible for it.

This just perpetuates the confusion between the ontological basis of morality (i.e. what makes the moral facts what they are) with the epistemological grounds of moral belief (i.e. what people know, how they came to know it, or what they know about this process).

I put it to you that the Maori didn’t know anything about why gravity works. Nobody intervened to tell them. Certainly the universe didn’t tell them. But it doesn’t follow that Maori were not subject to gravity, or that the cause of gravity was somehow different back then. Similarly with God and morality. If moral facts only exist because of God, then this would be the case regardless of whether or not people are aware of the fact. For more discussion of this, you might be interested in my article “The Epistemological Objection to Divine Command Ethics,” Philosophia Christi 13:2 (2011), 389-401. If you don’t have access to the journal, I covered it in the podcast, episode 41.

And one last request: Up until now I have been most lenient with you Buzz, and I have not enforced the blog policy. Please read it, and understand that by posting here you have asserted that you will follow it. By commenting here and not following it, you have made a false declaration understanding that I may enforce the policy. Read it.

OK Frank, so you have some sympathy with the view of Copan and others, that in fact the conquest narrative as written was fairly hyperbolic. This means that you should scale back your objection to the character of the biblical God based on what we find in the conquest narrative.

You do raise an important question, however: “how does Copan’s thesis progress the moral argument?”

Strictly speaking, it doesn’t. Not the moral argument for theism, anyway. But there are many confused responses to the moral argument that do appeal to the conquest narratives. For the sake of giving a full answer to those objections (apart from simply pointing out why they are misguided objections from the outset), this discussion over the literary form used in those narratives is certainly worthwhile.

The flow of argument goes like this:

Part 1: The moral argument for theism. Here it is argued that unless God exists, there are no moral facts. The conquest narrative is simply not relevant to this part, as the moral argument does not specify that the God who exists is the God who commanded the conquest. It is merely an argument that atheism is false and theism is true.

Part 2: Some critics respond to the above argument by pointing to the conquest narratives and saying that they are harsh and unjust. Of course, this does nothing to address part 1, and so it is a red herring. It’s an interesting issue that draws our attention away from the moral argument. A proponent of the moral argument could simply dismiss this argument in one of several ways. We could say that the Old Testament misreports things (i.e. the Bible is errant). We could say that the Old Testament is being misunderstood (this is Copan’s point). We could say that the Bible’s account is fully and literally true, but deny that the actions are immoral even though they are harsh and arguably cruel. We could accept the criticism and reject the Old Testament God. And so on. Obviously some of these options are very unattractive to Christians, but the point is that the objection in part 2 is not an objection to part 1.

There is a lot of traffic on this thread! I don’t think anyone should be surprised that it gets a bit vitriolic, right? It does bring a question which I hope is judged a legitimate one. I am going to preempt this by saying that I am an amateur armchair philosopher, and in particular when we start throwing in the word “ontological” I start to enter a zen koan.

I’ve been thinking that we need to rehash the way we think about doing apologetics a bit, because a lot of the guys I listen to, such as William Lane Craig, seem to argue to the ultimate point that morals are based on the existence of God. This is surely true. However, it is not really the ultimate point of apologetics. I think we need to try to develop a grace-based apologetics. This does not mean that we should be nicer! It means that we take any means of moral revelation, whatever its source, as a means to lead people to the understanding that they need mercy. Paul says,

“14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” Romans 2:14-16

So according to the scripture, it is the law written on their own hearts, without regard to their official belief systems, that alternately accuses or defends people. Maybe they think morals come from the flying spaghetti god, but they know that they should be faithful in not offending their mate or that it is wrong to steal. Morals may come from God ultimately, but even if people disagree about their source, they have them. As I think you point out in your podcast, casting God as primarily moral makes Him subject to morals, tipping the scales on the Euthyphro dilemma for such apologists to the side of making God subject to morals, which means He isn’t really sovereign.

However, the unique offering of Christianity isn’t better or more stringent or deeper morals. It is justification. You can go anywhere on earth to breath air, but if you want to go to the moon, you have to go through space. Similarly, if you want morals you can go to virtually any system to get them. I could dream up new moral codes all day long, I suppose. However, if we want justification, justice AND mercy, no other religion or system of thought credibly offers this besides Christianity. Grace, not morals, is the crying need of every human, we all have morals coming out of our ears. Romans 2 is clear that the non-religious have lots of morals without acknowledging they are from God. Every atheist I have ever talked to claims to be 10 times more moral than any Christian. Their problem is that they must do so to self-justify, and it is never enough. The whole line of argument is just barking up the wrong tree.

“Part 1: The moral argument for theism. Here it is argued that unless God exists, there are no moral facts. The conquest narrative is simply not relevant to this part, as the moral argument does not specify that the God who exists is the God who commanded the conquest. It is merely an argument that atheism is false and theism is true.”

Glenn, Are you as a Christian seriously arguing that there’s a possibility that the god of the Conquest was not Jesus’ father? Do you yourself accept Paul Copan’s premise? If so, are you saying the Bible is errant, or at least in need of decoding? If so, then error can enter at any given moment of reading the Scriptures, at least in the form of misinterpretation. If this is true, can we pronounce the New Testament error-free?

Could you please make a comment or two on my contention that your title: The Non-moral Goodness of God presupposes that there is also a ‘non-moral badness’ in existence. Actually, psychopaths specialise in the latter. Their actions betray a total ignorance of morality as they express their obsession with scratching an itch.

In Part 2 you say: “We could say that the Bible’s account is fully and literally true, but deny that the actions are immoral even though they are harsh and arguably cruel.”

This option surely expresses what the majority of Christians must believe if they accept the ongoing revelation of the glory of God. Of course, it also raises the many questions, some of which I have raised. Which of your options do you accept, Glenn; all, some, or none?

Jeremiah 31:33New International Version, says:
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

Paul refers to this scripture in 2 Corinthians 3:3:
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”

What is the law being spoken of here, Glenn?

Hi Frank,

There is no capitalization in the original Greek. Various translators handle this different ways. Even so, the text itself makes the point:

“14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, a according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” Romans 2:14-16 ESV

Notice, according to the scripture, we are talking about Gentiles WHO DO NOT HAVE THE LAW. They don’t have it. They are a law to themselves, the work of the law is WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS. If they are adhering to or transgressing anything, it can’t be the law of Moses, because they are, according to the scripture, gentiles who do not have the law. They are being accused or excused by their conscience, despite the fact that they do not have the law of Moses. This is in fact Paul’s exact point, that they know right from wrong without knowing the Mosaic law at all. Perhaps you should actually read the text before you make such confident assertions.

Glenn: “I think the way to see it is that the Law of Moses was the moral law of God applied to a specific situation. The way this moral law might be properly applied in various situations might change, but it surely cannot change radically to the point where the moral principles are not the same.”

Most revealing, Glenn. So, then, what’s your answer to my contention that if there is moral goodness then the diametric opposite must exist? To me, if an entity is without morals, there is no goodness or badness, only amorality. Is this the nature of God?

Here’s my point: One cannot have a ‘non-moral’ God as goodness itself is a property of morality, as is badness. If God therefore, applies ‘objective morals’ then those morals must be outside God for the morals to be truly objective – otherwise if we choose say they are the Deity’s values, then they are not objective.

Glenn: “Copan’s thesis is not the that accounts are errant. And as for the need to be “decoded,” I can’t understand why you’d ask whether the Bible is errant or at least in need of decoding, as though the need for decoding is a soft version of being errant.”

I’m cool with this, but then the issue is thus made easier: Were the lives of the children and babies of the Conquest spared? If so, can you show me where this is indicated in the Biblical account.

Of course, we still have the problem of Godly-inspiration. Paul said “all scripture” was inspired of God.” Presumably he meant the scriptures he frequently quoted from. He even said that the scriptures were for our upbuilding and encouragement and they gave hope. His sources were the Old Testament. So…

Would he have taken the accounts literally? Remember he was inspiring the congregations to a great measure of courage in the face of Christian persecution, so he must have believed in an avenging God (1 Thessalonians 1: 6 – 10).

Do you agree that, in no circumstances, that it is morally-repugnant to speak of “executing” babies and children? Do you agree that when it comes to the vulnerable among us at any time in history, those who have neither the natural capability nor the experience to distinguish between right and wrong, are murdered when their lives are taken?

A simple yes or no will suffice, though explanatory notes would be appreciated.

I hope my reasoning doesn’t shout “Ah ha! Gotcha!” to you, Glenn. I don’t have a doctorate, but I’m sure you agree that I have a right to an opinion.

“You can’t just assert that it is the Mosaic law in this passage without any corroboration from the text somewhere”

Jim, but we do have such corroboration. When Paul says that the “Gentiles” don’t have the law but do it out of conscience anyway, he must be talking about a law that the Jews have but the Gentiles don’t. This indicates that he is indeed talking about the Mosaic law.

And as for “quibbling,” I would say this: It is no good “running” to people with justification and grace using this law if they don’t believe it even comes from God in the first place. Grace for what? Justification with whom? So it’s important to use the law known by conscience (not “dictated” by conscience,but dictated by God) to point to the lawgiver as far as evangelistic concerns go (and those do seem to be your concerns here).

Glenn: “Your previous comment about non-moral badness was followed up with a comment about psychopaths who are “ignorant” of morality. The innuendo is that this is what God is like.”

I thought you’d bring this one up, Glenn, that’s why I was careful to word my statement correctly as to what I meant. Actually, with respect, by suggesting that goodness can be ‘non-moral,’ it is you who is implying that that some of the Conquest claims imply this about God. By this I don’t mean that you meant to, rather that that is how some people would take it based on your claim. I was merely challenging your implication.

Glenn: “This is badness that has nothing to do with a violation of moral duty. So for example, being in pain is bad, but not because it is evil.”

This is why Humanism has transcended Christianity. Humanists believe that UNNECESSARY pain is evil. Would slowly drowning children during the Noachian Flood be an example of this?

Glenn: “Frank, you led me to believe 1) that you had actually read what Copan had to say about the conquest narrative, and 2) you thought that what Copan had to say was plausible. And yet you now ask a question that is clearly answered in what Copan has to say.”

I never claimed to have read Is God a Moral Monster?; I was citing what Copan had said during a podcast made about the book in which Copan makes his claims.

Secondly, I only agreed that Copan’s claims were consistent with Finkelstein and Silberman’s findings. It is a theory, but one well-worth considering as getting us closer to the truth – the parsimonious truth, that is.

Glenn: “Have you in fact read what Copan had to say about the conquest narrative, and do you find it plausible? Because if your answer is yes, you would not now be asking me whether or not the children were spared/killed.”

My objection to your view of God’s ‘morality’ is purely based on history bloodied by misinterpretations of what Copan claims were exaggerations, and an ancient paradigm. Religious thinking has been one of the major caused for unnecessary pain whether or not it was intentionally caused by the Old Testament God.

Non-Moral Characteristics of God (http://www.mercydrops.com/Attributes/moralattributes.htm):

Simplicity of God- uncomposed, indivisible, spirit (Jn 1:18, 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15-16)

Aseity of God- self existence (Gen 1:1; Psm 90:2; Jn 1:1-3)

Pure Actuality of God (Psm 90:2, Rev. 1:8, 17; Jn 17:5)

God is Spirit- Richard Strauss Ph.D

Omnipresence of God (Psa 139:7-8 & Jeremiah 23:24)

Omniscience of God (Prov 15:3,1 Chron 28: 9; Psm 139: 2)

Omnipotence of God (Rev 19:6, Ish 42:5)

Infinity of God (I Kings 8:27, Ps. 145:3, Acts 17:24)

Immutability of God (Malachi 3:6,Psm 33:11,Heb13:8)

Immutability of God by Richard Strauss

Sovereignty of God (Dan 4:35,Job 42:2; Ecc 7:13-14; Rom 8:28; Ps 104)

The Sovereignty of God in History- Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M.

God Is Eternal – (Psm 90:2; 102:12)

Moral Characteristics of God (http://www.mercydrops.com/Attributes/moralattributes.htm):

• Holiness of God (Ex 3:3-5; Josh 5:13-15; Ish 6:1-6; 1 John 1:5)
• Righteousness and justice of God (Gen 18:25)
• The goodness of God (James 1:17 & Matt 5:45)
• The love of God (Psm 103:17; 1 John 4:8 & 16)
• The mercy of God (Ex 3:7; Psm 86:15)
• The grace of God (Ex 34:6; Eph 1:5-8; John 1:16)
• The faithfulness of God (2 Tim 2:13 & Lam 3:22-3)
• The truthfulness of God-veracity (John 14:6; 17:3)

Notice, Glenn that goodness is among the MORAL qualities.

Glenn: “But instead of just saying “Yes, that is what I am asking” or “No, that’s not it,” you set the conversation back a few steps by asking the original question – the one where I have already told you why Christians wouldn’t answer it!”

Wow! Obviously I missed this one. Please remind what you said about why Christians ‘won’t’ answer my basic question, Glenn.

Simply on the basis that I don’t have the philosophical qualifications, would you please simplify this quote, so that I can give a clear answer:

Glenn: “Now that you have avoided some of the more obvious pitfalls when it comes to the conquest, your objection appears to simply be this: You don’t call it genocide, and you’re willing to grant Copan’s and Flannagan’s point, but you think that anything that has the potential to bring about collateral damage by harming children is always wrong.”

Thanks Glenn.

“(1) Can you explain to me why Christian apologists can’t frame a simple answer to my questions why God kills the innocent with the guilty?” I think “frame” is the appropriate word there. Try framing the question in a way that doesn’t sound like you’re just trying to antagonise them.”

Is it that I make a charge against God here, Glenn?

I’ll try to be more polite:

Jude 7 says:

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,4 serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Note here that there is no distinction made about the inhabitants of the cities. The natural inference is that all were killed in the cities mentioned. No prophet had been sent (except arguably Lot and his family, but there is no evidence he was a preacher)and God’s conversation in Genesis 18 shows that Abraham does not appeal on the part of the children. Finally, only Lot, his wife, and daughters are reported as escaping the burning cities.

Ditto the child victims of the Joshua Wars.

Jude 7 says that those who died would be ‘eternally destroyed,’ leaving no provision of salvation for those who had had no opportunity to lead good lives. Was this and other accounts inaccurate in their reporting or was the book of Jude not written under inspiration?

This is a call to all Christians to answer this apparent non-moral act.

I have no desire to antagonise anyone; I just want an answer that would create harmony between the claims of perfect love, justice, power and mercy as the four cardinal qualities of God.

Frank, it seems to me that you’re an endless source of questions. Every time Glenn has answered one for you, you’ve got several more, and it really seems to me (I could be reading you wrong) that you have a real expectation that Glenn will make the time to carefully consider every one of your many many questions and answer you.

It’s not for me to complain about this, but it seems to me that this means you’re benefiting considerably from Glenn’s time and background (and it looks to me like you’re comfortable assuming that you’ll be happy to continue doing so and asking for more, apparently without end). Fair comment? What I’m getting at is… it almost looks like Glenn’s time might be worth something to you. 😉

No Frank, I’ve never met Glenn.
“Actually, I have only asked one question”

“Would it therefore be a reasonable argument against the existence of God on the basis of the Joshua Wars if there is no archaeological evidence to support the Bible accounts?” “Does this evidence cancel out any philosophical claim?” “So then how should be process the principle to ‘love our enemies’?” “Two questions, therefore, I would like to ask regarding the Joshua Wars:” [Frank then poses two questions] “Isn’t DCT simply taking sides in Euthyphro’s Dilemma: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”” “A question for you Glenn, how does Copan’s thesis progress the moral argument?” A cluster of questions: “Glenn, Are you as a Christian seriously arguing that there’s a possibility that the god of the Conquest was not Jesus’ father? Do you yourself accept Paul Copan’s premise? If so, are you saying the Bible is errant, or at least in need of decoding? If so, then error can enter at any given moment of reading the Scriptures, at least in the form of misinterpretation. If this is true, can we pronounce the New Testament error-free?” “Could you please make a comment or two on my contention that your title: The Non-moral Goodness of God presupposes that there is also a ‘non-moral badness’ in existence.” “What is the law being spoken of here, Glenn?” “Would slowly drowning children during the Noachian Flood be an example of this?” “I wonder if you could help me with two more things:” [Two more questions follow]
“Do you hold to Richard Swinburne’s implication, then, that God permits evil so that good (presumably moral good) can be done to alleviate such evil?” “Please tell me how to process that God acted with non-moral goodness in this situation.”
“What has Flanagan’s and Copan’s thesis to do with child-murder, Glenn? I await your reply.” I notice the demanding tone – Glenn, run off and get me an answer, then come back to serve me more. Quickly. And towards the end of this torrent of questions and demands, you have the gall to actually presume to taunt Glenn: “This sounds like you’re tiring of the challenge.” Frank, any normal human being would tire of such mosquito-like conduct! They would have done so much sooner, and they would not still be extending patience and grace to you. You even managed to goad Glenn into coming back to the table. You have no appreciation of just how needy and demanding you’re being. Maybe this is normal for you. And omg, I was so sickened by this, THEN after Glenn had come back, continually serving you, answering your huge list of questions, he – ONCE tells you that you’re asking a very broad question, and that books and books have been written on this, so a full answer couldn’t be given in a bog com box, and even though he is busy, he will make time for you, and come back with a comment within a week. Your response? You snap back: “What’s the answer?”

But you’ve only asked one question.

In the interests of fairness I’ll let Frank offer a comment in reply (if he wishes to offer one), Sandra, but then I ask that as of tomorrow this particular discussion be taken up privately if anyone wishes to pursue it.

It is funny you should make this suggestion, Glenn. I was thinking much the same way and was going to ask you if I could. If it is okay for you, I will first wait for your upcoming article and use mine as a rebuttal. Is that okay?

I assure you that I have no intention of monopolising your time. My passion merely matches yours. In fact, it’s my non-moral duty.

Sandra, feel free to criticise my work; I welcome it. I would, however, appreciate arguments and not tirades.

Thanks

Frank

Wow. Seriously… now you are meant to serve him further by providing him with publishing space and an unearned audience. I barely know what to say. But my bad, to point out such poor manners is a “tirade.”

Glenn, I’ve seen and heard your work on divine command ethics, and some of the articles that others have written, and it does tend to generally take the form of demolishing objections. It’s a good demolition too, don’t get me wrong. But I do look forward to seeing what you have to say to a Christian audience in particular on why they should accept DCT.

In addition to writing the article (presumably another one for publication), I hope you put it up in the articles section of your site!

Hi Glenn
(caveat first: I haven’t read the above in depth so just ignore this question if by chance if was covered above or even if you just don’t have time to address the issue then feel free to ignore)

After having listened to this podcast for the second or third time I have at least one question.

Are we saying that the statement “We ought not gratuitously inflict pain on a human” is a rational ought even if we have already agreed that pain is intrinsically bad and humans are intrinsically valuable?
It seems to me as though it would be hard to argue to most people that this wasn’t a moral ought.
I wouldn’t want to create a whole system of morality based on pain but in this particular it seems like it should be a moral ought. Wouldn’t most people just think the definition of morality is that we should avoid doing what is bad? I can see holes with the position I’m outlining here but I just wanted to make sure I was on to the right thing. I seem to have previously thought I was on to the right thing when WLC raised the ‘value problem’ in his debate with Harris but I admit that I have extrapolated a lot from a limited understanding on this issue. Here we seem to be granting the value of humans.
Additionally saying that anything is intrinsically ‘anything’ seems a little anti-foundational to me but that is possibly another issue.

Thanks again Glenn
I’ll reflect on it a bit.
I sense I don’t have as much of a grasp on it as I’d like.
Time to do some more reading. 🙂

Thank you for the podcast, Glenn.

I’m trying to listen to it again, but the audio cuts off after just a few minutes. Is there another way to listen to the whole thing? Thanks.

It’s working now. Thanks!

I’m still a bit confused as to why appealing to God’s supposed moral nature is not a good move. It’s something I’ve found problematic as well, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Are you saying that appealing to God’s moral nature doesn’t really answer the question in some way? Does it fail to explain the content of this “good”? Is it circular in some way?

Sorry if my questions are vague.