How Apologists Defend God's Genocides

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps Christian apologists busy, it's that thorny issue of the Biblical accounts of God killing huge numbers of people. According to one source, the death toll at God's hands totals 2.8 million people. How do apologists "apologize" for God's deadly ways?

It's important to understand that it's a tenet of apologetics that God is perfectly righteous, and therefore nothing he does can be considered evil. Starting with this conclusion, apologists seek reasons to free God from any charges of immorality. I'd appreciate everybody's input regarding their own reasons why God is good despite his murderous ways, but here are some reasons to start with:

• God's killings are actually good, it's just that we cannot understand why it was good for him to kill.
• God is able to kill anybody he wants to, so it's OK for him to kill. His might is right!
• God is the creator of all life including human life, and therefore as the creator of life he can snuff it out any time and any way he chooses to.
• Since God is perfectly just, his perfect justice cannot tolerate sin, and he must eliminate sin by eliminating sinners.
• God kills those he sees as a threat to his "chosen people."
• We Christians invented and own morality, so if unbelievers say God's killings are evil, then they are stealing our morality.

[Don Mc]

In Post #36 in reply to unkown soldier you made the following statement:

If I believed there was an omnipotent being out there who kills people indiscriminately by the millions, I would be tempted to become an atheist myself. I'd certainly prefer to imagine there is no such God than to live constantly terrorized by what he might do next.

I picked up on that and in Post #38 I said:

One doesn't simply choose to become an atheist because one doesn't like how God behaves. Atheism involves not believing that gods of any type actually exist.

You replied some time later in Post#67 which began with the following statement:

I doubt you're speaking for all atheists, but even so I could assert just as easily that one doesn't simply embrace theism because one likes how God behaves. Or at least that's not why I am a theist.

I read the rest of your post but it did not address the issue of simply being able to choose to not believe something because one doesn't like it. If that is contained in the following part of your post, I'm sorry but I fail to understand how:

And that's precisely why I brought up the notion of wishful thinking. Skeptics routinely accuse believers of clinging to religious fairy tales as an escape from reality, but then they describe God in terms that would make atheism a quite appealing psychological refuge from his presumed capriciousness and brutality. In other words Freud's old argument from wish-fulfillment potentially cuts both ways – not just dreaming up things that don't exist, but denying things that do.

Hence my response to you:

This does not make sense and you did not really address the point I was making. If you believe in something but it is unpleasant, how do you then choose to disbelieve in it? It either exists, regardless of its attributes, or it doesn't.

Perhaps you could take another shot, or not.

I did take another shot, most of which you again ignored. But I will try once more, in the confidence that what I am saying is not complicated.

A couple of times now I have mentioned denial. Denial is an uncontroversial and well-documented phenomenon of human psychology, and is certainly one way to view atheism. Essentially denial means refusing to believe that something exists; alternatively, it means choosing to believe that something does not exist. Denial could therefore explain disbelief not only in the existence of God, but the existence of an easily understandable argument suggesting that at least some atheists are probably in denial.

[brunumb]

A couple of times now I have mentioned denial. Denial is an uncontroversial and well-documented phenomenon of human psychology, and is certainly one way to view atheism.

Is that the same sort of denial that afflicts creationists when confronted with the science that shows Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and all living things evolved over billions of years from ancient common ancestors?

[Don Mc]

A couple of times now I have mentioned denial. Denial is an uncontroversial and well-documented phenomenon of human psychology, and is certainly one way to view atheism.

Is that the same sort of denial that afflicts creationists when confronted with the science that shows Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and all living things evolved over billions of years from ancient common ancestors?

I would say that depends on whether those creationists understood the world as described by textbook evolutionary theory to be the real world, but found something about it too difficult for them to face. If so, then yes, at least some creationists are probably in denial.

But not all creationists have understood the world as described by textbook evolutionary theory to be the real world. As a creationist of sorts myself, I can say that even as a nonbeliever with "no dog in the fight" I had serious doubts about textbook evolutionary theory – apart from a brief period in college. Even during that time, when I accepted it on nothing but the authority of my biology professor (a decidedly nonrational basis for belief), evolutionary theory seemed to me like a woefully inadequate explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Now if I don't actually believe evolutionary theory to be true in the first place – if I don't believe that it corresponds to reality – then my coming to believe that evolutionary theory entails existential or moral nihilism, or the falsification of the Genesis narrative, or whatever, won't bother me.

By contrast, when I refer to "at least some atheists" being in denial, I mean that in principle there are atheists who were at one time quite sincere believers in God but then experienced loss, pain or disillusionment that suggested to them that God was not only all-powerful but sadistic and cruel. The very thought of a Being both limitlessly powerful and dreadfully unjust simply became too terrifying for them to accept. And given that people in denial predictably deny they're in denial, they have devised intellectual rather than emotional reasons for becoming atheists (contradictions in Scripture, lack of evidence, a scientific epistemology, etc.). Again I'm not saying that this profile accurately describes all atheists; but since denial is common among humans generally, it probably fits at least a few.

[brunumb]

Even during that time, when I accepted it on nothing but the authority of my biology professor (a decidedly nonrational basis for belief),.....

And yet that seems to be the default for religious belief. Just sayin'.

By contrast, when I refer to "at least some atheists" being in denial, I mean that in principle there are atheists who were at one time quite sincere believers in God but then experienced loss, pain or disillusionment that suggested to them that God was not only all-powerful but sadistic and cruel. The very thought of a Being both limitlessly powerful and dreadfully unjust simply became too terrifying for them to accept.

Where is your evidence that there are atheists who were at one time quite sincere believers in God but then experienced loss, pain or disillusionment that suggested to them that God was not only all-powerful but sadistic and cruel. Perhaps they found that their studies simply revealed that there was nothing really there. Somehow you limit the field to some or a few and yet you express your argument in a way that seems to generalise to all.

Again I'm not saying that this profile accurately describes all atheists; but since denial is common among humans generally, it probably fits at least a few.

So what? "At least a few" applies to just about anything and as such is pretty much an irrelevancy. It's not much of a hook to hang your hat on. What actually applies to most atheists and can you demonstrate that you are correct?

[Don Mc]

Where is your evidence that there are atheists who were at one time quite sincere believers in God but then experienced loss, pain or disillusionment that suggested to them that God was not only all-powerful but sadistic and cruel. Perhaps they found that their studies simply revealed that there was nothing really there. Somehow you limit the field to some or a few and yet you express your argument in a way that seems to generalise to all.

I think the language that (some) atheists use in their descriptions of God qualifies as evidence of a certain hostility indicative of deep bias. Conversations I've had often proceed something like the following:

ATHEIST: As far as I'm concerned your so-called "god" is a good-for-nothing, incompetent, unjust, violent, vindictive, capricious tyrant.

ME: Wow, that seems like a pretty strong indictment of God's character. So I guess that's why you're an atheist, right?

ATHEIST: No, God's "character" has nothing to do with it. I am an atheist strictly because I can find no empirical evidence whatsoever that God actually exists.

The point is that it seems surprising to me that someone would speak of God with such personal, emotive language, and at the same time approach the question of evidence for theism with unvarnished objectivity. But it would not be surprising for someone who has been disillusioned with their spiritual experience to speak thus of God and yet deny the existence of God (and/or the existence of any evidence for God) in an effort to reduce emotional dissonance, or out of spite.

Also I don't see why you think I have generalized my argument to apply to all, when I specifically stated – and still maintain – that it probably does not. Compare that to the rather continuous stream of declarations on this forum to the effect that theists without exception are deluded, dishonest, biased, gullible, superstitious, hypocritical, etc.

Again I'm not saying that this profile accurately describes all atheists; but since denial is common among humans generally, it probably fits at least a few.

So what? "At least a few" applies to just about anything and as such is pretty much an irrelevancy. It's not much of a hook to hang your hat on. What actually applies to most atheists and can you demonstrate that you are correct?

Not many lines above you were objecting because you thought my argument applied to all atheists rather than just a few. Now you're objecting that it doesn't apply to enough atheists...?

Regardless, I think even a few atheists in denial would be relevant because it would only take a few to debunk any stereotype of atheists as these coolheaded, scientific rationalists who always follow the evidence where it leads. I'm trying to encourage critical thinking, even if that means a bit of painful self-critical thinking.

[brunumb]

The point is that it seems surprising to me that someone would speak of God with such personal, emotive language, and at the same time approach the question of evidence for theism with unvarnished objectivity.

There is no contradiction there as much as you would like to suggest. You may see it as personal but I think that's just your bias coming into play. Of course it's emotive, but many discussions and arguments around religion tend to get that way. It doesn't necessarily reflect how a person became an atheist. The surprising thing to me is that people do actually believe in the malicious God depicted in the Bible and spend so much time trying to whitewash his character. Perhaps it's a way of helping to shore up their belief.

[Don Mc]

The point is that it seems surprising to me that someone would speak of God with such personal, emotive language, and at the same time approach the question of evidence for theism with unvarnished objectivity.

There is no contradiction there as much as you would like to suggest. You may see it as personal but I think that's just your bias coming into play. Of course it's emotive, but many discussions and arguments around religion tend to get that way. It doesn't necessarily reflect how a person became an atheist.

I'm not saying there's a contradiction. I'm saying that it's not probable that someone who understands God as both omnipotent and a murderous psychopath is at the same time able to objectively assess the evidence for God's existence – or at least it's less probable than that someone who thus understands God either deliberately or subconsciously dismisses the evidence for God out of fear or spite.

To turn Freud's theory of God as the infantile wish for an exalted father figure on its head, I would add that according to psychologist Paul Vitz there is evidence in the way of numerous case studies suggesting a connection between what Vitz calls "intense atheism" and deceased, abusive or absentee fathers of intense atheists like Nietzsche and Madalyn Murray O-Hair. That may sound simplistic, insulting or condescending, but it's no more so than atheistic views on the psychology of religion.

Yes, I agree that the discussions often become emotional; that's to be expected when people disagree and never come to any meaningful point of agreement. And I agree that emotion alone doesn't necessarily (probably doesn't) explain any given atheist's deconversion. What I’m pointing out, though, is that when the most deeply emotive language is reserved for God himself, rather than merely someone who disagrees, it suggests to me at least some level of theistic belief, even if it's at the sub- or unconscious level.

The surprising thing to me is that people do actually believe in the malicious God depicted in the Bible and spend so much time trying to whitewash his character. Perhaps it's a way of helping to shore up their belief.

I think in many cases you're right about this; it's natural for believers to defend God's character without a lot of critical reflection. But there are a few famous exceptions, particularly the patriarch Job. Here are a couple of the many complaints Job had against God:

"He laughs at the plight of the innocent. The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces of its judges" (Job 9:23-24).

"I will say to God, 'Do not condemn me; show me why you contend with me. Does it seem good to You that You should oppress, that you should despise the work of your hands, and smile on the counsel of the wicked?" (10:2-3).

One important theological lesson to take from Job is that it's possible for an angry, frustrated or disillusioned believer to say exactly what he thinks of God's character and not only survive, but afterward find blessing and healing.

[nobspeople]

If there's one issue that keeps Christian apologists busy, it's that thorny issue of the Biblical accounts of God killing huge numbers of people. According to one source, the death toll at God's hands totals 2.8 million people. How do apologists "apologize" for God's deadly ways?

It's important to understand that it's a tenet of apologetics that God is perfectly righteous, and therefore nothing he does can be considered evil. Starting with this conclusion, apologists seek reasons to free God from any charges of immorality. I'd appreciate everybody's input regarding their own reasons why God is good despite his murderous ways, but here are some reasons to start with:

• God's killings are actually good, it's just that we cannot understand why it was good for him to kill.
• God is able to kill anybody he wants to, so it's OK for him to kill. His might is right!
• God is the creator of all life including human life, and therefore as the creator of life he can snuff it out any time and any way he chooses to.
• Since God is perfectly just, his perfect justice cannot tolerate sin, and he must eliminate sin by eliminating sinners.
• God kills those he sees as a threat to his "chosen people."
• We Christians invented and own morality, so if unbelievers say God's killings are evil, then they are stealing our morality.

This is one of the many reasons I left 'the church' back in the day. Nothing I've heard makes sense, and I've heard A LOT. And they were all excuses.
But in reality, if people were created by God and God is all powerful, knowing, etc, there's really nothing we could do about what he's done.
I mean, he kills millions, what do we do, put him on trial? Execute him?
All religions that have a supreme being (or beings) have the upper hand when it comes to things like holding them accountable. In actuality, if God created all things, he created everything (and evil falls under the 'everything' category) but Christians create excuse after excuse after excuse; anything that makes their cult-like need to follow in tact.
The term cult here used honestly and correctly, despite how many people may complain : a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

[unknown soldier]

This is one of the many reasons I left 'the church' back in the day. Nothing I've heard makes sense, and I've heard A LOT. And they were all excuses.

I'm glad to see that you are one of us captives set free by the truth. It's amazing what Christian apologists can come up with to try to rationalize their beliefs. For example, two of the apologists on this board upon realizing that Paul claimed he never received the Gospel from people demonstrating him to be either lying or mentally ill, posted that the Gospel isn't about Jesus!

Maybe some day they'll claim that the Bible isn't about God.