Let’s face it, God has ordered or actively participated in the deaths of millions of people, sometimes in what seems to be horrific ways. God, as depicted in the Old Testament used Israel as a killing tool on multiple occasions. Entire societies were laid waste at the command an alleged benevolent God. Whether there is a possible defense of God’s actions in instances such as these is not really what I am concerned with. For the sake of argument, I will grant as fact God commanded or participated in the unjustified killings of women and children, and other moral atrocities attributed to Him by skeptics. But even if I grant this, what does this prove? The objection is offered to cast doubt on the character of God, or possibly expose a contradiction in the description that theists–Christian or otherwise–posit of a loving and benevolent God.
Sometimes this objection is offered as an argument that God does not exist, but does the skeptic think this fact about God’s character disproves His existence? I hope not. Even if it was a true contradiction of the Bible, it doesn’t disprove God’s existence, it would merely suggest the Bible is mistaken about God’s character. If God is a moral monster, it doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist, it just means the God which does exist is evil. But so what? If this objection does not prove, or at least attempt to cast doubt on the existence of God, why is the objection offered?
If God is an imaginary character in a work of written fiction, who cares what His character is? Think of how it would look for someone to actually get worked up over the evil deeds of Hannibal Lecter, or the villains from the Lord of the Rings series. I suppose the skeptic could argue it is this idea of God’s character which has led societies to commit atrocities in God’s name. But even this objection–if offered by an atheist–doesn’t make any real substantive objection. If God does exist and He is morally evil, then that’s just who God is. An evil God is still God nonetheless. We have just seen the objection to God’s character does not disprove God’s existence. And atheist is not about to concede the existence of God just to hold on to an objection.
So what does it mean if God does not exist? Then it is a character flaw in man rather than God. It was man’s own desires of power, strength, wealth, women, and everything else that came along with the destruction. It was man’s deceitful nature that created what ever he had to control the masses. What does this mean then? It means it is man who is morally evil, not the God who doesn’t exist. The claims of skeptics that man can be perfectly moral and good without God seems to be false. The history of man is littered with all the atrocities which were laid at God’s feet. Even if man was deluded into thinking it was God, it was man and not God committing genocide, torture, and the horrors of history. Ultimately if this objection is made by an atheist, it is misplaced. Rather than an argument against the character of God, it is actually an argument against the character of man.
Sifting Reality 
It means that the God of the Bible has serious contradictions. You seem to acknowledge at least one of them, which is that “it would merely suggest the Bible is mistaken about God’s character.” And not just a little! It’s not “God enjoys classical piano” versus “God enjoys thrash metal.” It’s “God is grotesquely evil” versus “God is the epitome of love and goodness.” That is such a central contradiction that it should cast doubt on the foundation of Christianity itself. (I’m surprised that you could type that phrase I quoted above and not think that if the Bible could make a mistake like this, it might be wholly unreliable.)
Another contradiction is the idea (related but I think still separately important) is that God provides a good moral guide for people. That a close connection with God will lead people to be the most moral folks around. When you see God telling people to commit genocide, getting really pissed off when his supposed followers don’t think they should go through with the total destruction he wanted them to cause, etc. it’s hard to swallow this idea that by listening to what the Christian god tells you to do you’ll be a morally upstanding citizen.
You’re absolutely right that it doesn’t prove that there isn’t a god at all. What it shows is that the Christian narrative and understanding of what their god is like is logically incoherent, and therefore shouldn’t be believed.
Well, I stated that for this particular argument I will grant that God is responsible, and does not have morally permissable reasons for allowing or commanding what the skeptic would classify as a moral atrocity; and that I am not making a case to refute the claim. However, I do not believe the skeptic’s view that the “atrocities” cited, are actual atrocities (I’ve been thinking of writing something on this soon). I think the actions commanded by God can be defended. Maybe not to degree that you or other skeptics would be compelled to concede the point. But all that is necessary for the apologist is to show that there is a possible explanation in order for there to be no true contradiction.
You say you “will grant that God … does not have morally permissable reasons for allowing or commanding” certain things in the Bible regarded by non-Christians as atrocities. But you do not think that they are actually atrocities.
What does it mean to do something without any morally permissible reason? Does that not mean to do something morally impermissible, that is, immoral? It seems like it would be just quibbling to argue that God committed many immoral acts but they weren’t as bad as war crimes or something — that still concedes that this perfect, benevolent, omni-everything God is an immoral actor, which does not make sense. And the graph you put at the top of this post assigns God responsibility for killing so many people that he joins the ranks of some of the worst examples of tyrants and war criminals in human history. I just don’t see where you’re going with this — it seems like your argument is “Yes, I accept that the Christian god killed millions of people and he had no morally acceptable reason for doing so, but he’s not that bad!”
Im not saying the “atrocities” are not that bad, but that they only appear to be atrocities. Though they may appear to be morally impermissable, God does in fact have a morally permissable reason for allowing or causing a particular event.
My point is, that even if I grant the skeptics claim, that God is a moral monster, it does not prove what they generally are arguing for: That God does not exist, or likely does not exist.
But the objection is really a moot point. If God exists, the objection is meaningless, because God is who He is regardless of His character. If God is not real, that He is akin to a fictional character, then the objection is as silly as being angered by comicbook villains. And finally, For those skeptics who claim that man is good enough, or can be good without God, they are wrong. If God does not exist, and man invented God as a means of control, that man is responsible for all the moral atrocities.
I actually agree with this post. Sure, there are “justification” for God’s actions. If you consider William Lane Craig and his arguments, he would posit that since God asserted the moral laws it is His to do with what He wills (it’s something to that effect – admittedly, I don’t remember it quite well) and, of course, one could argue against that. I don’t think I have ever used God’s “morality” as an argument to disprove the existence of God. I, actually, recently wrote a post that coincides with what you said. The only reason why I would address the moral issue is a) if the theist addresses it first and b) if the theist uses morality to try and say that I would have no morals (or any other moralistic argument that you can think of). My point is, yes, I agree that God’s morality would not disprove a God, at least not in a Deistic sense. However, I don’t think Christians should use the Bible or the Christian God as their basis for their morality (this is, of course, only applicable to those Christians who believe in a literal Bible).
Well, I do not know if there are gods or not, but if a person reads the bible and learns about all the atrocities done even in those days in the name of the god of Israel. If the same person then reads a little bit of history, and follows the news and learns what kind of atrocities have been done and are done in the name of the god of the christians, why would he choose to believe the god of the christians is benevolent or fair? Why would he/she choose to worship that sort of god?
If there is a god who commands a nation to do genoside on a nother nation, that god is by all possible measure evil. If that god does not exist, then only people who commit atrocities in his name are evil. But no matter if that god exists or not, also people who worship him are accepting evil. It is like voting for Hitler even if you your self are not a guard at the consentration camp. What is wrong with the morals of people who would worship such a god wether he exists or not? What is wrong with morals of people who would claim such a god is benevolent?
I think that in general atheists who comment the atrocities commanded by the biblical god, are simply denying the claim that the christian god is benevolent and therefore critizising blind faith. They also use this to remind how easy it is for religious demagogues to lead people to do atrocities even in the name of a “benevolent” god. The fact that jewish christian god is described as a genosidal god in the bible actually undermines his existance in a nother way. It reminds us that this particular god has the same morals as most small and primitive tribal cultures, where people are only those that belong to the nation, and all outsiders are less human. So, put in to context, the god in the bible is wery much like any other product of a primitive culture and therefore less plausible. John Barron jr is forgetting that atheists are not denying only the existence of the judaeo-christian god, but all other gods also. There are many gods worshipped in the world today and in history, that have never been described as benevolent. Then there are also other gods that have been described as benevolent and propably have affected christian wiev of the wengefull jewish god, like Aton, who was worshipped widely in Egypt.
There is a minor immorality in the new testament that has never really opened up to me. If Maria was the wife of Josef, was Jesus the son born out of adultery? If Josef maried Maria as a pregnant woman, did god have premarital sex with Maria? Why do the same moral rules god of Israel sets on humanity, not aply on him? Is he not giving a bad example?
Sure, you don’t have to worship the God of the Bible. But whether He is benevolent and fair is irrelevant to His existence. If God doesn’t exist, then being upset or critical of the God depicted in the Bible is as fruitless as being mad at comicbook characters. If that is the God which exists then that’s the only one there is to worship.
If you have trouble understanding the conception of Jesus, Joseph’s relationship with Mary, and God’s involvement, which is really a basic non-complex concept of Christian belief, I’m not sure how you can criticize Christianity. If you don’t get this, I wonder how informed you have made yourself concerning Christianity to be criticizing to the degree you do. You should learn the ideas you are rejecting, before you reject them.
People do not commit genosides or other atrocities because of comicbook characters commands. That is the relevant difference between gods and comic book characters. Are there other differencies? I am not upset about the imaginary character. I am upset how an imaginary character can be used to sanctify horrific acts against humanity. I am a bit upset about how people can base their morals on an imaginary entity that is evidently evil. And I am little bit upset how people have the nerve to claim he is actually a good guy.
If a god is a plausible notion to you, how can you be sure there is only one? If it is proven that god is actually evil, altough he is called benevolent by the religion? Could it be, that other “truths” in that religion have the same tendency of being not true? Like the claim there is only one god? Or the “truth that there are gods in the first place? Why should one worship a god? Especially an evil god that destroys nations?
Maybe I should learn more about christianity. To me it is so complex. Here is this god who is benevolent and loving, and over there he is a vengefull and evil entity that tells people to destroy other nations. Here he is the single and only god of monoteistic religion, and there he visits convention of gods and tells the other gods how miserable they are. Here this god tells people that premarital sex and adultery are wrong, there he is consieving a child with a nother mans wife or bride to be. Should I bother understanding all this? Who can really understand all this? Can you? It must take a lot of faith or ignorance.
Usually, when people condemn other peoples religion it is because they do not understand the said religion. This applies to all religions. On other hand, people seem to be wery gollible when they consider their own religion.
I have noticed a habit you have of rehashing things which have already been discussed, as well as asking questions I address with my take spelled out within the article. I can’t keep re-writing the posts in the comment section. I already said if God does not exist then it is mans moral deficiencies which have created the moral atrocities in history, which speaks against the notion that man is inherently good.
There are many people who have no problem understanding the details of Christianity, I’m sorry you are having a difficult time. But the comment section of this post is not the place for me to present a systematic theology. Perhaps you could find one online and brush up on your knowledge of Christianity before you continue to criticize it.
My apologies. I thought I could address this issue by being sarcastic. Obviously I am not wery good at it, or this is too serious question for you to handle by sarcasm. This is something I sometimes forget when dealing with religious people. My forgetfulnes is no excuse funnying about matters serious to other people. I have only tried to make you read your own articles with a different wiev.
I am saying that if there is a god of the bible, then he is morally responsible for the actions done in his name and by his commandments. He can not escape to hide behind the backs of his worshippers. As he does not intervene, it proves he is a) evil or b) does not exist. If a god does not exist, and responsibility falls on humans, then we are at the point that the skeptics are making all along. That people are responsible of religious violence as that violence is in no way excusable by supernatural causes. A nother point I was trying to make, is that the bible is selfcontradicting. The atrocities done in it, are only a part of greater compilation of illogical and immoral incoherencies, that are a basis for morals of such a large portion of mankind. Alltough it is only the fanatics who usually take the orders of the bible literally.
In your articles you paint a picture of an atheist or a skeptic and then smother it by arguments, that to you obviously show the weaknesses of the claims made by your imaginary atheist. If someone shows you that atheists or skeptics are not as you would claim, or that the weaknesses you pointed out are not as obvious you thought, you can not dismiss it only by saying that this does not fit the picture of an atheist you gave in your article. Learning about christianity is of course important as is learning about any other cultural phenomenon. I think myself rather well informed as I have actually read the bible and read about history of antiquity to put the book into context. I have studied other religions and religious behaviour and thinking in the university (and this is why I have found your blog intriguing). I also have had interresting conversations with a friend of mine who teaches theology at the university. Most christians in the world have not read the bible, but it is typical that they borrow bits and pieces from it. And many christians are wery ready to believe any demagogue that spells out the bronce age hatred from the tribal history of jews called the bible.
Yes, most of my questions are rhetorical and need no answer. If, however, you think you can not answer any one of them, ask yourself why is that.
This post really seems silly. You are willing to concede that you bow down to a tyrant in order to try and knock down an atheist argument? If a God exists, why would we worship and praise Him if He exhibited such a character? Would you suggest that we might want to revere and be complicit in Nazism if we lived in 1930’s and 40’s Germany? Would you suggest that we should want to worship the Public Health Option if we live in contemporary America? If something is good, it is of worth. If it is bad, we should invest none of ourselves in it. You make a great case for antitheism as opposed to Christianity if you follow this tack.
Then you move on to the false dichotomy that man is either inherently good or inherently bad. If the Bible is the creation of men and not God and it is (or seems obvious to me that it is) a very mixed bag of the best and worst of man’s character, why must we label man as inherently more(or less) than human? The fact that the Bible seems to mirror both our best and our worst traits seems a pretty reasonable argument for its very human origins. You almost get somewhere near a truth with this argument, then cut yourself off before you can arrive at the inevitable conclusion.
From this site:
So you get close to discovering that God cannot be used as an origin for morality, yet you end by making a plea that we assume just that.
The point of the post is to show that any appeal to the character of God is meaningless coming from an atheist.
1) If God exists, then His character is irrelevant, He is what He is whatever that may be.
2) If God does not exist, then there is no character of God at all. It’s an argument against a fictional character.
3) If God does not exist then the moral evil which is attributed to God, is actually on man. Only until recent history, the last 1000 years or so, life was cheap. People were killed for entertainment in some societies. Even in the 20th century, more people were murdered under communist and regimes than during any other century in recorded history.
All right, I suspect that this is futile, but I’m going to try to break this down for you.
Your point #2 is ridiculous. Even if you are an atheist and do not believe any gods exist, it is still worth it to discuss the attributes of gods that other people believe in when you are trying to convince them that their beliefs are unfounded, or when fending off their attempts to convert you. Do you really not see how this would be a worthwhile contribution to the conversation?
Imagine this: a Christian asserts, “God is love! God has given me so much valuable moral guidance. Why don’t you just read the Bible and see how it can teach you to be a more loving person? That experience was what convinced me that Christianity was true.” Then, the atheist responds, “That’s not convincing at all. First of all, something that makes you behave well is not necessarily true — just look at all the children who behave so that Santa Claus will bring them presents. But secondly and more importantly, the Bible is full of awful stuff, and God is a moral monster in many passages. You can’t maintain both that ‘the Bible is true’ and ‘Christianity and the Christian god offer perfect moral guidance.’ That’s contradictory.”
I can’t decide if your point #3 is irrelevant, or is a win for the atheist side in this argument. YES, the moral evil in the Bible is the work of man. Yes, people can be terrible, power-hungry, heartless tyrants. Yes, people can mislead the masses in order to command their obedience even to their deaths. But let’s be real about that, recognize that that is wrong, and try to cultivate better values and societal progress. We shouldn’t pretend that those evil acts were actually done by a magic, perfect being who can somehow get away with cold-blooded murder and oppression. Atheists aren’t actually attributing that evil to God, they’re just pointing out that, in the Christian’s belief system, those evils are perpetrated by God. That is a problem for the Christian’s other beliefs which contradict that.
Your first point is the only one that contains a fragment of an actual argument. There might be a God, and that God might be the arbiter of morality, and it might be the case that whatever God says is good is good, period. Maybe you will go to heaven for an eternity of bliss if you do whatever pleases that God (even if it’s murdering babies, or whatever) and to hell for an eternity of torment if you offend that God (e.g. by planting two different crops in the same field, or wearing poly-cotton blends).
But the point George was making when he brought up Nazi Germany is the other side of this coin. It might be that a God exists, and has his own opinions about right and wrong and when he will punish you and reward you, but he might not be correct. We humans do have some understanding of moral philosophy that leads us to come to certain conclusions on our own about what right and wrong behavior looks like. If there is a tyrant God whose rules I can tell are immoral, why should I obey him? Don’t we commend people who spoke out against tyrannical regimes or outright subverted their oppressive and unjust policies? And if God is really so big of a jerk that he would commend a parent who forced their daughter to marry her rapist, but condemn a woman who continued to work and function in public even while menstruating — then I don’t know how I could possibly begin to figure out what would please him and what wouldn’t. Maybe everything he’s revealed so far is a trick. Maybe he won’t keep his promises. Maybe he’ll just send everyone to hell just for fun.
Believe me when I tell you I see your point, I see Goerge’s as well. But on the atheist view, this is a complaint against man. As I said earlier, I don’t actually believe God is a moral monster, I think you can derive a real moral goodness from the commandments God gives without ignoring anything.
I’m not going to take this tangent too far here, but do you know why it was commanded of Israel to not plant two different crops in the same field, or wear poly-cotton blends? Just curious if you understand the significance. And what is the Bible’s purpose, why do we have it?
But on the atheist view, this is a complaint against man.
I’ve responded to this already. It’s in the paragraph above which begins “I can’t decide…” and ends “…which contradict that.” I really don’t see how “This is a complaint against man!” is any sort of meaningful response to the atheist complaint. We’re fine with it being a complaint against man. We’re saying that, if you believe in this particular version of God, then you should interpret these issues as complaints against him. That is a problem you have to contend with if you want to claim that your god is benevolent and loving. (And, since you say you “don’t actually believe God is a moral monster,” it sounds like you think you can contend with it. That’s fine. It’s a separate issue. The point is, just saying, “Your complaint is about humanity, not God!” is either irrelevant, or it’s an admission that you don’t believe God is real.)
I have no idea why you think it was that God commanded Israel not to plant two different crops in the same field or wear poly-cotton blends. I’m not even sure if you think God actually commanded that or if you think it shouldn’t be taken literally. I was under the impression that Christians believe that the Bible is God’s message to humanity, containing whatever truths about existence he thought it was most important for us to have — but I don’t pretend to know whether that’s what you believe its purpose is.
And don’t forget — the Bible says that God didn’t want people to know the difference between good and evil in the first place!
And why was that?
Well, God works in mysterious ways, right? So far be it from me to suppose why he did anything you believe he did.
But if I had to speculate, I’d at least say that we can rule out “he wanted to empower people to discern between right and wrong actions.” That would be impossible. You couldn’t even figure out, “It’s the right thing to do to obey God” if you didn’t have an understanding of right and wrong in the first place.