The Relativity of Biblical Ethics
In spite of appearances to the contrary, I am still interested in the cross-blog discussion with the Sophia blog regarding ethics and the moral argument for God’s existence. I have yet to find the time to author a full response, but I have been doing quite a lot of reading. Little of it, however, has been on the web, except for a few articles recently read.
Here is one that provides some interesting counterpoint to the Sophia blog’s perspective:
Here is one that provides some interesting counterpoint to the Sophia blog’s perspective:
The Relativity of Biblical Ethics by Joe Edward Barnhard
Labels:
Christianity,
God
2 comments:
Hey Z, thanks for emailing me about your new post. I've been busy and have not been able to post as much as I would have liked. I read the article you linked to and while I do not currently have sufficient time to respond to the entire article, I will make a quick response.
Unfortunately, Barnhard only offered these two options to the question of whether things are good because God commands them or God commands things that are good. This problem even Plato wrestled with. Yet, there is a third option. God commands those things which are according to His nature. Another words, God's own nature sets the guidelines for right and wrong. The Bible repeatedly states, "Be holy for I am holy". In fact, when one ponders this third alternative more, it begins to make sense. I makes sense that the Origen of all things, including right and wrong, would have Himself as the standard for which things are judged as right and wrong. We are to be good, because He is good. We are to be pure, because He is pure. The two options given are two extremes to the third. The things God commands are good because the things He commands are in accordance to His nature. How could He command anything else?
Barnhard goes on to provide "examples" of where the Bible displays relativism. However, the examples he quotes are not at all conclusive and could be explained. For example, the issue with the foriegn wives in Ezra was that these wives were not God worships but rather idol worshipers. This is not the case with Ruth, who said, "Your God will be my God."
Bernhad also fails to mentions the many more examples in the Bible which clearly state that there things which are absolutely wrong. Rape, incest, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, idolatry, and so on.
In the case of Joshua and the killing of the many in the Promise land, I admit, that is a difficult issue because you can not discuss the issue purely on intellect: emotions also are included. How could God command the killing of thousands and even the killing of children, women, and pregnant women?! As soon as this is asked, emotions are our first feelings. To be honest, any answer, no matter how wise and correct, would never remove the emotional hurt and confusion we would feel. I could point to the fact these people themselves were committing acts which were opposite to the nature of God. I could highlight that many were burning children to gods they built. I could state that it was for the greater good of man's salvation God did it. I could show that the prior inhabitats had the option to leave peacefully. I could compare their situation to modern ones where we forcefully overthrow governments who commit horrible acts. And ther are still more things which would be note worthy to make better sense of the situation, but it would still feel wrong. Even God states that He has no delight in the death of the wicked.
With that said, let me make one last final point of moral relativism. What could morals be relative to? If they are relative to anything, then there is a standard. A relativist can not point to the many "gray" issues which may arise as proof of moral relativism because even with something as absolute as the US Constitution, there still exists "gray" areas. In fact, these gray areas are more of a proof to a black and white rather than to no black or white at all.
I could say more and, indeed, much more should be said. Yet, I find myself stretched by time and I must leave it there.
Thanks again for emailing me. Hope you and your family are doing well.
Pablo
Pablo – I disagree with you here, but, as tone is difficult to read over the Internet, let me say that I do so in the spirit of conversation, not flaming.
>>God commands those things which are according to His nature. Another words, God's own nature sets the guidelines for right and wrong. … The things God commands are good because the things He commands are in accordance to His nature.
This, which was Thomas Aquinas’ answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, does not represent a third option. It’s just a play on words. The question remains: is something good because it is part of God’s nature, or is it part of God’s nature because it is already good? Still only two options.
>> the examples he quotes are not at all conclusive and could be explained.
They can be explained according to situational ethics, which was Barnhard’s whole point. They do not follow the "examples in the Bible which clearly state that there things which are absolutely wrong." They violate those commands.
>> that is a difficult issue because you can not discuss the issue purely on intellect: emotions also are included. How could God command the killing of thousands and even the killing of children, women, and pregnant women?!
… and sanction rape … (Numbers 31:7-18)
>> these people themselves were committing acts which were opposite to the nature of God.
See above; I don’t think you’ve solved the problem of God’s nature yet.
>> I could state that it was for the greater good of man's salvation God did it.
This is situational ethics! It is right to murder innocents for the "greater good!"
>> I could show that the prior inhabitats had the option to leave peacefully.
And die in the wilderness? Is that a peaceful exit from their perspective?
>> I could compare their situation to modern ones where we forcefully overthrow governments who commit horrible acts.
No, you could compare this more accurately to Hitler’s attempt to take over all of Europe by giving the option of "peaceful" surrender or total annihilation. This is an example of "I’m fighting you to take your stuff and live in your house."
>> Even God states that He has no delight in the death of the wicked.
In the right situation.
>> What could morals be relative to? If they are relative to anything, then there is a standard.
I agree that the agnostic or atheist (I am the former) has a big philosophical challenge ahead in providing a basis for absolute morality. Without describing this basis fully, let me make two assertions. First, absolute morality without God is not a proven impossibility. And second, do not think that non-theistic ethicists are all moral relativists. Too many Christians make this assumption, then beat up the straw man by asking questions like "Are there absolutely no absolutes?" If you read the works of non-theistic philosophers, they are well aware of these contradictions, and they seek a non-theistic basis for absolute morality.
To completely address this, I’ll have to write the essay I’ve been promising. ;)
Post a Comment