Did God Really Command Genocide?

Depends on Who You Ask

“Even if one thinks that they can defend this (divine violence) and live with such a belief, the social cost will be that many others will be repulsed by such a god and might question the sanity and compassion of one who follows such a god.” Charlie Trimm

Trimm’s analysis succinctly describes the case with christian authors Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan in their book entitled Did God Really Command Genocide?

Their attempts to let Yahweh off the hook for divinely commanded genocide produces numerous errors of reasoning and twisted justifications that would be obvious to anyone who doesn’t have a religious bias. At first, I decided that it would be too complicated to tackle their convoluted justifications, but then I came to chapter 15. And I had to speak out!

Walking a fine line

Copan and Flannagan are walking a very fine line. On one side, they are defending the belief that Yahweh is a perfectly good and loving god. On the other side, they are trying to reconcile the stories of Yahweh commanding the killing of innocent women and children. On one side they are defending biblical inerrancy. Yet, by staunchly defending biblical inerrancy they are faced with the position that their god is a monster. How they tiptoe that narrow line is the topic of this blog.

Chapter 15 of their book is entitled, Can One Coherently Claim That God Commanded the Killing of Innocents?

I was puzzled by the word “coherently” in the question. None of the dictionary synonyms I found seemed to make the meaning any clearer. However, I discovered the phrase “coherence of an argument” which is a term borrowed from philosophy. This is how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it.

• According to the coherence theory of justification, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes.”
• Coherence of the argument: identify when an argument is valid (i.e. that claims made adequately support the conclusions being drawn and are justifiable).
• Supporting evidence: evaluate the evidence being presented, and to establish its worth (in its own right, and when compared with other evidence).

I find it interesting that the authors have moved the discussion from the heart and soul of what it means to be human, (our conscience, and our sense of right and wrong) to the sterile intellectual arena of philosophy. This is something we’ve seen quite often in our critiquing of the authors of Answering the Music Man. Whenever they lack the evidence to prove whatever point they’re attempting to make, they turn to medieval philosophy. Let’s see how Copan and Flannagan use philosophy to defend the culpability of Yahweh for the killing of innocents.

Reading their book hurt my soul. Here’s why.

Calling Right Wrong and Wrong Right.

“If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ act. . . then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed.” C.S. Cowles

“The belief that it is wrong to kill innocent people is correct as a general rule, however…” Copan and Flannagan

They begin chapter 15 by quoting several authors (including both theists and atheists) who claim that the killing of innocents is a nonnegotiable wrong that violates “our existing moral beliefs”.

Biblical scholar and theologian C. S. Cowles writes:

“If the indiscriminate slaughter of human beings for any reason can be called a ‘good’ and ‘righteous’ act. . . then all moral and ethical absolutes are destroyed, all distinctions between, good and evil are rendered meaningless, and all claims about God’s love and compassion become cruel deceptions. It represents the ultimate corruption of human language and makes meaningful theological discourse virtually impossible.”

Old Testament scholar Eric Seibert makes a similar claim:

“If God’s standard of justice is so fundamentally different from ours that physical abuse and the slaughter of babies can be considered just, then it no longer seems possible to have meaningful conversation about what constitutes justice.”

Atheist philosopher Raymond Bradley asserts:

“For holy is as holy does. That is to say, if anyone at all is properly to be described as morally perfect, then their acts of commission, of command, and of permission, must also be morally perfect. To say that God is holy despite the evil nature of what he does would be to play with words: it would be to deprive the word ‘holy’ of its ordinary meaning and make it a synonym for evil.”

I whole heartedly agree with the above statements. Unfortunately, Copan and Flannagan do not. Using the philosophical concept of “coherence of the argument” they claim that all of the above statements are invalid. Just wait and see how they justify the killing of innocents.

Prepare to be shocked.

“The killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of supreme emergency”

Is the wrongness of killing innocent people a nonnegotiable belief?

For secularists, (and many believers as well), the answer to that question is YES, it is nonnegotiable. However, according to Copan and Flannagan the answer is NO. They write,

“The key question is not whether the wrongness of killing innocent people is one of our existing moral beliefs, but whether it is a nonnegotiable belief. On closer investigation, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable belief.”

Wait, what? There may be some christian readers of this blog who might think I have somehow twisted Copan and Flannagan’s words. I truly wish that were the case. But they continue their argument.

“Many ethicists contend that while the claim “it is wrong to kill innocent people” is correct as a general rule, it can be overridden in rare circumstances of supreme emergency. Hence, taken as a universal, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable principle.”

“The claim that in normal circumstances it is wrong to kill the innocent is central to our understanding of morality… (and is) a generally valid principle. However, “in highly extraordinary, unusual cases in the past has God commanded such killing.”

“Once this is realized, the arguments of Cowles, Seibert, and Bradley fail. These arguments assume that the claim that it is always wrong to kill the innocent is a nonnegotiable belief. But this is false.”

It took several readings of this reasoning for it to sink in. The killing of innocent women and children is “as a general rule” wrong, but if God commands the killing, then it’s okay.

For the record, that’s not okay!

Copan and Flannagan also quote the teachings of spiritual teacher Robert Adams who makes the point that,

“God is essentially good: he possesses certain virtues such as being loving, just, truthful, benevolent, gracious, merciful, and so on. God’s possession of these traits means that it is not possible for him to command… the rape, torture (or murder) of children.”

Copan and Flannagan take issue with Adams by saying that he “is wrong because, our moral judgments can be fallible. While God does not command wrongdoing, it is likely* that a perfectly good, omniscient being would command something contrary to what we think is wrong. To say otherwise dogmatically assumes we are such good judges of morality that God could never disagree with us.”

Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of “supreme emergency”.

So, if we believe that the rape, torture (or murder) of children is wrong, our judgement can be fallible. If a perfectly good God, who does not command wrongdoing, chooses to command the rape, torture, and murder of children, then who are we as mere humans, to question the morality of such a loving God? So, according to Copan and Flannagan, Adams’ argument is invalid.

Self-proclaimed progressively evangelical (if that’s even possible) Randal Rauser offers an argument in favor of an absolute prohibition against killing innocents, saying that “adopting an absolute rule against killing the innocent actually would have better results morally than allowing for an exception based on supremely divine emergency.”

Some christian philosophers have argued that humans have the pervasive tendency to rationalize and be tempted to apply such an exception when it is not legitimate. Australian/American philosopher, Alan Donegan who is known for his theories on the nature of morality, argues that “when we allow for an ‘escape clause’ to traditional morality, nearly everyone’s moral judgment will be clouded in the heat or tension of the moment, and it is probable that much of what is done on the ground of such escape clauses will be mistaken.”

Copan and Flannagan don’t agree with this argument either. They write, “We have considerable sympathy with this argument, however…” and this is their argument, humans can make mistakes in judgement, but God cannot. Therefore, we should trust God’s ability to make exceptions for the killing of innocent women and children, because God knows best.

Geez!!!

From a secularist’s viewpoint

While christian apologists are struggling to justify this divinely given “escape clause”, it should be noted that atheists and secularist do not have an “escape clause”.

Therefore:

• The wrongness of killing innocents is a nonnegotiable principle that cannot be overridden by some god or by someone who claims to hear the voice of God. Period!
• There was no (and is no) “escape clause” issued by an omniscient being that allows for the killing of innocent women and children. Period!

Trimm was correct,

Trimm’s conclusion (as found in the opening paragraph) is correct about Copan and Flannagan. They may believe that they have successfully defended the divinely commanded genocide as found in the Old Testament, and maybe they can even live with such a belief. But those of us with a conscience are repulsed by their arguments. I certainly question their sanity and compassion. And I am also astonished that they can profess to follow and defend such an immoral god.

That is why the writings of Copan and Flannagan hurt my soul.

After note: From where I stand.

*I find it curious that Copan and Flannagan used the phrase “it is likely” or as the dictionary says, “it has a high probability of occurring” as in “it’s likely to rain this afternoon.” So, it’s a bit odd that they would say that “it is likely that a perfectly good being (who does not command wrongdoing) would command something contrary to what we think is wrong”, such as the slaughter of innocent women and children. Their admission that “on rare or highly unusual occasions” Yahweh allows exceptions to a general rule against killing innocents, sends up a red flag for secularists like me.

Is it “likely” that we can expect more of this kind of morally questionable behavior from Yahweh and his followers? Many christians are eagerly awaiting the second coming of Jesus. In that highly anticipated time, all the enemies of God, (meaning nonbelievers) will be eliminated and only the believers will survive. It’s not clear who exactly will be doing the eliminating, but if it’s anything like the stories in the Old Testament, men will be doing the dirty work for God. With this in mind, Copan and Flannagan’s conclusion that the killing of innocents is not a nonnegotiable belief is disturbing and quite alarming.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum