tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post3913857733747718094..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: Hector Avalos on the Canaanite GenocideKen Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-43101240002488767922023-01-15T13:22:08.499-05:002023-01-15T13:22:08.499-05:00A collection of atheist and Christian words of &qu...A collection of atheist and Christian words of "wisdom"Niv sakouryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05450158873520376330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-47204995757750831002010-03-28T10:28:44.536-04:002010-03-28T10:28:44.536-04:00Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,
Thanks for that forthright...Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,<br />Thanks for that forthright answer. If I follow your logic, may I assume you also think God was wrong to command the killing of infants in 1 Samuel 15:1-3?<br /><br />[1] And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD.<br />[2] Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. <br />[3] Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"<br /><br />If you don't believe God commanded this, then why was killing infants not "self-evidently" wrong to this biblical author?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-92020982497217373692010-03-27T09:41:08.071-04:002010-03-27T09:41:08.071-04:00I take it to be a properly basic moral fact that k...I take it to be a properly basic moral fact that killing infants is always wrong. So YES is my simple answer.Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-79200977221667115162010-03-25T13:29:22.406-04:002010-03-25T13:29:22.406-04:00Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,
I would be glad to address...Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,<br />I would be glad to address your comments, but I am still not sure of your answer to my question:<br /><br />Do you believe that killing infants is ALWAYS WRONG? YES OR NO?<br /><br />Please provide a simple YES or NO.Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-6070770505466573592010-03-23T21:49:57.321-04:002010-03-23T21:49:57.321-04:00Dr. Avalos,
Thanks for your reply. I am going to...Dr. Avalos, <br /><br />Thanks for your reply. I am going to visit the library and check out your book so I can get a better grasp on what your argument is exactly. For now, I will give you some preliminary thoughts in response. <br /><br />First, I am not in agreement that ethical statements reduce simply to "I believe X is wrong because I believe X is wrong." This is obviously self-referential and it does not have to be. It may be tautological to say "genocide is morally wrong because it is wrong to wipe out an entire people group" but this does not make it relative to what any individual believes as if by merely believing it gave it truth value. The statement does not need to bear the burden of explanation, because it is a necessary and self-evident truth. To deny it would be immoral. (The same is true of 2 and 2 is 4. Logically speaking, it is a tautology and its self-evident truth is not dependant upon whether anyone believes it. Not to believe would be to fail at basic addition)<br /><br />Second, I agree that moral rules can exist in moral relativism. However, they cannot be compared in terms of better or worse. If there is a time and circumstance where genocide is morally right as determined by some culturally or psychologically relative factor, then we are in no position to judge the perpetrators of genocide. Epistemically, I am in no place to understand what it is they are doing. It only appears wrong to me because I am in another place and time. This is where one must land when judging the actions of the Israelites against the Canaanites. <br /><br />Third, a moral rule that does not change due to time or circumstance that I would give in response to your question is that deliberately taking an innocent human life is wrong, becaue it violates the human right to life. That would include killing an infant as you suggest. <br /><br />Now I suppose I have walked into a trap here and I anticipate a utilitarian response. Here I am left with Dostoevsky's question put in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov: "Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”<br /><br />Even if one could muster the will to torture the babe for such a delightful outcome, the best possible human world we could imagine, it would not change the fact that it was founded upon an immoral action. <br /><br />Thanks for this exchange. Yours is the last word.Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-39674520039394913752010-03-21T04:51:36.370-04:002010-03-21T04:51:36.370-04:00Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,
Thanks for your comments. ...Hello, Mr. Omelianchuk,<br />Thanks for your comments. Yes, my purpose was to show the falsity of Dr. Copan's claim that he is not a moral relativist. As I have discussed at length in my book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (2005), EVERYONE is a moral relativist.<br /><br />One reason for that claim is that all morality is ultimately justified only by tautologies--circular statements. Thus, all one is saying is: "I believe X is wrong because I believe X is wrong." No matter what principle you use, you will end up with a tautology.<br /><br />Thus, if you say genocide is wrong. All you would be saying is:<br />"I believe genocide is wrong because I believe genocide is wrong."<br /><br />If you try to resolve that further--e.g., genocide is wrong because it is wrong to kill human beings, then you just end up with another tautology: "I believe killing human beings is wrong because I believe killing human beings is wrong."<br /><br />Introducing God into a moral system only complicates it and provides the illusion that theistic morality is not as tautological as an atheist one. For example, all God-based morality can be reduced to: "I believe what God says is right because I believe what God says is right." So you, as a human being, are still deciding what is right and wrong, and simply claiming that God fits your definition of right and wrong.<br /><br />But while there is no way to evade ultimate moral tautologies, that does not mean that moral rules cannot exist at all. We just have to admit that they are anchored in a balance between individual interests and group interests. Parts are anchored in our biological and psychological constitutions that allow for emotions such as love and hate. <br /><br />I am against genocide because I don't like to see people killed just for being part of an ethnic group, etc. That threatens me because I might become a victim in addition to not wanting to see such destruction of human life. I am against killing people at random because I might be a victim. That is part of my psychological constitution. However, that may also mean that other people exist who do not mind killing people at all. History shows that.<br /><br />So it will always be, in part, a battle between those who can't stand to see people suffer and those who can see people suffer or enjoy seeing people suffer.<br /><br />In any case, SAYING that there are objective moral values will not change the fact that there aren't any.<br /><br />If I am wrong, then show us a moral rule that does not change due to time or circumstance, which is how I define an absolute moral rule. For example, Do you believe that killing infants is ALWAYS WRONG? YES OR NO?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-8868903988921565552010-03-19T09:44:59.941-04:002010-03-19T09:44:59.941-04:00I am a believing Christian who has stumbled greatl...I am a believing Christian who has stumbled greatly over the Canaanite genocides and does not find Copan's arguments to be very persuasive (though a good try). I also think Avalos makes some very good points. But his denial of moral realism, severely undercuts his case. The very reason the argument from the Canaanite genocides has the force it does is because it is objectively immoral to wipe out an entire group of people--every man, woman and child. This is true at all times and all places. Moral relativism, on the other hand, allows for the possibility that it may have been right for Israel to take such action. In that time and in that culture tribal deities and interests created the context where one could feasibly bring death to an entire people group who followed a different tribal deity. Following a religion was more important than honoring the right to life. <br /><br />If we grant Avalos all his points, all he has done is show Copan to be inconsistent with his belief in objective morality. That might be sufficient for his purposes of defeating Copan, but it doesn't help an atheist truly buttress a major premise in the problem of evil-- moral evil objectively exists. On this view, if the Nazis had one WW2, rewrote history, and passed laws ensuring their vision of life we could theoretically say that the Holocaust was a morally righteous piece of history. That is simply amazing to consider!Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-34114619247142677472010-03-09T10:36:06.951-05:002010-03-09T10:36:06.951-05:00Excellent!Excellent!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com