Dan Barker and the Immoral God of the Bible

Steve Lewis

Steven Lewis has an MA in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion from Southern Evangelical Seminary. His passion is in learning and teaching about God—particularly in the field of Christian Apologetics with a focus on the Problem of Evil.

 

What theists lack in logic (or in this case morality) they make up for in length.

Barker’s quote contains 17 words. Lewis’s reply contains a whopping 8,800 words.

_____________________________________________

If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.

Dan Barker

Lewis begins his rebuttal like this,

A common jab often lobbed at the God of Christianity is that of the alleged immorality of the Bible. The purpose of such arguments, of course, is not to prove that God does not exist, or even that the Bible is false, but rather to show that God (as portrayed in the Bible) is not the holy, loving, forgiving Father believers assume, but he is instead evil, hateful, petty, prideful, vindictive, and a host of other horrifying descriptors.

This is what atheists have to say about the god of the bible.

Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Barker: God is “pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse hurling, vaccicidal, aborticidal, cannibalistic, and slavemongering. The God of the Old Testament destroyed whole civilizations. He drowned the entire population of the planet. He is not the only bad egg in literature, but he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.”

Shermer: “The Bible is one of the most immoral works in all literature.”

Mackie: “The Old Testament itself reports many atrocities as having been not merely approved but positively demanded by God and his spokesmen.”

Lewis responds,

Before engaging and rebutting such claims, however, one must first consider the underlying assumptions and methodology that lead to these conclusions in the first place. However, this is not how believers typically go about establishing the “moral worth” of the Bible.

We have seen this argument in other examinations of the authors of Answering the Music Man. Ferrer gave us a different definition for atheism, Keltz, a different view of faith, and now Lewis is telling us that christians have a different way of viewing the “moral worth” of the bible. What a surprise! This should be interesting!

Lewis uses a large bulk of his 8,800 words building his case against Barker. It’s important to note here that Lewis is not actually addressing atheists in his rebuttal. His audience are believers who might be influenced by Barker’s accusations of a nefarious god.

He first asks his readers to presume the actual existence of God. Second, he states that God is perfectly good and moral. Third he insists that the bible (being God’s revelation to mankind) is the basis for all moral authority. After proposing these three ideas (without any supporting evidence) he is able to justify any atrocity found in the bible based on the “contextual justifications” within the bible.

In this blog we’ll look at Lewis’s reasoning for justifying the disturbing passages in the bible and in the next blog we’ll look at the actual problematic passages.

The consideration of the existence of God.

Lewis writes,

The focus of this chapter (in Answering the Music Man) is not whether or not God exists, but whether the God of the Bible is guilty of Barker’s accusations of immorality. If the context of Barker’s claims is that God is fiction, then discussing “God’s immorality” is nothing more than meaningless conjecture with no basis in reality. The proper context of the Bible includes the fact that God exists as creator and sustainer of the universe. Thus, in order to make any meaningful case at all, Barker must presume that the God of the Bible truly does exist.

Sorry Lewis, God’s existence is not a fact.  In addition, Barker and other atheists are simply saying that those who call themselves believers should realize that the deity of the bible is a nefarious character and perhaps, unworthy of being worshiped.

But as we have seen, Barker is not writing to like-minded atheists- he is writing to theists who believe that God exists. Thus, in order to make any meaningful case at all, Barker must presume that the God of the Bible truly does exist (even if just for the sake of argument) and then attempt to demonstrate a contradiction given that assumption. This is the only reasonable option for Barker if he wishes to avoid self-defeating circularity or pointless conjecture.

It’s a curious conjecture on Lewis’s part to say that if Barker doesn’t acknowledge the existence of God, his comments calling the god of the bible nefarious are “meaningless with no basis in reality”. (Although much of what Lewis says also has no basis in reality.) Yet, if Barker were to acknowledge the existence of God, his comments now become “self-defeating” and “pointless”. Talk about circularity!

According to Lewis, Barker has failed to consider…

God’s moral goodness and moral perfection.

Lewis: Furthermore, another problem for Barker is that of the nature of God. Even if Barker… presumes God’s existence, he still must consider God’s nature as described in the Bible in order to fairly and accurately evaluate God’s acts and commands.

So, what is God’s nature as described in the bible?

For the purposes of this chapter, I will simply assume that God is the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good creator and sustainer of the universe that the Bible claims him to be. God is also said to be righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering, and so on. This view is consistent both with the biblical view of God and with over two millennia of theological scholarship, so it seems to be a fair place to start when evaluating the sort of being Barker is referencing.

It’s obvious that Lewis does not understand that atheists have very little regard for the “biblical view of God” or in “two millennia of theological scholarship”. Atheists would ask, “First, how do we know God actually exists, and second, how do we know that God is perfectly good, righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, and longsuffering?”

Barker writes,

“Why do believers assume that a higher power is necessarily a more moral power? How do they know it is not the other way around?”

Lewis does not accept that Barker’s personal sense of morality is a valid way to judge the problematic passages in the bible. According to Lewis, Barker is refusing to accept…

The moral authority of the bible.

Lewis: A better approach is to begin… by first establishing (or assuming for the sake of argument) the basic truth claims of theism as well as the historicity and reliability of the Bible.

Let’s not forget that the “basic truth claims of theism” and the “reliability of the bible” are very much in question here. Obviously, Lewis is not attempting to better Barker in a debate. In a face-to-face debate with an atheist, Lewis would never be able to start with such a statement without it being immediately questioned. This logic would never convince an atheist, but of course, atheists are not Lewis’s audience.

Lewis writes,

The Bible is understood as the authoritative word of God, and, hence, its own “moral worth” should be evaluated by its own standard of morality. In other words, rather than evaluating ancient documents according to modern moral sensibilities, a better way to evaluate the truth of the Bible is by starting with the Bible itself and working backwards from there.

By “modern moral sensibilities” does he mean that civilization no longer accepts slavery or genocide as morally acceptable? According to Lewis, rather than relying on our own morality, we should get our morality from the bible.

Lewis: But if Barker draws his morality only from his own internal perceptions, then he has lost his case against God. However, Barker believes his own morality is superior to God’s.

If the god of the bible supports slavery and demands genocide then, YES, Barker’s morality IS superior.

Lewis: We must consider the nature of God. If God is in fact the perfect creator of humanity and morality, Therefore, God would always by necessity be the greater moral authority.

So, if we presume 1) that God actually exists, 2) that God is perfectly good, 3) that the bible is the authoritative word of God, and 4) the bible is the highest moral authority, then we now have the means to justify any problematic passages in the bible because of the…

Contextual justifications within the Bible.

Barker rejects centuries of biblical and theological scholarship that help us to understand and contextualize many of the problematic passages that constitute his arguments. Given this understanding of the God of Bible, the task of evaluating difficult passages must be taken from the context of the whole, including these claims… about God being righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering.

Indeed, there are (many) problematic passages in the bible, but according to Lewis there exists “centuries of biblical and theological scholarship” that helps christians to “understand” (i.e. justify) those morally problematic passages.

The bible says that God is righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering. Atheists, who do not accept the reliability of the bible, would also not accept what the bible says about God’s attributes.

Lewis: The central thesis for Barker is one of morality — that God somehow fails to live up to basic moral sensibilities that are obvious to most humans.

Yes!! Exactly!

Lewis: The focus here is in what sense God can be said to be a “moral being” beholden to the moral principles Barker appeals for his arguments. For Barker, God must answer to his apparent violations of Barker’s moral code, but where does Barker get his moral code?

As we have already seen above, Barker goes to great lengths to deny any need for external authority when it comes to determining morality. But if Barker draws his morality only from his own internal perceptions, then he has lost his case against God.

We must consider the nature of God. If God is in fact the perfect creator of humanity and morality, then the very internal sense of morality that Barker perceives in his own mind ultimately has its origin in God’s own nature and goodness. Therefore, God would always by necessity be the greater moral authority.”

Lewis’s argument here is that Barker’s morality “ultimately comes from God. This reasoning comes from Aquinas’s Five Ways to Prove God. The fourth proof “deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.”

Lewis is implying that Barker actually gets his “goodness” and “morality” from God by default. Having been an evangelical myself, I can tell you that Lewis simply cannot fathom that an atheist can be good or moral without God. But as many secularists will tell you, it is not only possible, it is likely that secularists have a more developed sense of morality than do believers. (See Zuckerman’s article Atheism, Secularity and Well Being for more on this.)

Lewis’s article is a prime example that many believers mistakenly rely on the bible to provide them with their morality, and therefore, quite often exhibit a skewed sense of morality, as we shall see next in the next blog.

Coming next:

Even when the actions of the god of the bible are nefariously atrocious, christians can justify them because the bible (and Lewis) tell us that God is benevolent, loving and merciful. Therefore, anything done in the name of God (including slavery, misogyny, homophobia and genocide) can also be viewed as acts of benevolence, love and mercy. If you think the problematic passages in the bible are disturbing, wait until you read how christians justify them.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net