This is a question I received and my response.
QUESTION-
"As I understand it, you are a defender of the Divine Command Theory,
that is, the idea that morality comes from what God commands. I heard an
argument against said theory that I can't seem to get around. I would
like to
know your thoughts. The argument stems from the fact that there are
verse in the Bible where god commands evil things. For example, in
Deuteronomy chapter 13 verses 13-16 he says "that troublemakers have
arisen among you and have led the people of their town
astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not
known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And
if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been
done among you, you must certainly put to
the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,
both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of
the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the
town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering
to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be
rebuilt" In that verse, God commands the slaughter and total destruction
of a town because they do not believe in God, and he says to do this
"as a... offering to the Lord" This verse as
well as other verses would certainly offend our moral sensibilities. The
argument, then, is that because of this verse and others like it you
can not get morality from the Bible. Let me explain. When confronted
with this kind of verse, one has two options.
One is that that kind of verse is not an expression of God's will, and
one that it is. If we go with the former option, that it isn't an expression of God's will, then it's impossible to extract any value
from the Bible as a moral document because we are simply choosing which verses are God's will and which aren't subjectively, and
if we can do that the Bible stops being morally useful. What is stopping
someone from using only the Bible verse we think of as evil and constructing a moral theory around that. If we still
want to hold on to the idea that morality comes from the Bible, one must
say that the verse I cited and others like it are an expression of
God's will. That leaves us with two more options, either that the verse I
cited and others like it are moral, and that
they are not moral. If we choose the former option, then we are
degrading the entire concept of morality into simply what God commands.
God could command anything and it would still be moral under this view,
thus making the entire concept meaningless. If we
choose the latter option, than what good is a moral theory if it produce
immoral outcomes? Why would any chose to get their morality from said
source? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the argument. It seems
inescapable to me, but I don't know if I'm missing
something. Thanks! Sincerely, -Matt"
RESPONSE-
Matthew,
this is a good question and one which Dr. William Lane Craig deals with extensively.
I will include a couple of reference links at the end of my answer for
your further consideration. To begin let's review the Divine Command
theory basis for morality to make sure we are on a level set regarding
the claim. On Divine Command theory, moral values are derived from the
*nature* of God who, as the greatest conceivable being, is the sum,
definition, and ground of all moral values. By this, we mean that our
values regarding good and evil, right and wrong, are derived from and
grounded in, God's very nature. Moral duties refer to our obligations to
act and behave in ways consistent with our moral values. These duties
are derived from the commands of God, that in turn are grounded in and
flow from his nature. So, in summary, our moral values are grounded in
God's nature and our moral duties are derived from God's commands, and
God's commands are grounded in and flow from his nature.
From
that understanding of Divine Command theory, we can draw one important
conclusion that is relevant to your question. Namely, that God cannot
command something inconsistent with his nature, otherwise he would cease
to be the greatest conceivable being and the supreme good thus
undermining his own essential nature. Therefore, God's commands are
consistent with his nature. So if we properly understand his commands we
can be assured that those commands are consistent with his nature as
the supreme good and ground of our moral values. But, clearly, this does
not mean that your or my, or any other particular person's sense of
what is moral, will agree with God's definition! When we consider a
command that God gives, such as the command found in Deuteronomy
you referenced in your question, we should rightly ask, "Is this a true
and accurate representation of God's command?" If it is a true
representation of God's command, then it is morally right whether you
agree with it or not! That is the essence of the Divine Command theory.
God is the definition of morality and from his character/nature, he
commands. We are imperfect, limited, conflicted, and impure in our
natures and understanding thus a very flawed moral agent. But as you
noted this leaves us with some interesting, perhaps troubling, options
in the face of such commands that offend our moral sensibilities. But my
point here is to remember our moral sensibilities are flawed and
corrupt! They exist, as reflections of our Creator and definition of
moral values and duties to be sure, but our sensibilities are by
definition *ours* and therefore limited and flawed.
Remembering
the above, let's tackle the potentially troubling options you mention.
It is certainly possible that the Bible is not presenting a true and
accurate representation of God's command. But, as you note that would
certainly open up some difficulties hermeneutically. But those
difficulties can be addressed by proper hermeneutic principles and
techniques to include textual criticism, for example, that might enable
us to determine the passage in question had been corrupted over time.
Manuscript evidence might show an alternate reading that resolves or
relieves some of the issues. These types of tools are required to get an
accurate reading and understanding of the text throughout scripture so
this is not any form of "special pleading" it is simply the appropriate
way to handle any ancient text in order to derive an accurate reading
and understanding of the text. But, this is not our only option
regarding the reading of the text. The text may be giving a perfectly
true and accurate recounting of God's command but simply not providing
all of the background details that would put the command in an adequate
context for a modern reader to properly understand. This I believe to be
the case in the passage you mentioned and the other similar passages to
which you allude. This explanation assumes that there are adequate
reasons and context details that would make a command to kill people
morally acceptable. Dr. Craig deals with this in his explanation
regarding the "slaughter of the Canaanites" to which I include a
reference at the end of my answer. For example, would we consider it
morally just to kill another human being to defend ourselves or a loved
one? Would we consider it morally right, to kill in the case where an
enraged man was beating a baby and the only way to save the baby was to
kill the man? Was killing justifiable to stop the Nazis? It is clear
that, given sufficient justifying details of context, the act of killing
other humans can be morally justifiable. Therefore, the command from
God to kill could certainly be justifiable. Consider further that God is
omniscient. As much as you or I might know about a situation, God knows
*all* about a situation! He not only knows all current facts but also
knows the hearts of each individual completely. He also knows what free
choices each person would make given any future situation (middle
knowledge) and what future situations those people will encounter, and
he knows all this perfectly. So, if God is the very definition of
goodness, mercy, justice, love, etc then when he commands he is
commanding in perfect consistency with those attributes of his nature,
and he is commanding with the perfect knowledge of the entire context.
While we cannot possibly have the full context in a few verses of
scripture, God has absolutely perfect knowledge of the context and of
all hearts and minds involved.
In
light of the above, we do not have to choose between, God is giving
immoral commands, or scripture is flawed in its representation of God's
commands. Rather, scripture is providing an accurate, but necessarily
limited, description of the context in which the Divine command is
given. Were we to know and understand *all* factors that God knows, we
would find sufficient justification for the command to be morally
acceptable. Now, to refer back to a previous point, that does not mean
you will agree! As we both know, there are people who would say there is
never any justification to kill another human being. They believe
capital punishment is immoral. They believe self-defense is immoral. But
that is their subjective moral position that is clearly not in
alignment with God's revealed nature and commands. His justice and even
mercy dictate that in certain cases it is justifiable to kill.
Individual human beings can have their moral sensibilities troubled by
the perfect moral nature of God!
Hopefully,
this helps Matthew. Please see the two below references for what Dr. Craig has to say about these issues. God bless you!
In
the forums, there has been some good questions raised on the issue of
God commanding the Jews to commit “genocide” on the people in the
promise land. As you have pointed out in some of your written work that
this act does not fit with the Western concept of God being the big
sugar daddy in the sky. Now we can certainly find justification for
those people coming under God judgement ... www.reasonablefaith.org |
Hi
Dr Craig, I just wanted to start my question off by assuring you of
just how revered and appreciated you and your work is in the UK. Your
work is considered of the utmost standard by those of us living across
the pond! Recently there has been rather a lot of online hullabaloo
regarding a new series of videos on morality (in which the presenter
frequently cites your moral argument) by the ... www.reasonablefaith.org |
