A friend recently sent me a this video by Sam Harris asking me what my honest opinion of it was. While it was a private message, I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to it publicly. So let's get started!
The Problem of Evil/Suffering (PoE)
It is understandable why many people view the PoE as a strong argument against the existence of a benevolent God. But as the picture above suggests, upon further examination we actually find that because of the existence of objective moral evils, the PoE actually points to the existence of God. Allow me to explain:
As Dr. William Lane Craig points out many times, moral values and duties can only exist in an objective sense if they have their source in a necessary, moral ultimate. That is to say, they can only exist concretely if God exists. Otherwise moral values and duties are simply social constructs with ascribed value, never having transcendent value that is true for everyone, regardless of our beliefs.
So where am I getting with all this? The problem with the PoE is that as soon as one makes the claim that God cannot exist because of objective moral evils, they unknowingly concede the moral argument for the existence of God:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
But it's not as simple as that of course. Many times, those who appeal to the PoE do so from an emotional standpoint. Especially when watching Sam Harris' video, the whole thing is ripe with emotional rhetoric (e.g. Do you know how many children die every minute?). It's not enough to simply say "Moral Argument: checkmate Atheists!" and move on. There are still things we should address.
To cite Dr. Craig again (as he is one of the most, if not the foremost Christian philosophers of our time), the PoE takes many forms. There are three main variants: The Logical PoE, The Probabilistic PoE, and The Emotional PoE. First, the Logical PoE:
"According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.
But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.
But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible."
Next, the Probabilistic PoE:
" According to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it’s highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world is so great that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it’s improbable that God exists.
Now this is a much more powerful argument, and therefore I want to focus our attention on it. In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three main points:
- We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.
- The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.
- The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
- Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
- The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
- The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
- Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.
I encourage you all to read the full article here, as Dr. Craig goes into full detail on each of these points, along with closing comments that are quite valuable. He also addresses the Emotional PoE. But for the sake of time and space, we'll be moving on from this subject.
The Doctrine of Hell
The question "What about those who have never heard the Gospel?" has always been a tough one for Christians, and there have been many poor responses to that question. Poor in the sense that the answer only raises more questions, and graver ones at that for the Christian.
If God saves those who have never heard the Gospel, and condemns those who reject the Gospel, then is it not better that we remain silent and never share the Gospel with others? But that would contradict Jesus' commandment to "Go forth, and make disciples of all nations..."
So if the Lost are still Lost, and if that means that their judgment will be separation from God, how do we as Christians reconcile that with an all-loving God? This is largely an emotional issue, but like we discussed above with the PoE, it is often not enough to simply give a logical answer and expect people to respond positively on an emotional level.
For that reason I'd like to take a moment to go over the doctrine of Hell, and what it actually entails.
When reading an ancient document, you must read it through the cultural glasses of the people and time in which it was written. Many Christians and Atheists alike make this mistake.
The cultural climate of the Bible is one of honor and shame. By honor we mean "worth in the eyes of others", and by shame we mean "a lack of worth in the eyes of others". Such honor/shame societies do not feel internal guilt like we do in the west, but rather their consciences are projected externally onto their peers and superiors. Most non-western cultures around the world still operate under this social paradigm today. With that knowledge readily at hand, I will make the claim that the language used to describe Hell in the New Testament is language of honor and shame, not of physical torment.
So what does all that mean? When one dies, one is judged by what one has done with Jesus. Those who have accepted atonement for their sins are welcomed, and those who have not are unable to dwell in the presence of God. But wait, there's more.
In several places in the New Testament, we read of an event called the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50-58, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, Revelation 20:11-13), and this is where the honor/shame paradigm really takes shape. At the Resurrection, each person receives a new body of both flesh and spirit (like the risen Jesus), and is judged according to their works in life, and either rewarded or punished depending up their deeds. This includes those who are not saved under Christ.
C.S. Lewis, in writing his book The Great Divorce, gives the disclaimer that the book is not intended as a theological commentary. But little did he know at the time, he got a lot of ideas correct. In the narrative we find a man on a bus in what is implied to be hell. He overhears a conversation between two people who once found Napoleon, off in a distant cabin away from everybody else. All he did was pace around and blame other people for his failures. That was his eternal lot and the extent of his existence.
I say this to bolster the idea that when God judges us according to our works, those of us who have accrued greater shame (like Napoleon) will seal for ourselves a more harsh resurrection. And those of us who are generally good (or even great) shall accrue greater honor, and receive a greater resurrection.
J.P. Holding once theorized that while people like Anne Frank, who died outside of the Gospel, would be condemned to Hell, it would also be no surprise to him if we were to see her being served and waited upon by her Nazi persecutors for all eternity. Anne Frank accrued honor for herself, while the Nazis accrued horrible shame. They may both be on the wrong side of the fence, but their level of shame is dependent upon their own actions.
So what happens to those who die without hearing the Gospel? God must judge their sin, of which we are all infected with. Sin cannot dwell in the presence of God. But God is also just, Who rewards good and punishes moral evils.
So Sam Harris gets it wrong when he says that the unsaved will be burned and tortured for eternity come. The only burning and torturing that will come is from the shame caused by each person's actions when they see the face of their Creator.
Slavery in the Bible
Harris makes the claim that the Bible supports slavery. This is an old Atheist favorite that is patently false, which we also find (again) stems from a lack of reading the ancient documents of the Bible with the appropriate cultural glasses.
More extensive work on this topic has already been done, but I'll give you the breakdown:
In the Ancient Near-East, slavery was primarily voluntary, as it functioned as the welfare system of the time. If you were orphaned, widowed, down on your luck, you became a slave to acquire food, clothing, and shelter at the expense of your labor. But because such a system can easily get out of hand, or because masters can easily mistreat or exploit their slaves, God gave commandments to regulate the system. Maybe some would have rather had God snap His fingers and poof this ancient economy into something else, but if you haven't gathered yet, that's not usually how God (in His wisdom) chooses to operate.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
This issue embodies what we call Divine Command Theory. That is, 1) Does God command something because it is good? Or 2) Does God command something because he wills it?
The problem with #1 is that if values and duties are good apart from God, then God is bound by something greater than Himself. The problem with #2 is that if God commands things arbitrarily, then they have no objective value and God is whimsical. But this is what we would call a false dilemma, because there is a hidden third option that is not implied.
God commands the things that He does because He is the good. That is, He is the moral ultimate through which all morals gain their value. If God commands the things that He does by the necessity of His own nature, then there is no contradiction, and the dilemma is solved.
The Slaughter of the Amalekites
Another favorite house of cards built by Atheists, this argument is quickly dissolved when you understand a little bit of history. The Amalekites were marauders who had no problem preying upon the old and young alike. As Israel was entering the Promised Land, the Amalekites did just this to the slower members of the exodus, and God promised to avenge them (Duet. 25:17-19).
Since we're on this train though, let's talk about the Canaanites. God commanded the slaughter of many of the Canaanite tribes not simply to make way for the people of Israel. Let us not forget that the Canaanites offered their children as burnt sacrifices to their Gods and refused to repent. I don't know about you, but people who burn children alive deserve to die. And if I'm in no place to make that judgement, certainly God is.
Transubstantiation
Sam briefly mocks the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is the belief that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. He compares it to saying a few Latin words to turn bread into the body of Elvis.
Transubstantiation is a widely debated doctrine within Christendom, with beliefs ranging as widely as the elements being literally Christ's body and blood, to ontologically equal to Christ's body and blood (my view), or as being completely arbitrary. But all I will say is that if Jesus really was God in the flesh and He instituted such a sacrament, I see no problem. Elvis however, was not God in the flesh (I'm sure someone out there disagrees with me on this), and did in no way institute any sacraments. Weak analogy, moving on.
Believing in God on Bad Evidence
This is another claim that has been addressed in greater detail in many places. I will simply counter this by saying the philosophical arguments for God's existence are, by themselves, mind-blowing in their sufficiency. Secondly, the historical and sociological arguments for the resurrection of Jesus have much more explanatory power than their alternatives. Thus I am compelled not simply to be a theist, but a Christian.
God Stopped Doing Miracles
Christianity is a Cult of Human Sacrifice
A cult is an organization that employs mind-control tactics. In that sense, no, Christianity is not a cult. I can't speak for certain denominations or individual churches, but Christianity at large is not a cult. That's just emotional rhetoric.
Saying Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice obviously strikes up images of say, the Aztecs, which I'm sure is precisely what Harris was going for. But when honestly comparing the doctrines of Christianity to such religions, the claim does not stand. Yet another weak analogy.
In Closing...
To make a long story short (too late), as I mentioned to my friend last night, "Sam Harris is right up there with Richard Dawkins when it comes to philosophical prowess, which isn't much."
But before we call this video utterly roasted, I'd like to share something that another friend of mine said to me recently:
"[T]o non-Christians, Christianity is measured in
terms of how they measure the "truth" of their religions, that is, how
it affects society and their perception of morality, not historic truth
claims... to a non-Christian, the historicity of anything claimed by
Christianity doesn't matter because religion is about (or should be
about) making you a better person and giving you a spiritual feeling."
This comment greatly illuminates the rationale behind Sam Harris' video. Instead of judging Christianity by it's historical truth claims, he tries to make a case against it (and religion in general) based upon his moral dislikes of what he thinks it claims.
I even ran into a Christian lately who, after I gave a lecture on the resurrection of Jesus, tried to tell the audience, "Now remember everyone, we as Christians are not supposed to convince
the world that Jesus Christ is Lord. We're supposed to just live good
lives and love others."
What nonsense! Christianity is not a mere moral philosophy or self-improvement plan. Surely we have the benefits of such programs, but Christianity is about restoring our broken relationship with the God who surely exists, because of the historical reality that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving Christ was the son of God!
It isn't about what makes us feel good, my friends. It is about what reflects reality. Our beliefs should always reflect how things actually are, lest we slip into wishful thinking, relativism, and religious pluralism.
Sam has given me the wonderful opportunity to answer so many questions and provide so many helpful links in one place. I hope those of you reading this will take the time to investigate these matters for yourself and utilize the links provided. And again, I will always extend the invitation to anyone else who has honest questions or even accusations about this assurance that I have in Christ.
God bless you,
God bless you,
Darrell
