RSS 2.0
Answer: The Lord works in mysterious ways. Question #41:
Why doesn’t the Bible explicitly prohibit slavery?
Millions of men, women and children all over the world for thousands of years have suffered and continue to suffer today under slavery in one form or another.
Can it truly be called “The Good Book” when it fails to condemn something that is so obviously evil?
–Allen
on February 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Condemn slavery? I was under the impression the bible ENDORSES slavery — at least that’s my interpretation of the bible I own.
on February 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I think it’s interesting that pro-Bible people say they get their morality from it, when it truly is not a moral book. It’s almost a selective comprehension of the material - if they even choose to read the violent parts at all.
Or perhaps they are saying “Well, this book is outdated, so I will not follow that rule.” Funny how they can pick and choose what parts to follow, but as soon as it starts getting criticized as a whole, the faith shields come on and they defend it to the death.
on February 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I wish I could remember the exact quote, or even who said it…At any rate this seems germane to your poser:
“If anything at all can be universally known, owning a person is definitely wrong.”
Cheers!
on February 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am
The Bible does not condemn or support slavery. You might argue that, by not condemning it when it was widely practiced at the time, it condoned it by its silence.
In fact, slavery isn’t the only thing which the Bible doesn’t condemn. Another one which is perhaps even more surprising is polygamy. Some of the greatest Old Testament heroes had many wives. Yet nowhere, except in a directive to clergymen, does the scripture say a man ought only have one. Very strange.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
on March 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
The Bible certainly has many passages in the old testament where the Israelites are encouraged to take slaves from the opposing civilizations. There are also scriptures about how slaves are to treat their masters and likewise. That’s certainly condoning it to me!
on March 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 am
Leviticus 19:20 (New International Version)
20 ” ‘If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.
Leviticus 22:11 (New International Version)
11 But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
Et cetera.
It appears the bible condones slavery the way it condones breathing: it treats it as a matter of fact.
on March 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Funny thing is I have quoted several passages from the bible regarding slavery asking Christians to explain to me how such things are moral or just, I have yet to receive an answer. There are passages allowing one to sell off their daughters into slavery, other passages give rules as to slave treatment i.e. don’t harm their eyes or their teeth, and some others that in fact allow the taking of slaves so long as they are not of your own people.
It would seem to me that any book that was upheld as a morality and life guide would be against the enslavement of people. But then again the bible is notoriously immoral when read cover to cover. The morality seeps out when you cherry pick the verses for bible study or Sunday school.
on April 24th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I had a conversation with a christian co-worker about just this topic. I wondered out loud if (per the bible) we could only have Mexican slaves or if the passage meant we could have Canadians, too. Then I went to Evilbible.com and started reading passages to her and made her furious! Of course her claim was that I was “taking it out of context”. Typical christian.
on April 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Hi girlatheist. I’m genuinely sorry your readings from Evilbible.co. met with a “furious” reaction. That’s unfortunate and regrettable, for all parties. I am, however, intrigued by your final remark; “typical christian”. I have been a Christian for years now, and have travelled internationally in the course of my work, meeting people from a huge variety of backgrounds and cultures, yet have never actually met a “typical christian”. Neither have I ever met a typical atheist, nor would I expect to do so. All the same, I’m sorry you met with some hostility ~ Stephen.
on May 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hello Elaine. Greetings from Scotland. I really do hope it doesn’t sound patronising or nauseating to say that I genuinely appreciate the concerns you raise (March 30th) regarding the Bible and slavery. It’s certainly not meant to sound either of those things. As a Christian, it behoves me to offer a courteous and honest response to the points you make, and not to abdicate that responsibility. You are entitled to that. Frankly, there are things in the Bible that I, like everyone who has ever read the Bible, don’t understand. Likewise, there are things in the Bible I grapple with almost daily, on a personal (non-abstract) level. James Ch. 5 v. 16, for example, holds out the hope of healing, yet my 36-year-old brother has suffered epilepsy all his life, which has all but wiped half his brain out, despite my prayers and fasting on his behalf. I would be lying if I said I understood that. I don’t, and I wish God would help, simple as that. Likewise, I grapple with the Biblical concept of slavery because it seems to run violently and disappointingly contrary to the basic tenet of (my) faith that “God is Love” (I John Ch. 1 v. 8). I have no intention of defending God. Firstly, because He doesn’t need me to do that for Him, and I am unaware of any Divine calling to do so. Secondly, because He is Sovereign (though not, I believe, capricious), and thirdly, because, as a point of integrity, I refuse to defend the indefensible (i.e. slavery). All I would proffer is that slavery in Biblical times may not always have been slavery as we commonly understand it, bearing in mind the translation from Hebrew to English.. (It almost certainly wasn’t, much of the time.) Scholars commonly agree that families sold family members into slavery so as to secure for them a better standard of living than that which was possible at home, and which didn’t involve cruelty. (That does not apply every time, I know, but it does apply frequently.) In my homeland of England, it was / is considered a good thing for working class girls to go “into service” in the homes of the aristocracy or upper classes. It was / is seen as a definite way of securing somewhere to live, and an acceptable standard of living which is otherwise unattainable. (Likewise, young men would attend specialised English schools so as to learn how to become Butlers to the nobility.) This is not (at all, or ever) to trivialise or minimise the issue, but there is a definition of “slavery” which definitely falls into the “service” category, and may not have been altogether a bad thing. Other definitions cannot be defended, but I accept them (reluctantly) wherever they appear in the Bible as graphic descriptions of that culture and those times, in the sincere hope that we have learnt to treat each other kindly since. My grappling, though, does not, somehow, prevent my belief. St. Anselm said, “I do not believe because I understand. I understand because I believe”. I’m somewhere around there in my faith, in that if there isn’t a loving God at the top of all this, I can’t see much point in it all ~ even if I can’t understand Him at times. I have to believe. I want to believe. I do believe. Forasmuch as I detest Old Testament cruelty, I am also charmed by Jesus, and (for me), one need not negate the other. I study the doctrine of the Incarnation, and I am dazzled by humility; wooed by such a vulnerable Deity. It’s by no means a complete picture, but for all the unanswered questions (of which there are plenty), I continue to believe, chiefly because I have never encountered a more dramatic or challenging love story than Calvary. That (for me) wins through, though I fully appreciate that for you, it doesn’t. I respect that. Philip Yancey, by the way, is a Christian author you may find interesting. The Salvation Army, by the way, is working impressively hard to combat human trafficking and to impart dignity to its victims. Please be encouraged by that. With thanks ~ Stephen.
on May 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 am
Hi folks. Upon re-reading my last message, I realise it should really have been addressed to everyone who has posted concerns similar to Elaine’s. Sorry about that. I addressed Elaine simply because hers was the last comment I read, having read them all ~ Stephen.
on May 4th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Slavery is “obviously evil” and “definitely wrong.” The Bible is “notoriously immoral.”
These kinds of statements imply a belief in objective morality, i.e., that something like slavery is wrong for all time and in all cultures. Is there a moral standard that stands outside of time and place being appealed to here, or is this simply a matter of personal or cultural preference?
on May 4th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Well, Scott, I think some things like slavery are wrong no matter where or when they take place, so, according to your definition, I do have objective moral standards. They just happen to be inspired by reason and compassion, not religion.
on May 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Allen,
Others have historically and geographically used their “reason” to come to other conclusions than you in this and many other matter. And they place their compassions elsewhere or have it not at all. Reason and compassion do no work without guiding principles and objectives. You may as well tell me you get to El Dorado “by horse.”
What are these transcendent principals of morality to which you appeal to say that all others are simple mistaken, and how is it that you have managed to discover them where many have failed? And I wonder what other moral truths are hidden within the treasury that you are robbing to pay this debt.
on May 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Thanks for writing, Nate. There are a few points I’d like to address:
I think your reasoning here is a bit muddled, I’m afraid. Even as an atheist, I recognize the power of the Bible as the most influential book in Western Civilization to promote or deter behavior. If you mean to say that the Bible hasn’t ever eliminated certain behaviors completely, I would agree with you.
Also, it seems strange to expect people who aren’t Christian–the “otherwiseâ€? you mentioned–to be influenced by the Bible’s prohibitions.
This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I never said that the Bible has to prohibit every immoral behavior. My point was that the book which many believe is the literal word of a benevolent, loving, morally-perfect God doesn’t speak one disparaging word about slavery. Considering the horrific impact slavery has had in human history, which He must have foreseen, how difficult would it have been for Him to include it as the eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not sell or own slaves?�
I never said I did. While it does arguably contain parts that define moral behavior, it also contains history, poetry, letters, legends, genealogy, and assorted fantasies and delusions. The more I read and understand it, ironically, the more secure I grow in my atheism.
on May 6th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Scott writes:
I am not trumpeting myself as some kind of master philosopher or guru, or saying that I have cornered the market on virtue. If this is the impression I have given, I sincerely apologize. I am convinced, however, that slavery has always been an affront to the timeless values of human dignity and freedom. If you wish a more detailed explanation of my reasoning in this or other issues, read my other posts, and then, by all means, please ask.
on May 7th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Allen,
I’m not reading anything in to your comments here and in other posts (and the comments of the other non-theists here) other than that there is a very strong implication of moral objectivism being exercised. All your judgments, social positions, and moral outrages depend upon some ethical grounding. You don’t have to be a master philosopher to identify where this originates in your own case.
There either is an objective moral law that stands outside of time and culture, or morality is merely a product of the human mind. You seem to be inclined toward the former, in practice, though I’m sure you can see how problematic that is for atheism. On the other hand, grounding morality upon human convention removes the fixed nature of all moral positions. Humans change, cultures change, preferences change, and individuals are unique. Making morality a human invention boils down to a matter of personal and cultural “preference.” You may think that we are making progress in fine-tuning our cultural conventions (by way of “reason”), but that is merely another admission that there are true and right objective standards toward which we can make progress.
I know that certain moral positions are just so obvious to you that it seems academic to justify them, but the very question is why we should have these incorrigible moral intuitions, where they come from, and why we “ought” to bow to them. Many atheistic philosophers, in fact, reject moral objectivism because they understand the problems I raise here. Most people, however, are blind to this issue, borrow moral capital from the theistic worldview, and merrily condemn injustices and champion their moral causes. In practice, they are just as dogmatic as any religionist that they condemn for holding to moral values with which they disagree.
And you have similar problems with the ideas of “timeless values,” “human dignity,” and “freedom” from a purely materialistic perspective. Justifying such notions has been the confounding project of atheistic philosophy for many centuries, and it is why, intellectually bankrupted by the attempt, many have surrendered in this age to a postmodern relativism. You seem not yet to have arrived there, but I believe that it is the ultimate, rational conclusion of atheism, even though it is not a livable position.
on May 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
For the record, Scott, I do assert that morality is a human invention and that it can and has changed over time, often for the better. The Bible describes, for example, how it was morally acceptable at one time to put to death homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, fortune tellers, women who were not virgins on their wedding day, and those who worked on the Sabbath. Any sane person living in the 21st century is horrified by such outright brutality and injustice. So how do many Christians reconcile this with their concept of a loving and righteous god who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? They dismiss it by saying those rules no longer apply, that Jesus and the New Testament somehow nullify all that nasty business in the Old. It was a different time, a different place. Yet this is exactly the kind of relativism that you and many other believers seem to find so problematic when it comes to secular philosophies.
I am perfectly aware that morality, as any other human endeavor, is imperfect, filled with personal and cultural biases and preferences. This doesn’t make it any less profound or legitimate than the so-called objective standards promoted by religious prophets and sacred texts; in fact, I think that recognizing the fact that morality is to some degree fluid and subject to improvement has led to many of the rights and standards we value so highly today.
on May 9th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Allen,
You admit that morality is a “human invention,” but you say that it can change for the “better,” is subject to “improvement,” and can be “imperfect.” Better and improved and less than perfect according to what standard? You cannot move toward, or run afoul of, a position unless that position first exists to be approached.
If morality is just a human invention, then morality is just whatever happens to be defined by the humans in any given place and time. There would be no higher morality than that, only different morality. You could only say that your 21st Century Western morality is better out of a sense of chronological snobbery.
To say that the Hebrews, Romans, or Huns had not arrived at the “rights and standards we value” is to say one of two things: Either it says that each living individual or culture is the standard by which history is measured, which means that you shall be found wanting by your descendents even if they are little barbarians; or it is to say that at the time of these societies there was a fixed standard that lay wholly outside of humanity — indeed, outside of time — to which these persons failed to measure up.
You are faced with either affirming a transcendent moral principle, thus negating pure materialism, or you must admit that your own moral standards and sensibilities distill to arbitrary ethical preferences that compete with the preferences of other cultural groups and are only different, not better in any real sense. Your moral intuitions that have you horrified by certain behaviors are either shadows of a true divine Form (to use Plato’s model), or they are nothing more than fashionable moral reactions (like my wife’s “horror” at seeing white shoes after Labor Day). The fact that you feel so strongly about your moral positions and think of them as being so “sane” and modern does absolutely no philosophical work toward raising them above mere subjectivism.
That being said, it is difficult to know how to take any of your moral assessments of the Bible or any other issue. If you are merely emoting, then there is nothing further to discuss unless I choose to volley with my own feelings. But to unpack the theological issues that you raise against the Bible would require us to first share some common ground of understanding regarding morality, not to mention the concept of a God who has dominion over, and purposes for, humanity. Such things are complex and nuanced (would you expect a God to be otherwise?), and so long as one has a misty and minimalistic view of ethics and God’s sovereignty then one will have no comprehension or sympathy for anything I have to say.
In any case, I would certainly not concede a relativistic view of God’s moral will, as you have either received or perceived from other Christians willing to entertain your complaints. Perhaps I can hint at the common limitations of thinking in this area by pointing out that we have different expectations for our children vs. other people’s children, our children at school vs. at home, and our children as youths vs. as adults, even while our overall values and objectives remain constant.
on May 10th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Scott writes:
So, because I don’t accept your particular god, I am somehow morally and intellectually deficient, unworthy of the effort it would take for you to address my criticism. I find this attitude patronizing, to say the least.
Of course you won’t admit your god’s morality is relative; that would negate its transcendence and open it up to what I assert is valid criticism. You explain away your god’s arbitrary morality with the concept of different “expectations�—which seems to my “corrupt� way of thinking just another form of relativism. What you fail to realize is that your god is also a human invention, and so is every so-called objective moral standard you ascribe to it.
on May 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Allen,
Rats! I hate that lack of preview in WordPress. Let’s try this again, and if the blog admin would be so kind as to delete my previous attempt…
More moral outrage? So, are you conceding my main point and yielding to a transcendent morality (requiring not just my “particular god,” but anything outside of humanity) or just ignoring the point and continuing to presuppose moral objectivity without grounding it?
Regardless, I am not saying that you are morally and intellectually deficient. Indeed, you may be a fairly decent and intelligent guy, but in pursuit of that I think you are leaning upon objective principles of morality and logic to which you are not rationally entitled as an atheist. I think you cannot help yourself in applying such metaphysical principles simply because they happen to be a real part of the kinds of minds that God has given us in common. They fit neatly into my world view, but they are illusory if yours is true.
For this reason, I see it as largely unproductive to dialog about particulars. First, because it seems to me that first principles supersede the questions and issues upon which they are erected. Second, because our differences over the nature of morality foreshadow the vast differences we would surely have over the application of it to the roles, rights, and constraints of God and persons. If we cannot agree on the nature of morality (much less, the existence of an Author of it), then how can we speak of the point of it all and what qualifies as a violation of it?
No, I have cause to think God exists, that He is necessary to ground objective morality, and that there are reasonable explanations for scriptural events that give you heartburn. However, as I’ve argued (and you’ve ignored or conceded), you cannot even begin your criticisms unless you first affirm the objective nature of morality; otherwise you are doing nothing more than complaining that you find the biblical deity distasteful, like leisure suits or lima beans.
“Corrupt”? Don’t quote it if I never used the word myself. I’ve explained my problem with your “way of thinking” above.
I went against my better judgment and offered you some thoughts germane to your criticism, and here you begin to demonstrate the problems that I predict we should have in communicating over the particulars of morality. But I am an optimist, so I’ll offer something else:
If you have children, do you supply them different rules and right than you do your guests? If you were a monarch, would you treat your faithful citizens differently than your renegades? If you were a doctor, would you treat your patient differently before, during, and after heart surgery? If you answer yes to these questions, which you must surely do else we have less in common than I fear, then would you do these things out of hypocrisy and inconsistency?
Oh my! Say it ain’t so! I guess every rational, empirical, and existential reason I have for believing in God is merely coincidental to the fact that humans have invented this deception. How odd it is that every independent culture is guilty of this same ruse, though.
I ascribe all moral standards to “it,” many of which I’m certain that you and I share in common. However, you are correct in that if there is no transcendent source of morality, like God, then particular moral standards are as transient as anything else that humanity has invented. So, slavery may be “right” in one time and place and “wrong” in another, thus returning us to the root of the problem with your complaint.
on May 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Good stuff, Scott (with all due respect to Allen).
I love this dialogue, really I do - especially the intelligent stuff which you, Scott, and you, Allen, seem very capable of. All credit to you both.
“Moral outrage” is, I find, a convenient smokescreen behind which (in my opinion) atheists hide more frequently than believers.
It seems that it’s okay for atheists to offend believers regularly, but the moment believers tread on the feelings of atheists, the moral outrage card is played straight away, cleverly deflecting the argument.
That’s what I think, anyway. Quite often.
Keep up the good stuff, you guys ~ Stephen.
on May 14th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Scott,
Happy to take care of that for you, Scott. I find this limitation very frustrating as well.
You know very well I am not conceding your main point because I don’t accept the existence of any form of transcendence, so I necessarily don’t yield to a transcendent morality.
My morality, then, is grounded in the goal of maximizing human happiness in this our one and only brief existence. Something is “right� if it can be demonstrated to promote happiness, and “wrong� when it doesn’t. To that end, I champion moral principles which are objective not in the supernatural sense, but in that they can be tested and verified objectively. One of these values, for example, is honesty. When I am honest, I earn trust, respect, and cooperation from others. This increases not only my personal happiness but the happiness of those around me. Slavery, by contrast, significantly decreases human happiness, and is therefore wrong.
But even if I did accept a transcendent morality, a further, unavoidable problem arises: which of its many contradictory and conflicting versions is correct? According to one religion, for example, crashing planes into skyscrapers in the name of their god is a noble and righteous act of self-sacrifice; another religion condemns it as murder. And even within the same religion, its adherents don’t always agree on the particulars of their revealed truth. How does one rationally decide which holy and inerrant morals to follow?
As I have explained above, I am entitled to those moral principles which can be demonstrated to promote human happiness. They are rational, logical and practical in a way that transcendent morality can never hope to be.
I see your point. If the focus of my morality is human happiness, and yours is focused primarily on pleasing your god, then our options for a fruitful discussion are indeed limited.
Really? Then perhaps you’d care to list the reasonable explanations for the following scriptural events: the creation of the universe in six days, including the Garden of Eden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life, and the talking snake in the Garden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the torture of Job, Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt, the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, manna falling from heaven, Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still in the sky, the destruction of Jericho, Jonah’s experience in the belly of a whale, and Jesus’ virgin birth, healing of the sick, raising people from the dead, changing water into wine, multiplying bread and fish, walking on water, and resurrection. For starters.
I wasn’t quoting you when I put quotation marks around the word “corrupt.� I was using it in the sense of “so-called� as in: Your “god� is “great.�
If I did answer “yes� to these questions, what exactly do they have to do with my original objection to your god condoning slavery? Pretend for a moment that you are explaining it to someone who has the same faith-based morality you have.
Just what is every rational, empirical, and existential reason you have for believing in your god? I could probably list an equal number that have led me to the opposite conclusion. Are you actually saying that your particular faith is rational and empirical, and that if you were presented with the right evidence, you would renounce your god? Somehow, I doubt it.
The fact that every culture that we know of has developed some form of religion does little to prove the existence of the supernatural or your god in particular. And when I describe religion as a human invention, I mean that it is a concept that was created by people for people; I was not implying that it is always, or even most of the time, a conscious “deception� or “ruse,� to use your words.
Actually, according to the principles I have described above, slavery can be shown to be evil no matter when or where it occurs if it is detrimental to human happiness. That being said, it can be very easy for us to harshly judge others from different times and cultures, especially with all we understand today about psychology, history, and the natural world. While slavery is still technically wrong, it may be unreasonable to expect people like the Ancient Hebrews to overcome the compelling social and cultural norms which made slavery acceptable in the first place.
My original complaint, however, was not so much with the people described in the Bible, but the god who allegedly inspired the morality within it. It seems to me that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god could have slipped in a few lines about not owning or selling slaves and saved a lot of people a lot of trouble.
on May 17th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Allen,
By “happiness” you of course mean a completely subjective standard of happiness which you settled on out of whim and fancy OR you mean an absolute standard. You still haven’t avoided the predicament Scott raises becuase he has performed “reductio ad absurdum” on the atheist’s viewpoint. Happiness, as with any perceivable standard, is awfully fleeting and is going to be perceived in different ways at different times, and even at the same time by different people. Move into that arena and you will have war in no time between those who say “happiness is red” vs. “happiness is blue.” I’m sure slavers would be quick to say that they are indeed pursuing happiness. They might even argue that their slaves are happy. And so it is with any standard you can raise- it’s either completely subjective, or it’s god. You are either completely and absurdly subjective in your judgements of what is good, or you are conceding to an Absolute.
Well, I’ll be. Atheists actually DO believe in god.
on May 18th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Tim writes:
Not at all, and if you had read my explanation carefully, this would be obvious. What I described was not subjective opinion or whim. The essentials of human happiness are nearly universal and have been carefully documented and described by those who study human psychology. All happiness starts with, of course, meeting the basic needs of food, water, and shelter. Beyond that, one needs a sense of security and freedom, as well as positive relationships with others. This in turn allows the cultivation of individual talents and interests, leading to even greater satisfaction and fulfillment. Moral standards such as honesty, responsibility, cooperation, and compassion support and enhance these principles of happiness. Without gods.
Interesting point. It brings to mind a related question: If a slave owner believes he is pursuing happiness through slavery, and that slaves are happy, then is he acting morally? Well, yes and no. He is acting morally in the sense that he is doing what he believes is right, but it can be demonstrated objectively that slavery demeans and detracts from human happiness and is, therefore, wrong. I’m sure there were slavers who felt they were doing the right thing, especially when they felt the Bible condoned it. This is why, as I mentioned previously, one shouldn’t judge others from different times and cultures as harshly as we would people in most modern societies. The god of the BIble, however, has a lot to answer for.
So, again, which god’s absolute, perfect morality should one follow? There are many conflicting and contradictory ones from which to choose. How does one even begin to rationally address this problem? Isn’t a “leap of faith,� the method many resort to when confronted with this issue, ultimately a subjective judgement?
Wow. A fallacy and a non sequitur in the same sentence. Nice touch.
on May 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Allen,
I intend to respond (I’ve actually written a bit already) but issues are pressing on me this week. I’ll try for some time this weekend.
on May 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Allen,
Nothing can really be demonstrated objectively, because there is no such thing as objectivity when a human being is making a judgement. You are interpreting information according to the preferences that have be embedded in you through culture and upbringing, whether you want to or not. Rational data does not escape this problem, because it’s still coming through the filter of a human being. What one perceives as happiness will conflict with another’s and applied data can do nothing to insure it for both of them. Especially when the data has to be received and interpreted by people who are notorious for warping facts in order to promote causes they(subjectively) consider just and programs they(subjectively) consider effective. Standards as vague and woo-woo as “happiness,” (or the more lofty sounding “common good”) are silly as a final word in settling moral disputes for this reason. At some point in history people realized that, and they began wondering if there was an truly objective viewpoint, since a direct command from such a place could be trusted more highly than wishy-washy emotions and filtered information postured around as objective morality. Faith? yes, but no more than trusting something other than god.
This of course proves a significant risk: what if God commands something I (or “common practice” or “facts” or “religious belief” or “accepted morality”) don’t agree with? But the questions that must be asked alongside it are “Why is it that I think what I think? How sovereign is my opinion of morality? Where did these vaunted judgements of good vs. evil come from? Is a practice or belief simply validated by the fact that everyone agrees on it? Or that it seems to produce an elusive “happiness”? In other words, we can’t be too quick to judge what is good and bad in other cultures/eras(as you have noted) or even in our own.
Thus we suspend our visceral response against the violent God in the old testament and are suspicious of the judgements we are prone to make of him. We do, after all, live in a culture that suggests death and suffering are the ultimate evil, to be avoided at all costs, and pleasure/comfort and the postponing of death are the ultimate good. This of course, is one more subjective value standard we impose on societies. If this is not true, god is off the hook. The Hebrews, and now Christians, and probably many others disagree with the above social norms. In a culture where separation from God, rather than death and suffering, is the ultimate evil, things like the slaughter of an entire city are not inconceivable. Difficult to swallow? of course it is, if you conceive of yourself and your opinions as the center of the universe, and as dictating ultimate morality.
As for the “which religion/god,” question, of course it too will be a subjective pursuit, but one that is capable of including rationality as a valid matrix to work with. Just not the only one. Subjectivity is not inherently bad, it only causes us to misuse things. examples:
1. “I believe “x,” about God, therefore I’m going to use it to condemn others.”
2. “rationality seems to be pretty useful so I’m going to disbelieve everything that sits outside of my rational understanding.”
These two statements are sister delusions caused by a me-centric worldview.
Unfortunately, I’m not going to provide a list of succinct reasons why I think mine (Christianity) is the best one, because I would be guilty of the exact problem I’m critiquing. It would side-step the essential process of allowing things to be discovered and try to impose them instead. What I will say is, in my experience, the search will yield fruit(no matter where you end up) if you keep in mind that you don’t/can’t know everything about God(or “the Universe” if you prefer), and that God is probably not interested in your belonging to the “right religion”, as much he is in your understanding more about his character, and how he relates to you. “Which religion” follows these discoveries, it doesn’t form them. It does amaze me that because the various religions contradict each other frequently, people will draw the conclusion that none of them must be right. This just sounds like a lazy, irresponsible avoidance of doing any critical thought of one’s own and making judgements for yourself. In fact, it might even be as weak and cowed a submission to religious establishment, as with the good Lutheran boy who mindlessly repeats the creeds every week.
on May 20th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Allen,
So your final answer is that morality is subjective after all. You name “maximizing human happiness” as your standard, but that turns out to be a personal standard, which not all would share with you. Even now I am dialoging with another atheist who offered “empathy” as his guiding principle. And even if we could get everyone to agree with your standard we still have the problem of agreement over what makes any particular individual maximally happy. There are some who are made quite happy by things that you would find quite disgusting. Does your moral theory look neutrally upon, say, alcoholics and pedophiles?
You might then add qualifiers to your morality such as, “as long as there is consent and no harm,” but that is also arbitrary and still leaves the door open to some very horrifying behaviors that both consenting parties may enjoy very much. (I would like to describe some of these but I fear you would take offense in thinking that I take you to condone them.) To put boundaries upon the pursuit of happiness you would first need some sense of teleology (design/purpose) to humanity, otherwise any man’s virtuous pursuit is as good as another one’s fetish. You cannot say that any man is depraved unless there is some specification for right behavior from which he has departed.
To expand on the charges of arbitrariness and diversity, you will surely find persons and societies who agree with you on the importance of human happiness (hedonism is eminently secular), but that it only applies to themselves. For this reason, the unhappiness of others has no weight at all in their calculation of human happiness (the Romans got along quite well practicing slavery). And why should they be expected to inconvenience themselves for the sake of other bags of biochemicals in this one brief existential flash of existence?
A valid moral theory has to account for your instinct to consider such persons to be moral reprobates. Just what is it outside of such persons which may be used to condemn them? Is it just you and your standard that is the judge, or is there something higher yet that judges both them and you? The defense of the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trial was an appeal to relativism, i.e., that they were just exercising their own cultural conventions and that they were simply being judged by the standard of the victors. The reply of the court was that they were guilty of violating a higher standard to which we are all held to account. Simply outmoded traditional thinking or a bead on the truth?
If there is no higher standard than humanity, then it is simply a power game to define who gets to be the moral standard bearer. You say it’s the rule of happiness, someone else says it’s virtue or duty related, and someone else says it’s whatever promotes the interests of his cultural group. What is the standard above all which says that your standard is the right standard? And to appeal to what simply seems obvious to you is only more subjective question begging.
Your response to this is probably contained in your comments about honesty: when you tell the truth you feel better and it works better for everyone around you. But this is simply self-serving pragmatism: you do it because it yields a return of investment for you personally, not that other humans are intrinsically worthy of certain treatment no matter what the cost to you. This lends no grounds for thinking that you ought to be virtuous even when no one is looking and you can probably get away with it, unless, of course, you happen to get a kick out of it.
Do you have no place for noble and courageous acts that make the heart swell when you see them in others, even if it leads to their demise? How does the rule of happiness apply to someone who has taken the bullet for a stranger? What worth is the happiness of a live stranger to a mind that no longer exists? Or is there some mystical bank account of human happiness to which we are all duty bound to make our deposits? Peeshaw! Let every man take his own bullets if there is nothing more than life.
Of course, my reply here depends upon your intuition that there is something noble about certain behaviors that do not fit into any secular formulation of ethics. But if you have no such intuitions then I haven’t much more to say to you other than goodbye to your moral objections against the Bible.
Next you turn to religious morality and reject that out of the diversity you find within it. But would you then reject the underlying principles of medical science because different cultures (both modern and third world) disagree over causes and treatments? Even so, you will find a remarkable amount of agreement over many moral principles across religions. However, I do not defend morality as it pertains to religion in general (let each defend itself if it is able, and, indeed, many have equal philosophical problems to your own); I defend here only the idea that morality must be transcendent in order to be timeless and universal. I do not have to claim to know every (or even any) moral imperative infallibly in order for my point to stand. If moral principles are things prior to humanity, then they are things we might hope to discover and navigate toward; if they are not, then they are merely subjective and we are making this up as we go along, and only getting “better” or “worse” by the standard du jour.
Since most of what you cite here are supernatural events I think you mean to suggest that “reasonable” = “materialism,” i.e., that there is no supernatural and that I am therefore unreasonable to accept any book containing record of the miraculous. If you first presuppose the existence of God, which I do on other grounds, then such miracles are not at all rationally incoherent.
But tell me, if a book claimed to be a record from and about God, would you be impressed if it contained nothing of the supernatural? In my experience, when atheists are pressed for a definition of what it would take for them to believe in God the answer typically boils down to a command performance of the most miraculous kind. The very thing that is demanded by the skeptic to authenticate the supernatural is the same thing that you would offer to condemn the Scriptures.
God also acts differently toward believers vs. unbelievers, His covenanted people vs. pagans, the good vs. the evil, those He is rewarding vs. those He is punishing, during the time of the taking of the Promised Land vs. after Israel have established it, during the days of the theocracy of Israel vs. post-messianic times, and during this present age vs. after the end of the age.
To say more would begin to run into the difficulties faced by your presuppositions regarding human rights and freedom. I suspect that you harbor the humanistic (and thoroughly American) notion that freedom is the greatest good that may be achieved. For this reason a person has the sovereign “right” to do whatever they like with their life, even if it means to drive it into bankruptcy, suicide, prostitution, or homelessness. It also means that even if someone were to commit the most heinous offenses, which land them in prison for (at minimum) the protection of the rest of society, then they still have the “right” to be treated in certain ways and not be forced into labor against their will.
This would also pertain to the rights of individuals and cultures to conduct certain practices, especially if there is no God to offend and no particular truth to violate. For this reason, there would be no place in your economy for blasphemy and utter moral reprobation. That which causes bodily harm may make your radar, but I doubt even that would register as the kind of “evil” that would be ascribed by the author of the moral law.
Beyond this, I think your objection may also depend on the assumption that “slavery,” as mentioned in the Bible, implies the same kind of sub-human treatment and racial supremacy that was characteristic of the slavery instituted in our “enlightenment” era. Ancient Hebrew slavery, whether instituted by God or not, was a rather more diverse and constrained thing, with the slaves and bondservants having many rights and protections as well as free access to the full covenant of God if they so chose.
It is something of a hobby of mine to describe these reasons, which I’ve put some time into on my blog and elsewhere. If you are genuinely interested, you may browse there and visit some of my resource links. However, I equally suspect that you are neither looking for a convincing argument, nor would you turn from your thinking if I could answer every one of your objections to Christianity in a logically plausible way. I too can psychologize regarding intellectual honesty and ulterior motives. Indeed, I find there to be far more reason to reject the idea of the Christian God than there is to bend the knee to it, especially since having been on both sides of the equation.
I have heard and believed perhaps more arguments against the Christian God than you could raise. I find them to be primarily based upon historical speculation, philosophical presuppositions, and a great deal of faith in science to some day provide answers to those mysteries that intersect this very issue (e.g., the origin of the universe, its finely tuned laws of physics, life from chemistry, consciousness, moral and rational intuitions, etc.). Offering the alleged promise of materialistic answers to the key metaphysical questions is hardly a compelling proof for the veracity of that materialism. My debates with atheists tend to reduce to a matter of what kinds of answers one prefers to discover.
You are correct that this is not a bulletproof argument, but it is surely a point in favor of the supernatural. From the materialist, evolutionary perspective I find it odd that a creature which is presumably adapted to its environment — a purely physical environment — would find it universally necessary to appeal to the non-physical for any need at all.
You make it sound as though a book like the Bible is simply a collection of fables concocted to entertain the masses or metaphorically describe spiritual ideas. This may be what the liberal Christians choose to believe, but a careful reading of the texts has one coming away with the impression that these people took this stuff to be real history and meant us to take it that way as well. It is not offered in the guise of myth, and so I must take it as a “ruse” if God did not actually appear to Moses and Jesus did not actually rise from the dead.
Actually, according to the principles I have described above, slavery can be shown to be evil no matter when or where it occurs if it is detrimental to human happiness.
I hate to revisit this issue, but I have a further thought. I wonder if you would say that imprisoning a criminal is also “evil,” since it also is detrimental to the “human happiness” of that person. I think you will say it is acceptable, indeed preferable, to supersede the happiness of some persons for the sake of society, and in that vein there may be other places where the happiness of individuals and groups is trumped by some greater good. I make this point to suggest that ethics is far too complicated to write off to a hedonistic axiom and that there are many conditional and motivational issues that must be accounted for in a working system. And if there is a God, then the conditions become all the more complex — some details of which we shall never be privy and may seem confounding from our perspective.
This is your best point. I, too, wish God were clearer on very many things: the mechanics of creation, infant baptism, when and why Satan fell, abortion, cloning, euthanasia, animal rights, the ideal form of government, movie rating systems, Java versus .NET technology, and the best way to fold my T-shirts.
Awhile back I led a coworker to accept the truth of Christianity. He came to me one day after reading the Bible and asked why God hadn’t simply delivered to us a comprehensive rulebook to make our daily choices simpler. That’s not what God is after. There is enough Law in the Bible to convict one of his shortcomings and need of redemption, but the point is to come to know Him and know ourselves, as well as to prepare the saints for eternity.
As to morality, its equations are ultimately a matter of understanding the principles behind those laws that are given, those works which God commends, and those bad behaviors of which an example is made. Once one understands the principles, then the applications can be generalized to conditions not yet encountered. The principle of human worth, no matter the race, in being a bearer of the image of God, and the truth that all life belongs to God and not ourselves, can get a lot of mileage in this and other ethical issues.
And now I’ve said far too much, and, as generally happens in my exchanges, I’ve let this reach an unmanageable length. Unfortunately, I do not have the kind of time and motivation I once did to volley essays indefinitely. For this reason I may be forced to let you have the last word in this dialog.
on May 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am
Tim writes:
Really, Tim, this is getting tedious. You are going to reject “rational data,� as you put it, because it isn’t perfectly reliable? It seems to me one could use this line of reasoning to ultimately call into question any and all things we perceive since we can’t know anything with complete accuracy. For the purpose of any meaningful discussion, this is a dead end.
I never stated that everyone has to agree on one version of happiness. The virtues I am advocating provide the framework for happiness to develop; how one expresses or pursues that happiness is up to the individual. I don’t expect everyone to derive the same pleasure from writing or teaching that I do, for example. Each of us has our own talents and interests that can be nurtured and encouraged when one follows the moral standards I have described.
Actually, if you read my last entry carefully, I gave some specific details about what I describe as happiness, or the conditions that lead to happiness.
And when exactly was this “point in history,� and who were these “people?�
Sounds a lot like the ol’ “It takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer� shtick. Faith in the religious, and specifically Christian sense, is believing without seeing. I have demonstrated how my moral standards are more than mere whims or opinions and that they are supported by observable, testable facts. I don’t see how these two methodologies are in any way comparable.
Sadly, this is true.
Actually, I don’t think of myself as “the center of the universe,� or as “dictating of ultimate morality,� to use your words. There are many people from different backgrounds, believers and non-believers, who condemn genocide as immoral. It is the god of the Old Testament in particular who is the Supreme Dictator: what he says is good, is good; what he says is bad, is bad. His chosen people are not encouraged to question or debate his pronouncements. Obedience is the greatest virtue.
You seem very easily amazed, Tim. It’s not just the fact that religious versions of divine truth contradict each other, it’s also that there is no reliable method for evaluating the veracity of the existence of supernatural beings or their morality in the first place. What you call “lazy� and “irresponsible avoidance� is actually very prudent approach to reality.
on May 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
You are right, Scott, you have said far too much. An adequate response on my part would take up even more space than you have taken. I really don’t know how many people (besides Stephen) are interested in such lengthy exchanges, especially in the blog format. And it sounds like your commitment is fading fast.
I would, however, like to address your many points and observations. The best way to do that without it becoming overwhelming for our audience is to break up my response into more manageable “chunks.�
So, let the chunking begin!
It all depends on how you are using the word “subjective.� If you are using it mean “based on personal whim or opinion,� I disagree. As I have explained before, there is a growing body of knowledge which describes conditions that encourage happiness.
And it isn’t reasonable, of course, to expect everyone to agree with every standard of the morality I espouse, and I have never insisted upon it.
Again, my morality doesn’t dictate that everyone agree on what makes them personally happy; as I recently explained to Tim, the virtues I am advocating provide the framework for happiness to develop; how one expresses or pursues that happiness is up to the individual. I don’t expect everyone to derive the same pleasure from writing or teaching that I do, for example. Each of us has our own talents and interests that can be nurtured and encouraged when one follows the moral standards I have described.
My morality doesn’t advocate alcoholism and pedophilia, then, because they are disorders which seriously detract from the happiness of the individual alcoholic and pedophile as well as their victims.
Any system of morality has its share of qualifiers and complications, and mine is no different. In many instances, the best way to maximize human happiness is not always obvious.
I can and do specify depravity like slavery using the standards and reasons I have outlined many times before. They don’t need the sanction of divine beings or any transcendent design or purpose when the very existence of the supernatural is far from established in any rational, objective way in the first place.
More chunks to follow…
on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
As it happens, Allen, even I am beginning to lose interest with the lengthy stuff just now! I say that with total respect for the various opinions and arguments proffered (all of them), but the length of (some) debates is becoming tedious. That, however, is merely my humble opinion, and I am not, by any means, pouring cold water on the intellectual vigour and integrity on display. If anything, I am slightly envious of such obvious debating skills. Having said that, honesty compels me to admit that I prefer snacks than huge meals every time. With thanks, as ever ~ Stephen.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 am
Unfortunately the atheists here do not understand anything. Who gives a shit if slavery is in a negative light in the bible. Assuming for one moment that you pretend that there is a God. Therefore he is all wise and all knowing, then you could logically assume he knows what he is talking about, and then logically you could understand that with your feable finite human mind, how you could even consider God’s infinite wisdom. But even then you know logically what god can do. Refute him and burn in hell. The way i see it join him or your done. BEcause he doesnt give a shit about your damn atheist views. For him its just a matter of pushing u into the fire.
So go ahead and not believe b/c ur just one less person in heaven.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
I am deeply, genuinely sorry that Moiz Adamji wrote as he or she did. In the midst of constructive, fascinating dialogue between atheists and believers, these comments may put those of us who believe (I do. I am a Christian) in a very poor light. I apologise for these remarks, in the hope that they are not taken as representative of every Christian or believer. So far as I understand anything (and I am a man of limited understanding), the heart of Christianity is love, which I feel includes tolerance and respect. As these qualities are painfully lacking from those comments made by Moiz Adamji, I therefore wish to immediately disassociate myself from them, as a Christian and as a human being whose privilege it is to share this life with fellow Christians, intelligent atheists and adherents of faiths other than mine ~ Stephen.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I appreciate the sentiment, Stephen. It is very easy to take these comments personally, especially when they are laced with such venom and hatred, and when the author seems to delight in the prospect of my eternal suffering. But you and others on this site have shown me that there are believers who are interested in sincere, respectful dialogue with atheists. For that, I am grateful.
Still, I can’t say I haven’t done anything to deserve such reactions when many of the posts here are deliberately provocative and hostile toward religion.
on May 24th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Thanks Allen. I am still reeling from the sheer embarrassment of being linked, by virtue of my Christian faith, with those comments of Moiz Adamji. However, such is life.
I take your point that some of the points here are deliberately provocative and hostile towards religion. That is undeniably so, but it does not excuse venom and hatred. Christians follow a man who was provoked beyond measure, and who endured hostility to the point of murder, and yet was still able (and willing) to pray, “Father, forgive them…”.
If Jesus is the example for Christians, then no amount of provocation or hostility (and some of the hostility is understandable) should result in hatred.
You and I are, of course, poles apart in terms of belief and unbelief, but that does nothing to diminish my respect for you as a fellow human being, and I take no pleasure whatsoever in the prospect of eternal suffering ~ Stephen.
on May 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
MOiz Adamji’s comment sounds like something having far less to do with his belief than than the fact that he is enamored with considering himself one of the people “in the right” and others being “in the wrong.” While I can’t say I’ve never occupied such a self-centered ground, it’s embarrassing, to read this kind of thing. Anyway,
I too have little else to say, except to repeat myself. This is the best I can do to sum up my position right now:
The reason the unreliability of observable facts is not a tedious irrelevancy is that the consequences of over-reliance on facts, or conclusions derived from facts, are everywhere. Food is poisoned because a bottle was mislabeled, germs are at first said not to exist, space and time merge into one substance, and what one insists on to secure his happiness doesn’t line up with someone else’s canonized data from which they derive behavior standards. The universe violates human perception regularly, sometimes with serious consequences.
Therefore the axiom atheists work with is no more self-evident than the axiom that theists works with. The only difference is that theism doesn’t claim that the ultimate standard for belief is immediate proof…I’m not even sure theism is a flat denial for the need of proof, it’s just that the proof is presumed upon. Yet no less than atheism’s proof is. There’s really very little difference in their logical pursuit of their respective point B’s from their point A’s. Except that atheism demands certain standards of observable proof be met in order for belief to take place. But its own presupposition does not stand up under the very scrutiny it holds theism to. Unless you are willing to prophesy a future in which all truth submits to the knowable and provable(which is one answer atheists have given me). And yet the further you go in this direction, the more like theism it looks, and the more it walks in the very thing it has disavowed- faith.
As a theist, I will never be able to claim that facts and data can prove my belief(unless/until something drastically changes regarding God’s immediacy to the visible world), but I have yet to hear an atheist distinguish his position in a way that sounds like it’s the more rational worldview.
on May 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“Chunkâ€? the second–
Scott writes:
This simply isn’t accurate. Philosophers like Bentham and Mill were very concerned about the happiness of the individual as well as society as a whole, and were outspoken abolitionists. It should also be said that the Ancient Romans were neither secular nor hedonistic, so to use their endorsement of slavery in your indictment against my morality is misplaced.
This really sums up one of the weakest arguments against atheism used by believers. In essence, it asserts that a material, mortal existence is not worth living. This isn’t really much of an argument, however; it’s more of a metaphysical tantrum, an emotional response to the idea that there is no divine plan, the universe wasn’t made for us, and we won’t live forever. Yes, humans are flesh and bone and matter and energy. Yet we are more than mere “bags of biochemicals;� we think, learn, wonder, dream, invent, hope, and love. And one day, we will cease to exist. But this is not a reason for despair or nihilism; it is an inspiration to really live, to treasure our fellow beings because life is fragile and finite.
on May 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“Chunk� the third—
Scott writes:
I suppose it was only a matter of time before Hitler was brought into the discussion, but this really doesn’t help your argument for two reasons. First, Hitler was not an atheist; in fact, he invoked many religious themes and images, and boasted he was doing “God’s work� in ridding the world of Jews. Second, the “higher standards� the Nazis were convicted of violating at Nuremberg were international laws, specifically war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. They had no supernatural or religious basis at all.
on May 28th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
“Chunk� the fourth—
Scott writes:
Since no supernatural beings or divine morality exist, the most I can hope for is to persuade others with objective reasons why my standards are correct. These values are what most people, religious or not, would agree were \”good.\” In one way or another, they promote human happiness and well-being.
You are right to assert that there is more to being a good person than simply going through the motions of helping and caring about others; one’s motives are at least as important as one’s actions, and should be based on genuine compassion, empathy, and respect for others.
Believers and atheists alike, of course, commit acts of courage and self-sacrifice, often at great personal cost. By “taking the bullet for a stranger,� these individuals have put the well-being of others before themselves. Some people, like soldiers, police officers, and fire fighters, even make a career of it. Whether motivated by love or compassion or duty, the overall effect is one that benefits and increases human happiness and is worthy of admiration.
on January 30th, 2008 at 10:33 am
The Bible does NOT condone slavery, but did allow due to what was called the Hardness of Hearts–this type being more akin to indentured servitude to pay debts, etc. Under Mosaic Law this was allowed for the hardness of hearts, and God gave them up to vile pusuits.
In other words God said to them if you’re going to insist on being vile, you’ll have rules for it, etc.
Later Paul tells us that there is neither bond nor free in Christ from the world’s point of view. So this is a matter of comparatives, etc.
More on that later.
on January 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Having said that, you are making the mistake of comparing some particulars as being eternal and reading the past using modernist PC angst.
This is not to justify slavery but merely point out that in those societies common habits were hard to undo regardless of what was said and certain stubborn cultural institutions were not seen as serious as items like murder, rape, incest, polytheism and other things more likely to destory a civlization and lead to pagan habits.
Slavery is not good, but certainly the context here is comlex in that it was seen as necessary for survival for the poor to indenture themselves to make ends meet and eat and survive in such societies. It is not the worst thing peopel can allow to happen.’
Are you wanting an army of automotons then? God might punish, and has, I think, be He does not control us like robots. We have free will to be nasty.