In my last post, I tried to make the case that God does not “need” our praise. I acknowledged that He does expect it, because praise naturally flows to a perfect being. But is it fair to say that he actually “demands” it? And will punish us if we refuse?In raising this challenge, a skeptic quotes from the Ten Commandments. Doesn’t God say that man should not bow down and worship false idols? Does He not describe himself as a “jealous” God? What then are we to make of God’s position? The skeptic concludes his challenge:
"So, whilst you state that god doesn't demand worship, he DOES threaten dire punishments to those who don't worship him!
'You don't have to worship me, and I'd never ask such a thing of you, but if you don't I'll crush you, and your kids, and THEIR kids, just to make sure my message is clear' seems to be the way god is saying things are.
So, here we have a supposed perfect being, in a supposed revelation in his supposed holy book, saying that he'll be angry if he isn't worshipped!
We come back to the question - why would a perfect demand worship?"
These are good questions, and they deserve an answer. But the questions reveal quite a bit about the skeptic and the reasons he cannot make sense of the Biblical model for right relationship with God. It is apparent that the skeptic refuses to, or cannot, recognize that:
1) God is not our equal. As our creator, he has absolute right to do what he wants with us. We have no more basis to complain than would a computer animation to the computer programmer, or to use a more ancient example, the pot to the potter. This is an unpleasant thought, especially for Americans steeped in the tradition of equality. But equality refers to the relationship between people, not the relationship between God and his creation. A child does not dictate to his parent what fairness is. Nor does the robot tell the supervisor to take his place on the assembly line. If you persist in thinking that a being capable of thinking this universe into existence somehow must answer to you, or justify himself to you, you will never gain the answers that you claim to be seeking;
2) God is not emotional. While He is “personal,” and while he inspired the Biblical writers using emotional imagery, He is not a histrionic drama queen ready to throw tantrums. Selectively quoting Scripture to paint such a picture distorts what the Bible teaches about God's true nature. Negative emotion, after all, is a characteristic of a limited being that has fears, wants and desires. It is a failing. More precisely, negative emotions like jealousy, lust and greed are perversions of the good. Like evil generally, base emotions are a departure from the standard that God is. A limitless, timeless God doesn’t “hope” for a good outcome, or “fear” that he will not “get the girl” or seethe with “envy” against a rival. He has no needs, lacks nothing, and has no rivals. He is all good. So, why then does God use emotional language? Probably for the same reason that I speak one way to adults in a courtroom setting and quite another way if I’m talking to children at a daycare center. The style and content of the conversation is tailored to the needs and capabilities of the audience. Using emotional language conveys God's message much more vibrantly than simply setting forth instructions.
3) The Biblical reference to jealousy, like all Biblical texts, must be taken in context. The usual connotation of "jealousy" is quite negative. It conjures up images of a jilted boyfriend stalking his girlfriend as he suspects her of infidelity. But the actual definition is more varied; under “biblical” it includes: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” As I argued in the previous post, God's self-assessment is accurate. He has every right to expect worship from His creation, because praise and worship are what perfection merit. Equally, He knows the harm it does us when we worship a lie as opposed to the truth. It is, then, an expression of love for him to desire that we return to right relationship with him.
Consider an analogy. A town doctor spends years earning the trust of his patients. One day he learns that an untrained quack has begun tending to his patients, pretending to be him and doing much harm with his medications and treatments. The doctor loves his patients and wants what is best for them. How, then, should he react? I submit that anger and jealousy – an intolerance of the harmful “rivalry” – would be an appropriate response. So too with God. He loves us enough to warn us against the danger we face when we persist in our rebellion against Him; He loves us enough to be angry when we turn away.
In sum, the skeptic wants to claim equality with God and expect God to view things the same way. He does not want to give God the love and respect to which He is entitled, by His very nature. And he wants God to accept this disrespect as appropriate. But God, by His nature, will also demand the response to which He is entitled. Think of it this way. Why does a judge demand respect? Why does he have a bailiff ready to establish order if a heckler decides to interfere? If a human judge can demand that to which the law entitles him, how much more can the ultimate Judge, the Creator of all that there is, demand respect from his creation? After all, we are subject to His law. What should that respect look like? Well, for the judge it means being addressed with a proper tone of voice, proper language and proper behavior. But what about for the ultimate judge? What does a perfect being deserve? Simply this: to be recognized accurately for what he is. And when we do that, we see that worship and praise are the appropriate way of responding to Him.
The point of this excursion has been to show that there is a rational way to reconcile God's goodness and perfection, on the one hand, with the Biblical references to God's "jealousy," anger and expectation of worship, on the other. While on the surface these things may seem inconsistent, on deeper reflection a fuller picture of God begins to emerge. For this, we are indebted not just to the Biblical writers but to the pillars of Christian philosophy, giants such as Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas. Somehow, though, I doubt the skeptic will accept their views, or these. By his very nature, the skeptic will continue to do what he does best - believe in nothing. One wonders why he cares to write at all.
Posts
11 comments:
"Praise naturally flows to a perfect being."
Just a brief comment about the beginning of your post. Have you ever noticed that when someone that inspires awe because of bearing, stature, physique or some other trait enters a room, people gravitate toward that person? They often seek to look less inferior, and to seek validation from this superior person.
Magnify that in the presence of God.
If a computer animation or a pot were to be sentient, it would, indeed, have the right to complain about any mistreatment at the hands of its creator. But, consider this. If your god decides the bible was a big joke (ha-ha) and throws christians into torment, what is your recourse? What consolation do you have. You may not think it much, but if your god does that sort of thing to me, I will at least have the consolation that I did not pronounce it just, that I was simply overpowered by a wicked tyrant. But you, you say he has every right to do whatever he wants with you.
It is possible for human judges to overstep and abuse their authority. And they do sometimes use "officers of the court" to facilitate this. That your god might have the power to enforce his whims (of which I, currently, see no evidence) does not negate the fact that, as described, he is unjust. He demands a respect of which he is not truly worthy.
I would like to refer to your doctor analogy. The doctor is concerned about what harm the quack may cause his patients. He does not, however, threaten to impose harm himself on those foolish enough to listen to the imposter. With your god, it is quite different. The idols themselves do nothing, good or bad, for their worshippers. They are, after all, mindless stone or wood or what have you. No, the only danger that will come to people will come from what your god does to those who don't worship him the way he wants them to. All this, of course, is according to the claims of the bible. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the text.
Good argument if God doesn't exist.
If God does exist, what is the limit of his authority? Is the creator of the universe to be bound by the US constitution, when the supreme court isn't. Or is the ultimate power in the universe to be bound by early 21st century middle class american cultural norms?
People seem to be upset when they learn that if God exists he doesn't base universal morality based on their preferences. People are rather self-centred.
And where would that "right" be grounded? If there is no god, then your conclusion that something is unjust is merely a feeling, like being hungry. How could you possibly know what a "wicked tyrant" is if you don't have a standard of "good" against which to measure it?
Human judges are bound to a higher authority. That's how you know they have overstepped their bounds. Where is that authority to be found? In your worldview, where can you find limits? Those are simply your feelings, once again.
God's ways are difficult to understand, and each of us risks being mistaken. But your moral indignation is ultimately baseless in a God-less universe. In fact, you are sneaking in a standard, which you wish to attribute to some generalized sense of human decency. But in the end, without transcendent grounding, it remains just an opinion.
But Al, I do have a standard of good against which to measure. It's based on the fact that causing pleasure is good and causing pain is bad. However, I would like you to consider the fact that for the common christian claim that "god is good" to have any meaning, there must be a standard of good that isn't based on that god's whims.
The logical knots this blog is tying itself in, in an attempt to answer unanswerable questions, is quite astounding.
I'm starting to actually feel kind of sorry for you.
Pvblivs
I think you need to keep working on that standard. Otherwise, the murderer who causes "pleasure" by killing his grandparents to obtain their wealth would end up being "good," while the doctor who causes "pain" while administering a cure is "bad." Your position ends up being circular - good is what I think is good while bad is what I think is bad.
God doesn't have "whims." He has a nature that we seek to understand, however imperfectly. You just happen to disagree with what you believe to be his nature, as it does not conform to what you think is right or wrong. That, by the way, is how you know there is a standard there. It is pressing against all of us, and we all to varying degrees are rebelling against him. As CS Lewis explained, we all know there is a "law" there (morality) and we all violate it.
That murderer may give himself pleasure; but he is causing his grandparents much more pain. This is, of course, unless we are talking about pulling the plug on life support when they are withered away and sufferring a fate worse than death.
"God doesn't have 'whims.' He has a nature that we seek to understand, however imperfectly."
If it looks... like a duck, and it quacks... like a duck, and it waddles... like a duck, it's probably not a cow. This looks like christians making excuses for the whims of their god.
The logical knots the atheists on this blog are tying themselves in, in an attempt to answer unanswerable questions, is quite astounding. I'm starting to actually feel kind of sorry for you.*
Alex B. - do you see the weakness these broad, sweeping, baseless statements have when turned around?
*For clarity, this statement was only used as a mirror to make my point.
"It conjures up images of a jilted boyfriend stalking his girlfriend as he suspects her of infidelity. But the actual definition is more varied; under “biblical” it includes: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.”"
So what you're saying here is that it's EXACTLY the same!!
Tim, there hasn't yet been a single piece of knotted logic from a non-theist.
Post a Comment