Letter To CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)
This is the first letter I've sent to CARM. This is an organization run by Matt Slick, radio host, pastor. author and public speaker. Given that many Christians don't really know very much about the Bible, other than what they've heard in Church, I've found it's nearly impossible to get authoritative answers to questions I have about Christianity, so I sent this email to CARM to see if they would respond (they did, and I will share that soon).
Letter Number 1:
=========================================
Hello,
I can't really say I'm an atheist, but I can't rightly classify myself as a theist, so I guess I'll go with agnostic (say, on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 knows God exists and 10 completely denies that God exists, I'm like a 7.5 or so). In any case, I have a few questions, none of which I've seen on the site by searching (though they've been tangentially discussed). I truly hope you can answer these questions, they've been a huge source of frustration and as many Christians as I've asked to answer them, generally speaking, either the Christians (that I've asked) have either misrepresented my questions OR they've found a reason not to answer. Anyhow, here goes:
1) I have a five year old child, and he's pretty much the most important thing to me in the world. I, like many other parents, would die for him if it would save his life. In the area discussing why God is considered a monster in the Old Testament for ordering the slaughter of children, you indicated that 2 Samuel 12 indicates that a child that dies before an age where they could understand the sacrifice of Jesus would go to heaven (I believe the phrase you used was, they would "be with God"). My fear (if I accept that the Christian worldview is true) is that my child could grow up and fall in with the wrong crowd (for example, with people like me who don't really believe God exists). So it stands to reason that if I value my child more than myself (both in life and in the afterlife), I should kill him now to guarantee that he goes to heaven. Now, as an agnostic/atheist, this isn't really a tough question. Life isn't, in my view, a doormat to eternal life and bliss (or suffering). However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him. Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview. In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?
2) I read your well thought out statement on Euthypho's Dilemma Your claim, if I understand it, is that the question (Socrates posed to Euthyphro, amidst a barrage of sarcasm) is a false dichotomy You suggest that an act is good not because God loves it, nor does God love an act because it is good, but rather that good is based on God's nature and thus the question doesn't really make sense. My question is this, doesn't this just push the question back? At this point, I would ask, "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?" If the former, the goodness of God's nature is independent of God, if the latter then God's nature is arbitrary (and we could say that murder and rape are good if it was God's nature.
3) In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals. I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world. First, we apply the law of the excluded middle. That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot. So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option. I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition. That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever. Another version of your argument would be syllogistic:
A is composed of B
B has only property C
Therefore, A only has property C
But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following:
Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals)
Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own)
Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic)
What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things. First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values. You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality. If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted. Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values. Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals. My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?
I can't really say I'm an atheist, but I can't rightly classify myself as a theist, so I guess I'll go with agnostic (say, on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 knows God exists and 10 completely denies that God exists, I'm like a 7.5 or so). In any case, I have a few questions, none of which I've seen on the site by searching (though they've been tangentially discussed). I truly hope you can answer these questions, they've been a huge source of frustration and as many Christians as I've asked to answer them, generally speaking, either the Christians (that I've asked) have either misrepresented my questions OR they've found a reason not to answer. Anyhow, here goes:
1) I have a five year old child, and he's pretty much the most important thing to me in the world. I, like many other parents, would die for him if it would save his life. In the area discussing why God is considered a monster in the Old Testament for ordering the slaughter of children, you indicated that 2 Samuel 12 indicates that a child that dies before an age where they could understand the sacrifice of Jesus would go to heaven (I believe the phrase you used was, they would "be with God"). My fear (if I accept that the Christian worldview is true) is that my child could grow up and fall in with the wrong crowd (for example, with people like me who don't really believe God exists). So it stands to reason that if I value my child more than myself (both in life and in the afterlife), I should kill him now to guarantee that he goes to heaven. Now, as an agnostic/atheist, this isn't really a tough question. Life isn't, in my view, a doormat to eternal life and bliss (or suffering). However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him. Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview. In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?
2) I read your well thought out statement on Euthypho's Dilemma Your claim, if I understand it, is that the question (Socrates posed to Euthyphro, amidst a barrage of sarcasm) is a false dichotomy You suggest that an act is good not because God loves it, nor does God love an act because it is good, but rather that good is based on God's nature and thus the question doesn't really make sense. My question is this, doesn't this just push the question back? At this point, I would ask, "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?" If the former, the goodness of God's nature is independent of God, if the latter then God's nature is arbitrary (and we could say that murder and rape are good if it was God's nature.
3) In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals. I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world. First, we apply the law of the excluded middle. That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot. So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option. I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition. That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever. Another version of your argument would be syllogistic:
A is composed of B
B has only property C
Therefore, A only has property C
But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following:
Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals)
Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own)
Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic)
What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things. First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values. You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality. If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted. Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values. Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals. My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?
4) I won't argue that if God created the universe AND God knew what would happen throughout all time when he created the universe we can only make decisions that he created us to make, just as if I program a VCR to start recording MacGyver at 8pm, the VCR wouldn't be responsible for recording it. I would argue that if I concede that God is good (by nature) and can be nothing else, then God can only take actions which are the most good. Is this not the case? If that is the case, it seems to me that God could never make any choice. That means that God doesn't (and cannot) have free will. The corollary to that is that since God is constrained on EXACTLY what he can do, he could only have created the universe and us one possible way, which means that we are bound to that path and we have no possible choice in the matter. Do you believe God has free will, and if so, how?
Anyhow, those are my questions. I truly would appreciate answers to these questions but would understand if it's not possible.
Take care, and thank you for your time,
Michael
=========================================
Anyhow, those are my questions. I truly would appreciate answers to these questions but would understand if it's not possible.
Take care, and thank you for your time,
Michael
=========================================
If you have comments and/or questions, please feel free to post them, just keep it respectful.
Are these serious questions, and has anyone answered them sufficiently?
ReplyDeleteBTW I do not use my Google account. I can be reached at Facebook.com/boom234 or PhilosophiaTheos@inbox.com
ReplyDelete