http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
Exodus 21:20 - 21 (you can beat your slaves, provided they survive for a day following the beating)
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Leviticus 24:11 - 14 (death by stoning for blasphemy)
And the Israealitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: ...
And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let ALL the CONGREGATION STONE him.
Leviticus 24:16 (reiterating, death by stoning for blasphemy)
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be PUT TO DEATH, and all the congregation shall certainly STONE HIM: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be PUT TO DEATH.
Deuteronomy 7:1 - 2 (genocide)
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and UTTERLY DESTROY them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, NOR shew mercy unto them:
Deuteronomy 7:16 (more genocide)
And thou shalt CONSUME ALL THE PEOPLE which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have NO PITY upon them : neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21 (death by stoning for wives who are not virgins prior to marriage)
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the DAMSEL'S VIRGINITY unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
But if this thing be TRUE, and the TOKENS of VIRGINITY be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall STONE HER with stones THAT SHE DIE: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Mark 4:10 - 12 (the Bible is deliberately confusing to maximize the number of 'unforgiven')
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Luke 19:27 (kill unbelievers)
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM before me.
Ephesians 6:5 (slaves should obey their masters)
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
1 Timothy 6:1 - 2 (slaves should honor their masters)
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
Such passages (among many others) prompted Thomas Paine to write 'The Age of Reason' in 1794, as a challenge to the legitimacy of the Christian Bible. Here is a brief summary of Paine's view of the Bible —
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147a/part1.html
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.
— Thomas Paine, 'The Age of Reason'
Because so much of the Bible is so blatantly at odds with any even simple conception of justice and decency, and because pointless death and destruction are a feature of human existence, statements regarding theodicy are commonplace among religious believers.
'Theodicy' is generally defined as a defense of the benevolence and omnipotence of God, given the existence of evil. Supposedly, G.W. Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' back in the early 1700's, in his work 'Essays of theodicy on the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the origin of evil'.
The problem of evil is typically stated something like this —
If God is not aware of the existence of evil, then God is not omniscient.The essays Leibniz wrote on theodicy are essentially a long winded collection of fallacies — mainly begging the question, and the argument from ignorance. Ultimately, Leibniz simply assumes something called 'God' is perfect, and that no human critic can ever have the knowledge required to make valid judgments regarding the nature of existence — of course, this is also obviously self-contradictory, since if it is impossible for man to have the knowledge required to call a God's work evil, then it also impossible for man to have the knowledge required to call a God's work good.
If God is aware of the existence of evil, but cannot stop it, then God is not omnipotent.
If God is aware of the existence of evil and able to stop it, but chooses not to, then God is not benevolent.
That is, if man does not have the knowledge required to judge a God's work as evil, on what basis can any human being call a God's work good? Compared to what? Leibniz assumes all negative evaluations of God must be invalid from ignorance, and so nothing can be called evil, and he then proceeds to make his own evaluation, as if he alone is somehow in possession of the required knowledge.
Here is just one example from 'Essays of theodicy on the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the origin of evil' where Leibniz uses this approach --
https://ia601400.us.archive.org/29/items/theodicy17147gut/17147-h/17147-h.htm
https://ia601400.us.archive.org/29/items/theodicy17147gut/17147-h/17147-h.htm#page248
...
194. Yet philosophers and theologians dare to support dogmatically such a belief; and I have many times wondered that gifted and pious persons should have been capable of setting bounds to the goodness and the perfection of God. For to assert that he knows what is best, that he can do it and that he does it not, is to avow that it rested with his will only to make the world better than it is; but that is what one calls lacking goodness. It is acting against that axiom already quoted: Minus bonum habet rationem mali. If some adduce experience to prove that God could have done better, they set themselves up as ridiculous critics of his works. To such will be given the answer given to all those who criticize God's course of action, and who from this same assumption, that is, the alleged defects of the world, would infer that there is an evil God, or at least a God neutral between good and evil. And if we hold the same opinion as King Alfonso, we shall, I say, receive this answer: You have known the world only since the day before yesterday, you see scarce farther than your nose, and you carp at the world. Wait until you know more of the world and consider therein especially the parts which present a complete whole (as do organic bodies); and you will find there a contrivance and a beauty transcending all imagination. Let us thence draw conclusions as to the wisdom and the goodness of the author of things, even in things that we know not. We find in the universe some things which are not pleasing to us; but let us be aware that it is not made for us alone. It is nevertheless made for us if we are wise: it will serve us if we use it for our service; we shall be happy in it if we wish to be.
...
194. Yet philosophers and theologians dare to support dogmatically such a belief; and I have many times wondered that gifted and pious persons should have been capable of setting bounds to the goodness and the perfection of God. For to assert that he knows what is best, that he can do it and that he does it not, is to avow that it rested with his will only to make the world better than it is; but that is what one calls lacking goodness. It is acting against that axiom already quoted: Minus bonum habet rationem mali. If some adduce experience to prove that God could have done better, they set themselves up as ridiculous critics of his works. To such will be given the answer given to all those who criticize God's course of action, and who from this same assumption, that is, the alleged defects of the world, would infer that there is an evil God, or at least a God neutral between good and evil. And if we hold the same opinion as King Alfonso, we shall, I say, receive this answer: You have known the world only since the day before yesterday, you see scarce farther than your nose, and you carp at the world. Wait until you know more of the world and consider therein especially the parts which present a complete whole (as do organic bodies); and you will find there a contrivance and a beauty transcending all imagination. Let us thence draw conclusions as to the wisdom and the goodness of the author of things, even in things that we know not. We find in the universe some things which are not pleasing to us; but let us be aware that it is not made for us alone. It is nevertheless made for us if we are wise: it will serve us if we use it for our service; we shall be happy in it if we wish to be.
...
After every natural disaster, similar rationalizations can be found in print or online, which attempt to reconcile the notion of a benevolent God with pointless widespread suffering.
It is obvious why — such pointless suffering is devastating to the notion of a benevolent God. Any sane person, who fully comprehends the implications of the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient creator, should find it incredibly disturbing to actually be confronted with hard evidence that such a being exists — since the inescapable conclusion from such a being actually existing is that the universe is malevolent.
That is, if an omnipotent being actually created the universe, then the death and destruction that are a normal part of human existence were created deliberately, by design. This conclusion follows by necessity from the common claim that 'God' is 'all-powerful' and 'designed' the universe. To the degree that this is true, murder, rape, torture, genocide, plagues, natural disasters, etc., are all deliberately chosen outcomes of the designer.
Some religious believers attempt to escape this obviously devastating conclusion by claiming that even though God designed and created the universe and man, the universe is like a 'clockwork' and man has 'free will', and so God does not control, and, therefore, is not responsible for specific individual events.
But adding this indirection does nothing to escape the conclusion that the universe is malevolent, if it were designed — since God could have just as easily designed both the 'clockwork' universe and man's 'free will' to eliminate the suffering that is so commonplace.
For comparison, consider this example: If someone were to build a machine gun, and rig it up in a normally crowded public place with the trigger controlled by a barometer, such that the gun would fire in random directions whenever the barometric pressure was above or below certain values, no reasonable person would consider that person 'not responsible' for the deaths that ensued, because the machine gun is a clockwork and no one controls the weather. That individual created the conditions which ultimately made death an inevitability, and so they are responsible for any deaths caused by their clockwork, even given that they did not pick specific victims. And so if God is responsible for creation, then God is responsible for the nature of all existence, including the outcomes determined by that nature — since it is God's design.
But the responsibility of God is even greater, given the commonly held view that God is 'all-knowing' (omniscient) — which means that God selects all outcomes. If this were not the case, God could not be called omniscient, since the future must be determined for it to be known in advance.
This is where it really gets nasty. Consider the disease 'acute lymphoblastic leukemia', which is most common in childhood, and is supposedly the second most common form of cancer in infants under the age of 12 months. If you are fully convinced that there is an omnipotent and omniscient God, then the following conclusion is inescapable: God not only selected, but created particular children specifically for torture.
For more details on God's propensity for killing children, see Gregory S. Paul's study entitled 'Theodicy’s Problem: A Statistical Look at the Holocaust of the Children and the Implications of Natural Evil for the Free Will and Best of All Possible Worlds Hypotheses'. Paul estimates that only a small fraction of female pregnancies lead to a mature adult —
http://www.gspauldino.com/Philosophy&Theology.pdf
http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/gsptecharticles.html
...
Microbial diseases are easily the leading cause of death among children. Malaria has probably killed more youngsters than any other single cause, perhaps 20 billion (Finkel 2007). Other top infectious diseases include smallpox, typhoid, plaque, scarlet fever, yellow fever, cholera, influenza, rubella, tetanus, and rabies. The situation is so acute that a microbial war is being waged upon immature humans (Barnes 2005; Demeny and McNicoll 2003). Because their immune systems are immature, infants and children are exceptionally susceptible to being infected and killed; only the elderly are comparably defenseless. In general, diseases kill their victims—who usually remain conscious during much of the symptomatic period and death process—over an extended period of time ranging from days to years, and with extreme levels of discomfort ranging up to the highest levels of agony. Fear of death often adds to the mental distress. For 99.9 percent of history, adults have lacked the basic knowledge base to take steps—some relatively uncomplicated, such as sanitation, including water sterilization—to protect their offspring. Serious birth defects, some physical deformities, others less obvious, such as cystic fibrosis, afflict about one in sixteen children; they are often so severe that they lead to early death. Over all, childhood diseases have undoubtedly killed tens of billions.
...
Summary of Statistical Results
If a creator exists, then it has chosen to fashion a habitat that has maximized the level of suffering and death among young humans that are due to factors beyond the control of humans over most of their history. As a consequence, only a small fraction of conceptions have reached the age of majority. The number of unborn and children who have died due to natural causes is literally thousands of times larger than those killed by the actions of human dictators. There is no convincing evidence that a creator has favored any particular population, Christian or otherwise, over others during human history in terms of their natural levels of mortality. Requesting aid from the creator has not been effective despite the tremendous scale of the attempt.
...
Microbial diseases are easily the leading cause of death among children. Malaria has probably killed more youngsters than any other single cause, perhaps 20 billion (Finkel 2007). Other top infectious diseases include smallpox, typhoid, plaque, scarlet fever, yellow fever, cholera, influenza, rubella, tetanus, and rabies. The situation is so acute that a microbial war is being waged upon immature humans (Barnes 2005; Demeny and McNicoll 2003). Because their immune systems are immature, infants and children are exceptionally susceptible to being infected and killed; only the elderly are comparably defenseless. In general, diseases kill their victims—who usually remain conscious during much of the symptomatic period and death process—over an extended period of time ranging from days to years, and with extreme levels of discomfort ranging up to the highest levels of agony. Fear of death often adds to the mental distress. For 99.9 percent of history, adults have lacked the basic knowledge base to take steps—some relatively uncomplicated, such as sanitation, including water sterilization—to protect their offspring. Serious birth defects, some physical deformities, others less obvious, such as cystic fibrosis, afflict about one in sixteen children; they are often so severe that they lead to early death. Over all, childhood diseases have undoubtedly killed tens of billions.
...
Summary of Statistical Results
If a creator exists, then it has chosen to fashion a habitat that has maximized the level of suffering and death among young humans that are due to factors beyond the control of humans over most of their history. As a consequence, only a small fraction of conceptions have reached the age of majority. The number of unborn and children who have died due to natural causes is literally thousands of times larger than those killed by the actions of human dictators. There is no convincing evidence that a creator has favored any particular population, Christian or otherwise, over others during human history in terms of their natural levels of mortality. Requesting aid from the creator has not been effective despite the tremendous scale of the attempt.
...
It would be perversely fascinating to hear anyone who would rationalize God's supposed benevolence like Leibniz, explain how a dying infant could possibly be part of some larger good.
It is impossible to avoid this obvious consequence of the commonly held belief in God — if God is omnipotent, God is responsible for the existence of all disease, and if God is omniscient, God has determined who will be infected, who will suffer the most, and who will be cured — if any. Keep this in mind the next time you are suffering for any reason — since an omnipotent God must control all suffering, that God has deliberately singled you out.
Religious believers can't have it both ways. The commonplace description of 'God' is self-contradictory, just as the phrases 'a square circle' and 'a married bachelor' are self-contradictory — it is impossible for any of these things to actually exist, since they have mutually exclusive contradictory characteristics. If a God actually created all of existence, then that God is either somewhat ignorant or impotent — or malevolent. To argue otherwise, one is forced to engage in sloppy sophistry in the style of Leibniz, where all human misery magically becomes inscrutable, and, by necessity, evil does not exist.
For myself, I find it comforting that there is no hard evidence to demonstrate the existence of a supreme being, precisely because if the universe were actually designed by a supreme being, then that supreme being would be a horrible monster.
No comments:
Post a Comment