Blog - Pilgirm's Rock

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 21): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part E)

Last time we observed that a double-standard for the Creator and His creatures is entirely appropriate and necessary. God as perfect in knowledge and holiness knows every aspect of every case before His throne of justice and always judges in perfect righteousness. The source of all good and moral standards in the universe cannot pervert justice and cannot be subject to the critique of anything or anyone higher than Himself, and we lack the comprehensive understanding required to know otherwise. We are finite and fallen. Indeed, our limited and imperfect perspective could never form an adequate basis by which to judge the righteousness of God’s actions. God sees and knows what we cannot possibly see and know. Moreover, we depend on God’s revelation for truth, knowledge, and all moral principles.

We turn now to our atheist’s claim that God is evil because He has broken “our” objective moral principle that “it is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.” ^[1]

A Proper Context
As weak and fallible we believe a good many untruths, but to spend eternity in hell for some mistaken metaphysical speculation would be a terrible injustice. With this we can agree. Nonetheless, what Scripture teaches concerning God’s judgment of sin, including the sin of unbelief, bears little resemblance to the author’s claim. A consideration of our beginning as created by God will help explain the righteousness of God’s severe condemnation of sin.

God created us in His image from the overflow of His infinite goodness that we might live with Him as His precious and beloved children. Every good we enjoy comes from his gracious hand, while apart from God we have nothing. As the creator of the universe and giver of all life, God reigns as supreme authority, the source and sustainer of all things. To Him we owe all love, honor, and obedience—always—while God owes us absolutely nothing. To disobey God, then, to refuse Him His due, to reject His authority and exult our personal desires over His perfect and sovereign will constitute an immeasurable insult. To neglect a life of thanksgiving to God displays supreme ingratitude. To refuse to worship God rejects what is good, proper, and becoming and sets our first love and attention elsewhere in a remarkable act of betrayal and infidelity. To treat with contempt the God of infinite holiness, majesty, and goodness embodies an evil we scarcely can comprehend. Indeed, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9 NAS). Sin involves wickedness so profound that only the infinite suffering of Christ can fully pay its deserved penalty.

God, then, does not condemn for merely believing the wrong thing, but for contempt of His authority, perfect character, and infinite goodness toward those He created and owns. Thus, the idea that God condemns people for a mere intellectual mistake, as our author contends, may serve to rationalize His rejection of God, but grossly misrepresents the sin of unbelief and God’s just condemnation of it.

Never Heard the Gospel
Note well that the sin of contempt toward God precedes consideration of one’s response to Christ and His work to remedy sin and purchase eternal life for us. By this we can better understand how God can judge those who have never heard the Gospel. The rejection of Christ constitutes an additional basis of judgment and condemnation, but does not constitute the first and only basis. People who reject the authority and goodness of God prior to an acquaintance with Christ and His work have already earned God’s judgment for their scorn. Indeed, all are without excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 1:18-25 NAS).

All people know enough to be accountable for their response to God, for their choice of who they trust and worship as their supreme authority. (All people have an ultimate object of faith and worship.) Moreover, as noted in a previous article (see here), God can make accommodation for infants, babies in the womb, and others that appear to lack the capacity to turn from evil and seek God, while atheists cannot possibly know that God will not treat all with perfect justice in the end.

Conclusion
God has so displayed His power, goodness, and genius that all people are responsible to seek, honor, and love Him. Ingratitude, irreverence, infidelity in their object of faith, and exultation of personal preference over God’s authority, including His law written on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15), are without excuse. Moreover, God has provided sufficient evidence that all can trust His perfect justice in the face of mysteries and theological difficulties. Christ suffered infinite wrath to maintain God’s justice in order that He might extend mercy to sinners. God cannot compromise His perfect righteousness to save a single soul. And since He went the infinite extent, at infinite cost to Himself to uphold perfect justice, we can trust that no soul will experience hell that does not absolutely deserve to be there, even as no one will inhabit heaven without the righteousness of Christ, the only righteousness suited to dwell in God’s holy presence forever.

Of course, atheists accept none of this. Rather, they embrace the unreasonable assumption that they can know that God cannot justly rectify the evils of this life in the next. How could they possibly know such a thing? Therefore, apart from His grace and power, no argument will suffice to convince those who refuse to bow the knee to God’s obvious authority, genius, and goodness. May God give grace to any who would lead others down this perilous road, for “it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:2 NAS). May God open their eyes to their sin and smallness before God’s infinite power and holiness.

^[1] Raymond D. Bradley, “A Moral Argument for Atheism” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 129-146.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 21): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part E)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 20): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part D)

Last time we observed that atheists lack the comprehensive knowledge to know that God is unjust in any death, infant or otherwise. God’s perspective is eternal. He knows everything about everything, including every heart and the positive or negative recompense of every soul in eternity. Apart from God’s revelation, and from our grossly limited and self-justifying perspective, God’s judgments in this temporary and cursed life may appear harsh and unjust. But as noted in the previous article, “as atheists have assumed the irrational notion that their limited perspective and understanding define the ultimate standard of what is possible in and beyond the universe, so they assume the equally irrational notion that their limited perspective and understanding form the ultimate standard by which to judge the righteousness of God’s actions.” Atheists consistently overestimate their abilities by claiming to know what they cannot possibly know, assuming the omniscience of the God they deny.

We now ask if a holy God can do what unholy people cannot by using sinners as instruments of His judgments against sin. Whether Israel as God’s instrument to carry out His sentence on evil peoples in the promised land, or wicked Babylon coming over the hill to chasten apostate Israel, God often uses fallen people as the instruments of His chastening and justice. Is God unjust in the double standard of doing what He tells us not to do? And by wiping out the Canaanites does God legitimize the atrocities of a Hitler or Stalin, as our atheist author suggests? ^[1]

Double Standard
Having established what he calls “our moral principles,” by which God and mankind are bound, the author claims that no “double-standard” can rightly exist for God and people, stating, “if it is good enough for God, it must be good enough for us.” Throughout the article the author blurs or eliminates the distinction between the Creator and the creature and rejects that different standards of behavior could apply to each.

As we noted last time, however, no standard of right or wrong exists apart from God, and He is not subject to any authority above and beyond Himself. Moreover, God is perfect in knowledge, holiness, justice, and wisdom, who does whatever He pleases in perfect righteousness with that which He created and owns. To Him we owe everything, including all love, honor and obedience, apart from whom we would have nothing, from whose gracious hand we enjoy any and every good thing. We depend on God for everything and are infinitesimally limited in knowledge, perspective, and wisdom by comparison.

Yet, in response to His infinite goodness, we disregard and insult His authority, seek our own way, deny His obvious power and genius in and about us, and treat with contempt the infinite suffering of Christ on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin and purchase for us eternal life and happiness. To say the least, we cannot be trusted to act right apart from God’s direction. Contrary to the author’s claim, never could a double-standard be more appropriate than here—we are not God. “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’” (Isa. 46:9-10 NAS).

Indeed, the great troubles of this world are traced to people pursuing their “good pleasure,” creating the need for God’s judgments in the first place.

Delegated Justice
Can God choose a people to be special to Him, who He can honor above others? Certainly, He can do as He pleases with that which is His. Speaking of Israel, “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers” (Deut. 7:7-8 NAS). And can God use a sinful people (“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Rom. 3:23), to execute His judgments on wicked nations? Yes, and without our permission.

It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people (Deut. 9:5-6 NAS).

God is the creator, we are not. God is the judge of the universe, we are not. God always judges in righteousness, we lack perfect knowledge and pervert justice. And when the prophet Habakkuk pleaded with God to remedy the gross wickedness of Israel, God answered and the Babylonians came over the hill and Israel was decimated. Harsh? Yes. Undeserving? No. And we lack the comprehensive understanding to know otherwise. Not until the next life will we fully understand the evil of treating our infinitely holy and good creator and benefactor with utter contempt. And as for the fate of precious little ones suffering under the consequences of their parents’ wickedness, we can entrust their souls to a God of perfect goodness and holiness, whose perfect justice we will see clearly in eternity. Until then, we have the witness of Christ that God cannot compromise His holy and perfect justice to save a single soul, demonstrated at the cost of infinite suffering to preserve His perfect righteousness. How much less will God be unrighteousness in His judgments? (See my previous article for a discussion of infants and children in the worldwide flood and other judgments of God.) We can fully trust His perfect goodness and holiness to do what is right with every soul.

License?
Does God’s judgment of evil justify people committing evil, as our atheist author argues? Does “might make right” for sinful leaders to murder millions of people, including people in the womb, to advance their personal power, pleasure, or fallen ideology? No. They will be eternally condemned for it. Indeed, God has given government and law courts to judge righteously and Western jurisprudence stands from principles found in Scripture. But, a human judge passing the death sentence on a murderer does not give license for others to murder. How, then, does it follow that the judgments of a holy God give license for evil? The author has failed to distinguish the infinite perfection of God as the righteous judge of the universe from the limited perspective of His fallen and finite creation. Again, the Creator is not the creature. Here, as everywhere, a right view of the infinite excellence of God, our self-justifying, and our utter smallness before God renders a multitude of theological difficulties moot and makes worthless the many denials of God’s existence, including those addressed here. “You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you,” says God (Ps. 50:21 NAS). The holy Creator of all life is qualified to judge and answers to no one, while finite and fallen creatures possess no such authority.

Though I have barely scratched the surface of the inadequacy of moral arguments against God, we can see that people lacking God’s omniscience are unqualified to make them. God’s rebuke of Job applies here as elsewhere: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (Job 38:4 NAS). “Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:8 NAS). Our atheist author would do well to learn from Job and admit his limitations.

More to come—stay tuned.

^[1] Raymond D. Bradley, “A Moral Argument for Atheism” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 129-146.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 20): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part D)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 19): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part C)

In “A Moral Argument for Atheism,” the second “doctrinal disproof” in The Impossibility of God, the atheist author assumes common moral ground with believers and presents five “paradigms of objective moral truths” that he believes both atheists and theists would consider morally wrong: 1) the intentional murder of innocents, 2) giving women to soldiers as sex slaves, 3) making people cannibalize others, 4) human sacrifice, and 5) endlessly inflicting agony on others for their beliefs. Calling them “our moral principles,” the author claims that God’s actions in Scripture have violated them all, leaving Christians with the choice between an unholy God or false Bible. ^[1]

In the present article I suggest a proper starting point to respond to this and other atheistic claims and show why atheists are unqualified to make them. In subsequent articles I will further critique specific elements of the above argument.

Self-existing Absolutes?
In the previous article I critiqued the author’s empty claim that he rejects relativism, given his worldview provides no basis for objective morality and reduces to nothing more than individual or collective personal preference. Time, chance, and survival of the fittest produce no moral absolutes. And despite his attempt at common ground with theists, the atheistic and Christian worldview remain as incompatible as oil and water. Christians derive moral absolutes from God’s law, both written on the heart of every person and revealed in Scripture, while knowing that no objective truth or morals can exist apart from God. The atheist must borrow from our worldview to agree with us on any moral principle.

The author, however, claims that moral principles exist without God, to which all people and God (should He exist) are subject. Christians reject this and understand that all moral principles come from God. And with the exception of moral evil (found only in the will of angels and people), God created all things and can never be subject to a higher principle outside Himself. Atheists may argue that God’s actions are inconsistent with what Scripture teaches about His perfect moral character and what He requires of us, but the atheistic worldview gives no standard by which to criticize anything, let alone God.

Murder?
“There is no God besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal; And there is no one who can deliver from My hand” (Deut. 32:39 NAS). The Old Testament reveals many instances of God directly or indirectly killing entire cities, nations, and even the whole world (Noah and his family excepted). Indeed, every death, including that of infants and children, traces to God’s judgment of Adam’s sin in the Garden. Does the Bible, then, affirm the author’s claim that God’s actions show Him as unholy or Scripture as untrue? Should God be viewed with “abhorrence” as a murderer of innocent people, as our atheist author suggests?

Every judgment of God, including the ultimate and eternal punishment of souls in hell, should send shivers of terror down the spine of any thinking and feeling person—believer, atheist, or otherwise. “Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22 NAS). But while God’s judgments are dreadful and sometimes unfathomable, are they unholy? More to the point, can the severely limited perspective of fallen and self-justifying people know enough to prove false what Scripture says of God’s as perfect knowledge, holiness, and righteous judgments? What would the atheist need to know to justify such a claim?

Start Here
To answer these and all ultimate questions we do best by understanding our beginnings. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have existed forever and need nothing. God created all things from the overflow of His goodness. Apart from God, then, we have nothing, while every good thing we enjoy comes as an undeserved gift from His gracious hand. To God we owe all love, honor, and obedience—always, while God owes us absolutely nothing, including a single breath or day of life. God is the Potter, we are the clay. He gives and takes away, and can do with His own as He pleases. “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Rom. 9:20 NAS). This reality forms the starting point and basis for a proper understanding of ourselves and a proper humility to approach difficult theological questions. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Pro. 1:7 NAS). A proper view of our smallness and dependence on God for all things, including knowledge of realities beyond our limited perspective, should render us humble, reverent, and silent before God’s severe lessons and judgments.

Insufficient
How, then, does our knowledge compare to God’s infinite knowledge? He knows everything, including the past, present, and future into eternity, as well as every heart and relevant detail before His throne of justice. God sees what we cannot see and knows what we cannot know. Do we, then, possess sufficient knowledge to sit in judgment of God’s deeds?

For instance, God determines the birth and death of every person. He can also give everlasting happiness to a soul He separates from physical life in infancy or otherwise. Can the miniscule knowledge of atheists determine that God will not make all things right in the end and that the eternal fate of each soul will not be just? Do they possess sufficient knowledge to accurately judge a single case? Atheists lack sufficient perspective and understanding to venture a guess, even as they presume to exhaust every possible explanation in and beyond the universe with a three or four sentence syllogism. Unless we can know the eternal fate and every relevant fact concerning souls that leave this physical existence, we cannot possibly know that God is unjust in any of His judgments. As it is for the recipients of God’s grace in Christ, our present sufferings, including an “untimely” death, are not worthy to be compared to future, eternal, and immeasurable happiness (Rom. 8:18). Indeed, “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19 NAS). The affairs of this short life cannot be rightly evaluated apart from a full consideration of eternity, something God knows intimately, and something atheists cannot possibly know apart from God’s revelation, the same revelation they refuse to believe. Eternity matters.

Irrational
And as atheists have assumed the irrational notion that their limited perspective and understanding define the ultimate standard of what is possible in and beyond the universe, so they assume the equally irrational notion that their limited perspective and understanding form the ultimate standard by which to judge the righteousness of God’s actions. It’s a wonder that atheists spend their time writing books to convince others that life is eternally pointless and without ultimate accountability when they could be making billions in Las Vegas with their infinite knowledge. Perhaps they have borrowed one too many Christian scruples, or just maybe their knowledge is not quite what they presume it to be.

Next Up
In the next few articles we will further examine several of the author’s claims by asking: Can God can do things that we cannot? Can a holy God use unholy people as the instruments of judgment against sin? Was God unjust to impute the guilt and judgment of Adam’s sin to his posterity? And, can believers know that all of God’s ways and works are holy and just, and how can we now this for sure?

Until next time, “The LORD is righteous in all His ways, And kind in all His deeds. The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He will also hear their cry and will save them” (Ps. 145:17-19 NAS). Finite and fallen people cannot possibly know otherwise.

^[1] Raymond D. Bradley, “A Moral Argument for Atheism” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 129-146.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 19): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part C)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 18): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part B)

The second of the “doctrinal disproofs” presented in The Impossibility of God claims that the God of the Bible does not exist because His actions in the Old Testament, as well as His ultimate judgment on sinners in hell, are grossly immoral. ^[1] According to the author, Satan is merely guilty of a few misdemeanors, has violated none of the moral principles the author proposes to judge God, and is a “paragon of virtue” compared to God. ^[2]

The Argument
Presenting what he sees as points of agreement with theists, the author affirms the existence of objective moral principles and rejects the idea that truth is relative or that the truth of “moral judgments” is determined by individuals or by “counting heads” (i.e., popular vote). He then presents what he believes to be five moral principles on which atheists and theists can agree, claiming that the God of the Bible has violated them all.

“Objective Morality”
Before we examine God’s alleged immorality, we need to question the source of author’s moral principles by which he makes his case. Presumably, his atheism includes the belief that the universe and everything in it are the product of time and chance, and that life and our current ability to discuss such things evolved from a single cell in a pond and somehow progressed by “natural selection” to where we are today. And though atheists dislike “survival of the fittest” to describe the process, given its obvious implications for morality and worldview, “natural selection” is exactly that.

Where, then, did the author’s “objective moral principles” come from? It would appear that this presumed accident of time and chance (the author) derives right and wrong from his own opinion or the opinions of other accidents of time and chance. Either way, he is guilty of the relativism he claims to reject. Without God as the source of objective morality, nothing remains but his view and the views of others, with none more qualified than another to determine which is true. Thus, the cultural relativism that permeates atheistic thinking equally applies to individual morality. Lacking an ultimate authority, no absolute standard exists to judge the morality of individuals or cultures.

And evolution provides no right or wrong. How does an alleged process built on the destruction of the weak by the strong become the morality of the strong protecting the weak, and that to the detriment and violation of the means by which life and the gene pool evolves? “Moral” lions and tigers starve to death.

Anything Goes
In the first sentence of his introduction, the author quotes a character in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, “If there is no God, all things are permitted.” With no apparent justification, however, he merely dismisses this as myth. All agree that people make laws and punish those who break them. But time and chance produce no moral absolutes or ultimate accountability. And what evolutionist can tell headhunters and cannibals they are morally wrong if they have survived at the expense of their weaker neighbors? Is it any wonder that eugenics, the cleansing of the gene pool to advance the human race, immediately preceded the Holocaust? Had Germany won WWII and (by their account) defeated the weak, to what absolute moral principle could evolutionists appeal to rebuke the perpetrators of its atrocities? When God is dethroned as the ultimate moral authority, all that remains is personal preference and the tyranny of those with the most power to inflict their desires on everyone else. Dostoyevsky was correct.

And while the author claims to reject a relativistic basis of morality, that of personal preference or head counting, he cannot avoid it. Evidence peppers his article, such as “on my view,” “as almost everyone would agree,” “as I see it,” “I want to say,” “I take to be objectively true,” “I want to say,” “I would like to think,” “If I am right,” to cite a few examples. Rejecting God, he can only appeal to his own opinion or the opinion of others, the very relativism he claims to reject.

Borrowed Morality
Of course, atheists have well-defined morals, especially when they have been raised with remnants of a Christian worldview permeating their laws, culture, and parents. All people have standards of right and wrong because God created us in His image and has written His law on every heart (Rom. 2:14-15). Time, chance, and survival of the fittest do not produce “thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13, Dt. 5:17), “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 19:19), and “inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:40). Atheists presume God’s existence and moral standards to criticize and explain Him away. But whether God is guilty of violating the moral principles He has given to us, as claimed by the author, will be examined in the next article.

^[1] Raymond D. Bradley, “A Moral Argument for Atheism” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 129-146.

^[2] Ibid., 141-2.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 18): “The Problem of Evil” (Part B)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 17): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part A)

We turn now to what the editors of The Impossibility of God call “doctrinal disproofs” of the existence of God, the claim that certain teachings or the acts of God contained in Scripture are inconsistent with God’s attributes. According to the author of “The Paradox of Eden,” God’s test of Adam of Eve in the Garden was unjust and therefore righteousness cannot be an essential attribute of God. ^[1]

The Argument
When God gave His command to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve either knew that disobedience to God’s command was evil or they did not. If they knew it was evil, then they already possessed the knowledge of good and evil and the command to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit would have been “an inadequate and unfair test” of their righteousness. God would have known beforehand that they would not be easily tempted to eat of the fruit given they would have known they had nothing to gain from doing so. According to the author, then, God was unjust in subjecting them to the test.

On the other hand, if Adam and Eve lacked the knowledge of good and evil, they would not have understood that disobeying God’s command was evil. Thus, God would be unjust in punishing Adam and Eve for their disobedience.

The Problems
Scripture clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were not created with the knowledge of good and evil imparted by the forbidden fruit, so the first scenario does not apply. Regarding the second scenario, they clearly knew that God told them not to eat from the forbidden tree and that they would die if they did. They also knew they were created by God, given all good things by God, and that they depended on God for knowledge of His will, their purpose, and how they should live. They understood that God was good and trustworthy and had every reason to trust His ultimate authority and reject the lies of the serpent. They knew more than enough to be responsible to obey God and be punished for treating His goodness and authority with contempt.

Knowledge of God’s will, goodness, trustworthiness, and ultimate authority, as well as the terrible consequences of disobedience, all provided a sufficient basis for God’s test of their fidelity and obedience. Yet this was not the knowledge of good and evil that eating the forbidden fruit would provide. The author merely assumes, apparently for the purpose of creating a logical conundrum, that the forbidden knowledge of good and evil was necessary to know that they should not disobey God, when they had more than enough reason they should trust and obey God without it. In creating two seemingly logical problems, he appears to have ignored the context and purpose of the trial, the details revealed in the text, and our dependence on the text to know and understand the meaning of the historical and theological event. Like God’s accuser in the first chapters of Job, he seems to have missed the fact that God’s excellence provides the basis for a proper love, honor, and obedience to God and thus forms a sufficient ground for the test of obedience.

God’s account of creation, the fall, and redemption in Scripture tells us all we need to understand the origin of sin and our need of a Savior. And lacking the slightest hint of unrighteousness in God, the foolishness, ingratitude, and self-exalting nature of sin stands in stark contrast to the infinite power, goodness, and authority of the creator and sustainer of all things. Moreover, we easily see the difference between the loving relationship of Adam and Eve with God prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit and after, with the terrible consequences of a knowledge of good and evil united to a depraved heart.

The Greater Problem
The first chapters of Genesis present a far greater conundrum than the imagined scenarios above, with a solution “impossible with men” and only “possible with God” (Luke 18:26-7). How can sinful people be saved from God’s judgment when His perfect justice cannot be compromised “and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense” (Heb. 2:2 NAS)? How can God remain just and save the souls of rebels deserving eternal punishment? “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:25 NAS). The impossible becomes reality in the person and saving work of Christ. In Him we see the excellence of God’s perfections as our benevolent creator and righteous judge and the excellence of His goodness and love in suffering infinite wrath to make us holy and happy forever. Rather than injustice in God, we see from the opening chapters of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation the unchanging and perfect justice that cannot save a single soul without payment of the infinite debt due for our sin. Perfect mercy and justice unite in Christ, forever testifying of the infinite excellence of our Creator and Redeemer.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom. 3:23-26 NAS)

To God belongs all love, honor, and obedience, from the first days in the Garden and forever.

^[1] Richard R. La Croix, “The Paradox of Eden” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 127-8.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 17): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part A)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 16): “The Problem of Evil” (Part C)

As promised, we turn now to examine a few problems with “the problem of evil” (moral evil, for our purposes), the claim that says if God has infinite power and can easily eliminate evil, and if He is perfectly good He would always want to eliminate evil. But since evil exists, God must be less than infinitely powerful or less than perfectly good, or both. ^[1]

Easy Solutions
From a narrow human perspective, evil poses a logical puzzle and raises difficult theological questions. The difficulties vanish, however, if God is reduced to less than perfectly powerful and good, if the meaning of “good” is altered, or if “evil” is redefined as less than absolute wickedness or as a necessary means to greater good. Such “solutions,” however, avoid the essential problem. Moreover, attempts to defend belief in God by compromising biblical truth dishonor God and Scripture, affirm the unsound assumptions behind atheistic arguments, and are entirely unnecessary.

Points of Agreement
We can agree that “attempts to sidestep the problem” are deficient. For instance, evil as the necessary flipside of good or as necessary to produce greater good both contradict Scripture. God is not only independent of all things, He remains the source and definition of good and has no need of evil for anything. Moral evil began in the will of created beings and exists nowhere else. It will be banished, while perfect goodness will remain forever. Moreover, a speck of corruption would ruin heaven, while every life would improve by one less sin. We do not live in the best of all possible worlds.

Compromising God’s attributes, such as limiting His knowledge of the future, may appear to solve logical riddles, but denies God’s perfect excellence. Such “answers” merely affirm the claim that the God of perfect power, goodness, and knowledge cannot exist, a self-defeating defense. God knows everything always, even the free and future acts of angels and people. And though philosophers may cry “impossible,” God can do whatever He wants, regardless of what we deduce from created reality. Deep thinkers would do well to admit their limitations and refrain from imposing them on God.

Good from Evil?
God, however, can bring good from evil and sometimes uses our sinful choices (for which we are blamable) to accomplish His will. But dependence on evil would destroy God’s glory, while doing evil that good may result is unrighteous. God brought infinite good from infinite evil in the crucifixion and can turn Satan’s worst schemes for good. Indeed, God conceived, planned, and orchestrated Christ’s voluntary death. Yet His murderers bear the blame for their willing and unforced sin. (The sovereign control of God and responsibility for our sin present another theological difficulty. But, as we will see concerning evil, it poses no ultimate problem for the believer. For an in-depth discussion of theological mysteries, see God the Reason.) God’s infinite wisdom and power can bring good from evil and remain righteous. And He needs nothing to accomplish His will, least of all evil. ^[2]

The Free Will Defense
Variations of this proposed solution include the good of human freedom to choose evil outweighing the risk of its potentially terrible results. Or, a truly free will requires the choice between evil and good. But while such explanations place responsibility for evil in the will of created beings, where it belongs, they distort true freedom. “If…the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36 NAS), speaks of a new freedom, including the freedom to choose good, not the old “freedom” to choose evil. Indeed, we will be most free in heaven without evil, while God is perfectly free and forever lacks the inclination or option to choose it. And as dining cannot be enhanced by adding poison or steamed Okra to the menu, true freedom is not improved by the option to choose evil. That said, God could have created a universe of free people without the possibility of evil, but He chose not to and did not ask for our opinion in the matter (Job 38:4, Isa. 40:13-14).

Irrational Assumptions
The same faulty assumptions behind other atheistic arguments are displayed here. For instance, could God have allowed evil for reasons we cannot fully comprehend? Yes. Do we lack complete understanding of an infinite God and His ways? Yes, again. But for the atheist appealing to evil to deny God’s existence, the answer appears to be no. They say, in effect, what we cannot understand cannot exist or be true, making their reasoning the highest authority in and beyond the universe. God’s ways, however, are infinitely above us (Isaiah 55:8-9), and mysteries must abound. We do know that God will eliminate evil forever, but in His perfect timing, known only to Him.

Bigtime Small
We are tiny before God. Indeed, “the nations are like a drop from a bucket…a speck of dust on the scales…. All the nations are as nothing before Him” and “regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless” (Isa. 40:15, 17 NAS). How can people of five senses and three or four dimensions know what an infinite God would do apart from what He reveals to us? Are atheists reasonable making their limited perspective the ultimate standard of what can exist in and beyond the universe? Are things impossible just because we cannot understand them? Such irrational leaps of blind faith reflect the atheists’ refusal to acknowledge mystery and their own smallness, even as they presume for themselves a kind of omniscience. Apart from God’s revelation, none can know what defines ultimate good or know that a perfectly good God would never allow people the freedom to choose evil. God, alone, determines such things. We only know by what He has revealed in Scripture and has actually done in the world.

Consider a small sample of logical arguments:

To know an infinite God does not exist requires knowledge of everything in the universe and beyond.
People do not know the contents of their neighbor’s garage without having a look.
People cannot possibly know that God does not exist.

Or,

To know that a good God would not allow evil requires knowing every possible reason why He would or would not do so.
We have trouble remembering where we put the car keys and lack the infinite knowledge required to know every possible reason God might allow evil.
Finite human beings cannot possibly know that God is impossible because they do not understand why He would allow evil.

The author denies rational support for belief in God, yet one looks in vain for rational support for limited people speaking with authority about ultimate and transcendent realities. God’s existence is obvious, regardless of the deductive arguments people devise to explain Him away. (See my previous article for an explanation of the nature of the unbeliever’s knowledge of God’s existence.)

Conclusion
Most atheists readily admit blame for their choices, even as they enjoy God’s blessings and assert their freedom to choose what they please—good or evil. Yet, in order to explain God away, they assume a good God could not create people with the ability to choose between good and evil. Convenient. In any event, blame for moral evil lies with the evildoer. But, thankfully, God has remedied evil at infinite cost to Himself, providing the escape from condemnation and the way to eternal life. This He accomplished through Christ’s perfect obedience to satisfy His standard of righteousness and by His death to pay the penalty for our sin. Thus, in the infinite excellence of God displayed in the person and work of Christ we have every reason to love and trust Him in the face of great mysteries. As the “secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Dt. 29:29), so belongs the complete answer why God created us when He knew we would sin.

In the end, denying God’s existence denies the obvious reality that our limited human perspective cannot form the ultimate standard of truth and possibility in and beyond the universe. And as long as we lack the vantage point and knowledge of God to speak of such things, the “problem of evil” says little more than we are not God. Therefore, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22 NAS).

^[1] J. L. Mackie, “The Problem of Evil” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 78-81.

^[2] Ibid, 75.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 16): “The Problem of Evil” (Part C)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 15): “The Problem of Evil” (Part B)

In the first of the articles appealing to moral evil as proof of God’s impossibility, the author claims belief in God lacks “rational support,” that people must reject reason and ignore the conclusive arguments against Him in order to believe. The “problem of evil,” according to the author, is one such argument. A logical problem, it basically says that if God has infinite power and can easily eliminate evil, and if He is perfectly good He would always want to eliminate evil, but since evil exists, God must either be less than infinitely powerful or less than perfectly good, or both. ^[1]

Evidence, Proofs, and Knowledge
An in-depth discussion of the nature of knowledge is beyond the scope of this series, but for our present purposes we will define knowledge as justified belief, or belief supported by sufficient proofs and evidences. The contributors to The Impossibility of God contend that belief in God lacks justification, and therefore cannot be knowledge, while logical arguments prove God cannot exist.

Before we examine the specifics of the “problem of evil” (to be addressed in the next few articles), we will ask if logical arguments provide the best proof to know whether God exists. A few simple illustrations will indicate that logical proofs or disproofs may not provide the highest or most justified knowledge, or even represent the main way people know things.

The First Date
For example, if you are a married man reading this, when you first met your wife did you run calculations on her facial features, with color charts and measurements of the symmetry of the nose to the eyes, and from that deduce that she was pretty? I hope not. More likely you saw, swooned, and the rest is history. Perhaps our wives were given a kind of blindness. In any case, people know beauty intuitively and immediately, without a process of logical reasoning. Seeing is believing. And when you eat a piece of chocolate, do you logically deduce that it tastes good? No. You bite and you know intuitively and immediately whether it is delicious. Tasting is believing.

Trip to the Museum
How, then, does this apply to the knowledge of God’s existence, especially since He is not physically present with us? Imagine a trip to a museum, perhaps with some friends, where beautiful sculptures, paintings, and inventions are on display, and delectable baked goods are offered in the first-floor bakery. No artists were there, most having departed centuries ago. Now ask yourself, would anyone viewing the exhibits need a series of logical deductions or syllogisms to determine the existence of the sculptors, painters, and inventors? No. The existence and genius of the creators is intuitively and immediately known by the genius of their works. In fact, such knowledge gives more certainty of their existence than any logical argument could provide. Seeing is believing (and knowing). No one visits a bakery and logically questions the baker’s existence when a cupcake is evidence enough, and no one needs a deductive argument to know for certain the origin of croissants.

Zeno and a Stubbed Toe
Some of you may be familiar with the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno’s argument that motion is impossible; philosophers still debate if it has ever been sufficiently answered. Yet, regardless of the brilliance of his argument (and it is brilliant), we intuitively and immediately know that motion exists. It might be difficult to logically prove the existence of a rock on which we stub a toe, though we will intuitively, immediately, and painfully know its existence with great confidence.

What About God?
As with sculptors, painters, inventors, and bakers, we know the existence and genius of God by the genius of His works, known intuitively and immediately, apart from a deductive argument. In fact, we have infinitely more evidence for God as our creator than for the creators represented in the museum. We live immersed in the brilliance of His handiwork everywhere and in everything, including our minds and the ordered reasoning by which we contemplate such things, in a world where a single cell makes the greatest creations of mankind look like Tinker Toys. The obvious evidence for God in His works provides infinitely more proof than the best logical arguments, while logical “disproofs” cannot annul it. Nevertheless, people deny what stares them in the face because they do not like its implications.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:20-21 NAS)

Indeed, “this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:19-20 NAS).

No Retreat to the Irrational
Nothing said here signals a retreat to the irrational and illogical to defend the faith. On the contrary, attributing the brilliant design, order, and operation of the universe, including the marvels of life, thought, feeling, personality, relationships, etc., to an accident of time and chance, a random bolt of lightning in a random primordial soup, and that on a random planet in a random universe represents the epitome of irrationality and blind-faith speculation. My shelves of books as the product of ink and woodchips in a hurricane appears reasonable by comparison. Knowing the existence of the artist from the genius of his art and the existence of God from the genius of His works contradicts nothing of logic and rationality. Some things are just plain obvious.

Lastly, this brief foray into the nature of proof and knowledge does not suggest that the problem of evil cannot be sufficiently answered. Quite the contrary, we will begin examining the problems of using the “problem” next time. The existence of moral evil in the hearts and choices of created beings poses no problem for God’s existence, though it spells trouble for those who use it as an excuse to ignore the One to whom they owe all love, honor, and obedience, apart from whom they would not exist to deny Him. May God grant them mercy to believe.

^[1] J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 61-2.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 15): “The Problem of Evil” (B)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A)

In the previous two articles we examined examples of “definitional disproofs” of God, including: 1) perfection and a man-made definition of imperfect virtue cannot co-exist in God, and 2) a perfect God who deserves complete submission and worship is incompatible with autonomous human moral agency. Of course, no orthodox theologian would disagree with the first claim, but none would ever apply a human and imperfect virtue to a God of perfect power, holiness, and righteousness. The argument does not apply to the God of Scripture. As for the second claim, not only is submission to a perfect moral authority consistent with moral agency, it forms the most reasonable choice among the options continually available to moral agents. We would be foolish to trust the imperfect and sinful over the God of perfect knowledge, wisdom, power, and holiness. Of course, submission to God does contradict autonomous moral agency. Yet, to seek independence from the One who gave us life and all good things, apart from whom we have nothing, and to whom we owe all love, honor, and obedience comprises the essence of sin and should not be desired.

Moreover, fallen and finite man as an autonomous ultimate authority certainly contradicts God as the only supreme authority, but how does this obvious truth make God impossible? It does, however, display the need of repentance for those exalting their own perspective, opinion, and preference to the place of ultimate authority over God. Kant’s claim that “kneeling down or groveling on the ground, even to express your reverence for heavenly things, is contrary to human dignity” speaks volumes about the sinful heart that refuses to love and honor our infinite and benevolent Creator and Sustainer, but says nothing about God’s existence, except that many people do not like it and view God as an obstacle to their presumed authority and independence.

Deductive Evil Disproofs
We come to the second category of arguments against God’s existence, what the editors call “deductive evil disproofs,” or variations of “the problem of evil.” ^[1] In the interest of brevity, the present article provides some helpful background, while future posts will address specifics. In general, denials of God built on the problem of evil enlist the same irrational assumption that underlies and undermines every argument against God—that finite and fallen people can speak with authority about things infinitely beyond them without God’s explanation. Mystery, the limits of human understanding, and unproven or unjustified premises will also demonstrate how logical and theological riddles need not worry believers. We will also see how appeals to the problem of evil to deny God display the unbelievers’ need of the Gospel of Christ.

Noisy Dust
In the opening paragraph of the first disproof appealing to the existence of evil, the author portrays belief in God as unsupportable and irrational, as embracing that which our own beliefs disprove. ^[2] We will see, however, that belief in God is logical and reasonable. Also, the mistaken notion that deductive proofs are the greatest evidence for the existence of God will be examined. Logic is necessary and vitally important for right thinking, yet most things are known before or without a process of deductive reasoning, and often with a greater certainty than a logical argument can provide. Knowing how and why this is true gives a better understanding of the nature of knowledge, proofs, why belief is reasonable, and why unbelief is without excuse.

The assumption that the miniscule can speak with authority about the ultimate, infinite, and transcendent underlies all denials of God’s existence. Alongside this stands the notion that what we cannot understand or logically demonstrate cannot exist or be true. In other words, reality in and beyond the universe is restricted to what we can comprehend. Atheists seem unaware or unwilling to admit that their entire enterprise stands on such an unreasonable idea. And as we will see, this belief governs every expression of the problem of evil.

Focus on the Foundation
Therefore, any serious discussion of God’s existence should consider the assumptions behind the claims and recognize the severely limited vantage point from which people speculate about God and ultimate realities. And again, every argument built on irrational, unjustified, or false assumptions is unsound.

Smaller than Dust
Now, for some perspective…

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, And marked off the heavens by the span, And calculated the dust of the earth by the measure, And weighed the mountains in a balance, And the hills in a pair of scales? Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales; Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust. Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless (Isa. 40:12-17 NAS).

And as nations before an infinite God are as nothing, how much more our speculations? Moreover, consider the enormous depth and breadth of what we have yet to know of life and the universe, let alone that which lies beyond it. We can’t even know the content of an unopened gift in our hands, yet we speak with great authority about what lies beyond the few dimensions of our existence, a reality we could never know apart from God’s revelation. True wisdom admits its limitations.

So, until next time and always, “To Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 1:24-25 NAS).

^[1] Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds., The Impossibility of God (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 59-124.

^[2] J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence” in The Impossibility of God, 61.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 13): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part C)

In the previous article we examined the argument that a perfect God must also be a virtuous God, but because virtue involves imperfection, as defined by “ethical theory,” a perfect and virtuous God cannot exist. We come to another example of a “definitional disproof” where the claim states that an omnipotent and perfectly good God is incompatible with the existence of human moral agency. ^[1]

The Argument
Largely drawn from the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the author affirms that one cannot be a moral agent unless one follows the moral dictates of one’s own heart. To be a worshipper of God, however, requires a complete submission to Him that is incompatible with the independent decision making required of a moral agent. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-wise God deserves worship and total obedience. Worshippers, therefore, view God as the ultimate authority to be worshipped and obeyed, and thus surrender their autonomy as moral agent. Therefore, no such God exists. Interestingly, the article opened with Kant’s well-known assertion, “Kneeling down or groveling on the ground, even to express your reverence for heavenly things, is contrary to human dignity.” And for those acquainted with Scripture but unacquainted with Kant, you might find the assertion quite familiar. The argument is presented as follows:

If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent.
Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God. ^[2]

Some Brief Responses
Much could be said, but the following should suffice for our limited purposes.

1. Philosophers disagree on the ultimate purpose and meaning of human existence and what true moral agency looks like. Who, then, determines the correct view? Apart from God’s explanation, we can only speculate. Ultimate questions can only be answered by God.

2. The moral autonomy argument essentially says that an infinite, all-knowing, and all-wise God as the ultimate determiner of right and wrong cannot exist along with finite and fallible people as the ultimate determiner of right and wrong. Believers, of course, would agree. We would question, however, that this somehow makes God impossible, or that this man-made definition of autonomous moral agency prevents God from making dependent moral agents. Perhaps we are meant to be dependent moral agents and the assertion of autonomy is no more than sinful rebellion, contempt, and ingratitude? How can philosophers know that this is not the case? To what authority can they appeal?

3. Properly loving, worshipping, and obeying God does not preclude one from being a moral agent, only an autonomous moral agent. Believers are faced with choices every day and must choose that which they believe honors God. The unbeliever also makes moral choices according to what they deem as good according to their own principles. Both have faith in an ultimate authority. Unbelievers trust their own perspective and opinion concerning the nature of humanity, God, reality, and right and wrong. Believers trust in God. Both use reason, both make choices, and both exercise moral choices, but differ in the source of their standards and object of faith. Thus, the ultimate issue is whose object of faith is justified, trustworthy, authoritative, and adequate to explain reality? Never, however, does trust in God make anyone thoughtless and unable to make moral choices. Rather, it provides a standard greater than personal opinion by which to judge right and wrong. Autonomous moral agency ultimately reduces to relativism with billions of moral authorities, no ultimate right or wrong, and no one qualified to serve as the absolute authority.

4. As autonomous moral agency means no absolute moral standards, then cannibals, practitioners of eugenics, concentration camp administrators, and abortionists are equally virtuous so long as they act “according to precepts” they can “conscientiously approve in their heart.”

5. Where do autonomous morals come from? Random chance accidents? The principle of survival of the fittest? No. Proponents of this view live under the influence of Christian principles of right and wrong woven into the fabric of society, each with a God-given conscience, each living in a world that displays God’s power and genius at every turn. Atheists have morals, but they borrow morals because their worldview provides no ultimate basis for them. And only because atheists live in a world deeply influenced by God and His Word (Scripture) can they have the liberty and ability to write such things.

6. Since belief in God’s existence brings “unlimited authority and an unlimited claim on one’s allegiance,” people wanting to do whatever they want have a great incentive to define moral agency as necessarily autonomous. Perhaps what is defined as a virtue is no more than an excuse for vice.

Concession
The author admits that it would be reasonable, in particular cases, for a moral agent to “blindly” follow the judgment of others with greater knowledge and wisdom. But, if a moral agent can trust others in particular cases, why not in every case where another has superior knowledge and wisdom? And if the knowledge and wisdom are perfect, one would be foolish to not always trust and obey. In the case of a finite and fallible human being before a perfect God, complete trust constitutes the most reasonable choice in every case.

Conclusion
The moral agency argument says little more than certain philosophers believe it beneath their dignity to bow the knee to their creator and sustainer, the source of every good thing, to whom we owe all love, gratitude, and worship. Yet, giving up one’s supposed autonomy forms the proper response to one’s all-powerful and good Creator. And though they deny it, unbelievers also depend on God for everything; time and chance produce nothing. Our thoughts, formulas, syllogisms, and the assumptions behind them cannot determine ultimate and transcendent reality. God’s existence remains unaffected by the best atheistic arguments, and He does not go away because someone devises a definition of moral agency incompatible with His glory. Apart from God having created us in His image with the ability to think, we would not exist to devise such unjustified excuses for doing what we want. Philosophers may give unbelief a positive spin, but reality is otherwise. “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil” (John 3:19 NAS).

Why are the nations in an uproar, And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed: “Let us tear their fetters apart, And cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury: ‘But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain’ (Ps. 2:1-6 NAS).

Moral agents should always seek the best, therefore, “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon” (Isa. 55:6-7 NAS). God gives true freedom. “If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36 NAS).

^[1] James Rachels, “God and Moral Autonomy” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 45-58.

^[2] Ibid., 54.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 13):
“Definitional Disproofs” (Part C)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 12): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part B)

We turn, now, to a specific example of a “disproof” where the definition of God is said to contain logically contradictory elements, rendering Him impossible. According to the claim, a perfect God must be virtuous. But virtue, as defined by the ancient Greeks and accepted in “ethical theory,” requires human imperfections. Thus, a perfect and virtuous God cannot exist because human imperfections are incompatible with Divine perfection. The argument is said to be “dialectally powerful” because the conclusion follows “plausible” premises. ^[1]

The editors state in the Introduction that arguments denying the possibility of God “are not about certainty but rather about rational justification.” Ignoring for the moment the unjustified leap from justification to impossibility, we must ask if the premises of the present argument are justified, or even plausible.

What Is the Problem?
Believers certainly agree with the premises that God is perfect and that a perfect God must be virtuous, if by virtuous the author means holy, good, and righteous. “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18 NAS). “There is no one holy like the LORD” (1 Sam. 2:2 NAS) “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He” (Deut. 32:4 NAS). “The LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done” (Dan. 9:14 NAS). But the author has in mind a distinctly “human” and imperfect virtue that requires “overcoming pains and danger,” suffering, and the possibility of being destroyed in attempts to overcome opposition and enemies, things incompatible with a perfect being. Thus, according to the author’s definition of virtue as imperfect, a perfect and virtuous God cannot exist.

The essence of the argument states that defining a perfect God as possessing imperfect attributes creates a contradiction, and a God that is both perfect and imperfect cannot exist. But, we might ask, would a believer in God disagree with a logically valid claim that God cannot be both perfect and imperfect? Not in the least.

Whatever idea of “God” the author claims cannot exist, he has said nothing that indicates the impossibility of the Christian God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While Scripture reveals God to be perfect and holy, it categorically denies that He possesses defects of any kind, including a human and imperfect virtue. Quite the contrary, God is the source and measure of right and wrong, and subject to no standard beyond Himself. Moreover, as infinite He created and rules over all things and neither “struggles” to overcome opposition, nor faces the prospect that He might be destroyed in the process. According to the author, however, the idea that God is both perfect and virtuous, using the author’s definition of human virtue derived from “ethical theory,” has “become the official theological view.” But no orthodox theologian in the history of the church has ever attributed such a “virtue” to the God of Scripture. Of course, one could create countless contradictions in the definition of God by redefining what He has revealed about His attributes. But such would prove nothing more than people have lively imaginations.

Perhaps the argument might have been useful in the ancient Greek setting where the “gods” were extensions of depraved people, warts and all. Or maybe it could be re-directed to show that a perfect God cannot logically be an extension of finite and fallen mankind, affirming what Scripture teaches about the difference between God and imperfect humanity. But whatever its merits, it says nothing about the impossibility of God as He has defined Himself in Scripture.

The Limits of Smallness
Interestingly, the author admits “that there appear to be epistemological limits about what can be known by human thinkers on the basis of logical reasoning about the nature of the Divine being.” ^[2] Truer words were never spoken, but inadequately applied in the present case. And even if we should struggle to logically reconcile something that Scripture actually teaches about God, our lack of understanding cannot justly form the final standard of what can and cannot be true of Him. We remain infinitely small by comparison and unable to speak of transcendent realities apart from God’s explanation of such things. Atheists and believers alike, it seems, have trouble admitting our smallness in the face of an infinite God.

Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales; Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust. Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless (Isa. 40:13-17 NAS).

Quite simply, frail and fallible specks of dust lack the vantage point and understanding to define the infinite God of Scripture out of existence. And if God did not exist, neither would anyone exist to define Him away. May God give great grace that His detractors might cease from suppressing the obvious truth of His existence and turn to Him who gives life everlasting, to Christ, “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24 NAS).

^[1] Douglas Walton, “Can an Ancient Argument of Carneades on Cardinal Virtues and Divine Attributes Be Used to Disprove the Existence of God?” in The Impossibility of God, Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 38-40.

^[2] Ibid, 42.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 12): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part B)”

We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 21): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part E)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 20): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part D)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 19): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part C)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 18): “The Problem of Evil” (Part B)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 17): “Doctrinal Disproofs” (Part A)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 16): “The Problem of Evil” (Part C)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 15): “The Problem of Evil” (B)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 13): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part C)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 12): “Definitional Disproofs” (Part B)”

Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 13):
“Definitional Disproofs” (Part C)”