One of the distinguishing marks of the new atheists is that they not only think religion is false, but that it is dangerous and immoral too. Even God himself is not above their judgment. They regularly chide the God of the Bible as being a moral monster! They accuse Him of being pro-genocide, anti-women, pro-rape, pro-slavery, etc. Rather than the paradigm of moral goodness, God is an evil despot that is to be shunned. You know it’s a bad day when even God is evil!
Is what they say true? Is God – particularly as He is portrayed in the OT – morally evil? Many Christians are sympathetic to this charge because they themselves struggle to understand God’s actions and commands, particularly as revealed in the OT. Thankfully there have been some well-written responses to the problem of “theistic evil” written in recent years to dispel this negative portrait of God.
Philosopher and theologian, Paul Copan, has written an excellent book on the topic called Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. He tackles the following subjects:
- Divine arrogance and jealousy
- The binding of Isaac
- Weird OT laws such as kosher foods
- Harsh penalties for seemingly minor offenses
- Laws regarding semen, menstrual blood, and sexual mores
- Lex talionis
- Infant sacrifice
- Sexism
- Polygamy
- Slavery
- Racism
- Conquest of Canaan
Copan does a great job of showing how the OT Law was a major improvement over the law codes of other ancient-near-eastern nations. The Law was never intended to be the moral ideal. God was working within the culture to raise it to a higher moral standard. “He adapted his ideals to a people whose attitudes and actions were influenced by deeply flawed structures” for the purpose of humanizing that culture incrementally.
The great thing about Copan’s book is that he is thorough: all of the relevant OT texts related to these topics are addressed. And he does a good job demonstrating how the picture painted by the new atheists is not accurate. In short, Copan demonstrates that a closer reading of the text in its linguistic and historical context makes it clear that God is not the moral monster many have made Him out to be.
OT scholar, David Lamb, has also written a book on the so-called problem of theistic evil titled God Behaving Badly. He addresses some of the same topics as Copan, but from a different perspective and in a different manner. Lamb’s book is more conversational, and not nearly as technical and detailed as Copan’s. It’s more of a light-hearted approach to a heavy-hearted issue, with humor injected throughout the book. Lamb does an excellent job showing how people (including Christians) who see the God of the OT as a mean, angry ogre are badly misinterpreting the Bible. While God did exercise judgment in the OT, we often see God being kind, generous, patient, and loving. If you think the “God of the OT’ is mean while the “God of the NT” is nice, you need to read this book.
Both books are good contributions to the subject, and I would highly recommend them to both Christians and atheists/agnostics alike.
October 17, 2012 at 10:48 am
I read both of those as well. Definitely helpful pieces of work. Copan’s work on the chapters on Slavery and the Canaanite slaughter were defintely must-read stuff. I will say that overall, Lamb’s tone was preferable to Copan’s even if Copan’s is more technically solid.
Good reviews.
LikeLike
October 17, 2012 at 11:11 am
Agreed. Lamb’s writing style and tone was very enjoyable. Copan is much more “strictly intellectual.” But Copan covers more topics, and covers them in much more detail than Lamb. They definitely compliment one another.
Have you read any other books on this topic?
Jason
LikeLike
October 17, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Thanks for the suggestions, Jason!
LikeLike
October 18, 2012 at 12:34 am
An alternative view is presented by Douglas S. Earl in his book “The Joshua Delusion?: Rethinking Genocide in the Bible.”
LikeLike
October 18, 2012 at 10:24 am
Miles, what is Earl’s view?
LikeLike
October 18, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Lamb’s book is, oddly, a fun, interesting read.
LikeLike
October 20, 2012 at 3:02 am
From the Amazon book description: “Drawing on insights from the early church and from modern scholarship, Earl argues that we have mistakenly read Joshua as a straightforward historical account and have ended up with a genocidal God. In contrast, Earl offers a theological interpretation in which the mass killing of Canaanites is a deliberate use of myth to make important theological points that are still valid today.”
LikeLike
October 20, 2012 at 5:04 am
The hypocrisy of those who claim God is evil (based mostly in the OT accounts of divine wrath poured out on heathen races) is that, in a modern context, if a nation was as guilty of the crimes and evils perpetuated by the Canaanites and other such races, and the U.S., let’s say, went to war with such a nation to overthrow the regime responsible for such crimes and evils, and in the process, ended up killing large swaths of people, many might very well be okay with such a notion, in the interests of justice/moral retribution.
LikeLike
October 20, 2012 at 7:31 am
Jason,
You’d be well served by reading those who you disagree with, rather than works by people you know you’ll agree with who misrepresent the other side with straw men. A real education includes reading, and treating fairly, the other side.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 21, 2012 at 8:50 am
I haven’t read the books, but in reading the reviews on other sites it seems that they’re being dishonest. For example, in GBB, it’s argued that Eve being created second to Adam does not imply inferiority of women to men…
BUT THE BIBLE SAYS: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” 1 Tim 2:12-14.
Thus, just in case the Bible wasn’t clear enough in Genesis for Mr. Lamb, God speaks through the Apostle Paul to make it crystal clear.
Interpreting the Bible to conform to the beliefs and fads of the moment might be tempting, but it robs the Bible of any value. If the Bible just says “whatever you hear on NPR is right,” skip the Bible and listen to NPR.
LikeLike
October 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Miles, on its face, I would have to disagree with that interpretation of Joshua. There is nothing in the book to indicate that the genre is myth rather than history, but plenty of clues that it is to be taken as historical narrative.
Jason
LikeLike
October 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Arthur,
You presume that I don’t read the other side. If anything, it’s the liberals who fail to read their ideological opponents. The reason those like Copan are writing books like this is because they are reading the other side! And the reason so many Christians want to read books like Copan’s is because they tend to share the exact same concerns as the liberals concerning God’s acts in the OT.
As for Eve, her being created second does not mean she is inferior. First Timothy shows a difference in function and responsibility, not of value. My boss has a different function within the company I work for, but that doesn’t mean my humanity is denigrated.
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I got both books from amazon, they were selling it as a deal kind of thing. It’s funny, although atheist who can’t ground morality in their own view, some try to think if they can prove God is evil from the Bible, then He doesn’t exist.? Supposedly God was “mean” or “evil”, I don’t see how this can disprove the existence of God, you would still be accountable to Him. Just as Frank Turek said in his debate with Christopher Hitchens, ” There is no God and I hate Him.”
LikeLike
October 29, 2012 at 10:06 am
Michael,
Very true. Even if god was not perfectly good, if he is god and has authority over your fate, it’s still best to listen to what he says.
But the other point you brought up about the inability of atheists to ground morality, is equally interesting. Atheists want to indict the God of the Bible as being evil, without having any ontological foundation for the existence of good and evil to make such a judgment. In a strange kind of way, God cannot be considered evil unless He exists (because without Him there is no such thing as good and evil), and if God exists, He can’t be evil (because as the greatest conceivable being God must be good, and because as the proper object of worship, God must be good).
Jason
LikeLike
January 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Jason, might does not make right1 No, He is not greatest conceivable being- that’s the Multiverse itself.
None should worship anything. No self-respecting, moral and rational being would even accept worship! Yes, this gnu goes to the heart of theism= reduced animism!
We ground morality in human nature. As He speaks with a forked tongue- the thousands of sects shows that divine command morality is just the simple subjectivism of mere men!
LikeLike
January 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Griggs,
The multiverse is the greatest conceivable being? I had to chuckle at that one.
Worship is the act of ascribing appropriate worth to someone for the kind of being they are, and/or what they have accomplished. While such would never be appropriate of one man to another, God is not like men. If the God of theism exists, then He is morally perfect and the creator of all contingent reality. Surely these two features alone deserve a few kudos.
Ground morality in human nature? What does that even mean? How can human nature (something that surely does not even exist if evolution is true) ground morality, and how can we know what morality it grounds? Such a theory of morality is what is truly subjective.
Jason
LikeLike
January 8, 2013 at 6:22 am
Hardly, Jason, yours is thoroughly subjective, for your God with His forked tongue speaks with the multiple subjectivities of the thousands of sects of religions. Men just made them up. Revelations are all subjective.
We can measure ours as to how it affects the flourishing of sentient beings.
Human nature is evolved, so yes, it does exist, It grounds easily us thus.
The Multiverse is the greatest existent. Nothing could then be greater. Remember, no evidence exists that He even can exist or however, one might note His aseity. Anselms’s ontological argument fail.
By the way, Aquinas’ fourth way – the ontological argument from degrees of perfection fails, because it reifies the continuum amongst the degrees as Him [ Michael Scriven in ” Primary Philosophy” leaves it to us readers to decide how it fails.].
Again, Reichenbach’s argument from Existence finds no transcendent being can thus exist as Existence is all.
And transcendence contradicts omnipresence. so again, He cannot be transcendent and as immanent, He’d be no Creator as the Dwight arguments notes. Morgan’s Web again got a victim.
Again, no being or however you describe Him merits worship.
LikeLike