Narratives Under the Microscope: Part One
by BradfordNo Smiting is the title of a New York Times book review by Paul Bloom. The review is notable for a number of reasons. It is a focal point around which we are able to contrast differing views of the world begining with the perspective of Robert Wright, author of the book The Evolution of God. Because the review is rich in material, around which discussions can be centered, I'll break this into two distinct blog entries. This one will focus on the page you can link to and a follow-up, coming shortly thereafter, will focus on the following review page, Kindly confine any comments on this blog entry to the first page of the review. I'll start with an analysis of the first paragraph:
God has mellowed. The God that most Americans worship occasionally gets upset about abortion and gay marriage, but he is a softy compared with the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. That was a warrior God, savagely tribal, deeply insecure about his status and willing to commit mass murder to show off his powers. But at least Yahweh had strong moral views, occasionally enlightened ones, about how the Israelites should behave. His hunter-gatherer ancestors, by contrast, were doofus gods. Morally clueless, they were often yelled at by their people and tended toward quirky obsessions. One thunder god would get mad if people combed their hair during a storm or watched dogs mate.
Bearing in mind that philosophies, ideologies, religions and beliefs are accompanied by narratives able to outline basic positions unique to them, let's look at contrasting narratives. One is explicitly portrayed even if it is also misleading in its portrayal. The second is implicit and derived from narratives used to critique the Judeo-Christian God. That narrative is in evidence in the preceding quote. The God of the ancient Hebrews we are told "was a warrior God, savagely tribal, deeply insecure about his status and willing to commit mass murder to show off his powers. This incidently is part of a common narrative used to debunk Judeo-Christian concepts and conversely promote, albeit not overtly, contrasting ones. Critics know that an effective guerrilla war entails keeping you own agenda under the radar screen. Arrows do not hit invisible targets.
The theme of the warrior narrative is change. Your God changed with time. He was once a savage mass murderer who became Jesus, the mortal philosopher. The evidence is there in the Old Testament. God commanded Joshua to lead the Isrealites into the promised land and slay the inhabitants of it. Of course we do not really believe God existed but the purpose of our narrative is to debunk so if you uneducated Christian readers will keep an open mind you'll see that mass murder is immoral. I would use the descriptor instrinsically immoral except that it would make me look like an absolutist in an age when moral relativism is a litmus test for sophistication.
God then evolved to become Jesus; he who taught that we turn the other cheek. A mass murderer turning the other cheek. Can't you see the absurdity of your biblical narrative? What really evolved, of course, was your fantasy and I'm bright enough to elucidate it in cleverly mocking tones.
What is misleading about the anti-Christian narrative? The review contains ample evidence of a secondary commonly used debunking tactic- enumerations of ancient religious beliefs and behaviors repugnant to the 21st century mind. You know. Doofus gods who "often yelled at by their people and tended toward quirky obsessions. One thunder god would get mad if people combed their hair during a storm or watched dogs mate." Ha ha ha. Things got a little better with the Isrealites. We went from doofus to mass murderer. From oaf to creep. But what really stands out to those familar with facts as well as narratives is a glaring ommission. Critics delight in depicting the absurd views of the ancients but where oh where was the depiction of a practice important to the inhabitants of the promised land- child sacrifice? I mean if you are going to debunk religion start with that right? Wrong. If that is mentioned it is not front and center. Front and center is the God who would wipe out cultures that practice child sacrifice. Hidden in the background is the practice itself for it mitigates the assumption of innocent victim and substitutes a notion of justice in its place. Mocking treads lightly on substance as substance and snickering are not compatible bedfellows. Mockery of a morally capricious God is enhanced if we do not focus on the dreaded practices of tribes indigenous to the promised land. Child sacrifice and its utility to debunking religion has at least temporarily taken a back seat. No sense in validating death sentences for it.
Quoting Bloom:
Wright also denies the specialness of any faith. In his view, there is continuous positive change over time — religious history has a moral direction — but no movement of moral revelation associated with the emergence of Moses, Jesus or Mohammed.
Denying "specialness" is part of attempts to eviscerate. The primary weapon wielded in secular attacks on Christianity is the contention that it is not real. God is not real and any moral values linked to God are suspect at best or worthy of outright dismissal. It's not subtle:
The bad news is that your God was born imperfect. The good news is that he doesn’t really exist.
Clever one liners that avoid substance. Wright is not in a position to adjudicate the God/no God debate. But he's able to expose his prejuduces. It's Archie Bunker hiding behind ivy leaves.
June 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Thanks for pointing out the review, Bradford.
I should say that "any moral values linked to God are suspect at best or worthy of outright dismissal" is a very distorted caricature of Wright's position. You quoted the bad news/good news joke out of context. Let's look at the two paragraphs preceding the quote. They seem to contradict your characterization:
The emphasis is mine.
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Here is another excerpt that makes it quite clear: Wright has no intention to "adjudicate the God/no God debate." His book is about man's view of God:
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Olegt quoting Bloom who quotes Wright:
Wright is arguing that religious based morality is on an ascending curve, rising from deficiency to something better but clearly not there yet. It is a broad sweeping generalization which, encompasses multiple religions having some conflicting standards of morality, but obviously Wright is dismissive of some moral precepts he associates with religion (at least if Bloom's review is accurate) and views as suspect the current state of religious morality as contrasted with some secular ideal that, not surprisingly, lacks the specifics needed to assess it. I stand by my comment that seeing moral values linked to God as suspect at best or even worthy of outright dismissal accurately reflects opinions evident in the review.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Then what is the point of the assertion that the good news is that God does not exist? Of course he is inserting his own alternative worldview as the basis for his whole thesis. If God is but an illusion then you are left free to describe the dynamics of those suffering the delusion. The terms of the discussion place on one side the deluded and on the other the clinical analyzers of the phenomeon. Guess the inevitable outcome of this discussion for those accepting its terms.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Olegt quoting:
I had to put some parameters on my own blog input or I would have written a small book. This simile citing a living constitution is another insidious development linked to secularism. The whole point of a constitution is its invariance. Basic bedrock values not to be upended by common statutes. The way around it is twofold. A constitutional amendment- the legitimate option. Or the vague notion of a "living breathing constitution" designed to allow for judicial legislating. Mark Levin wrote a book on the topic- Men in Black. An excellent book.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Bradford wrote:
You can continue to stand by your assertion, Bradford, but I don't see anything in the review that would justify it. I see no sense in engaging you on these terms.
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Oh, I fully expected the name of Mark Levin to come up. Have you bought Liberty and Tyranny yet, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Let me simplify it. A savage mass murdering God sets up grounds for dismissal of some moral precepts associated with such a God. The clear indication that morality is evolving to something better is a basis for maintaining that what followed the savage mass murderer is suspect as it has not yet arrived. Utopia is out there. We are simply not told what moral utopia is. Gotta allow for some living and breathing to nudge moral evolution.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You want me to send you Liberty and Tyranny as a Christmas present?
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Bradford wrote:
You don't simplify, Bradford, you dumb down and twist. It may be helpful to read the review one more time.
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
If the Obama administration were tarred with the charge of savagery and mass murder you don't think it would tarnish any moral credibility the president would otherwise have? I'd agree there is some logical twisting going on and some dumbing down on the part of those who swallow these arguments. That's why I'm here to help you along.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Bradford, what does Obama have to do with this review? Pray tell.
And by the way, Obama isn't my president, he is your president. If you think hard enough you'll understand what I mean.
Comment by olegt — June 27, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
You're dumbing down. Would it not mitigate his moral authority and the policies he would attempt to effect if he were perceived to be a mass murderer? I won't wait for the elusive answer. Sure it would. That's why the tactic is used. The architect of your morality either does not exist or is a mass murderer so the saying goes. So what does that say about your morality? Guess?
I gather you're here with a green card.
Comment by Bradford — June 27, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:31 am
BTW, Tom Gilson wrote a parallel piece at his blog on the genocide question. God and the Genocide Question. There is also this insightful comment.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 5:31 am
June 28th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Wow. I read Tom Gilson's piece on this topic and it leaves me with this urge to jump in a hot tub with bleach and attempt to scrub myself clean.
The only highlight in that article was the mentioning of a passage of the bible being hyperbole. I wonder how that works? Everybody gets to decide for themselves which part of the bible is supposed to be literal and which one is supposed to be hyperbole?
So yes, this article will certainly not convince atheists or skeptics. At least it will not convince them of what Tom Gilson is attempting to argue for. But what it will do is this: It will convince atheists and skeptics questioning the moral compass of Tom Gilson.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 7:13 am
June 28th, 2009 at 7:22 am
So after reading the article by Tom Gilson, I actually went ahead and read the OP as well.
The whole time I was waiting for you to show that God of the OT was actually not "a warrior God, savagely tribal, deeply insecure about his status and willing to commit mass murder to show off his powers." Or to show that God actually did not change over time.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 7:22 am
June 28th, 2009 at 8:06 am
From Bradford's "insightful comment":
You call that an argument? Merely shortening a person's life is a euphemistic (and IMO a very disturbing and sick) way of saying merely killing that person. Merely. Wow.
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2009 @ 8:06 am
June 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Suppose I preformed prescribed burn on a distressed prairie in a last ditch effort to save it from being declared a lost cause and plowed under and lost forever.
You could say this is merely a sick euphemistic way of saying I killed thousands or millions of organisms just to make way for other organisms I like better. Or you could call it a compassionate act to save an ecosystem
It’s all a matter of perspective, rebels see the world through the eyes of a noxious weed and God sees it through the eyes of the loving landowner tending his land.
After thousands of years of toleration of dreadful rebellion that included human sacrifice and forced rape on a massive scale despite his constant appeal to the people to stop their vile acts and return to him. God finally declared that their culture was beyond saving and must be cleared away in an attempt to save the world from it’s pollution.
It’s important to remember that every single person that died was a rebel that would kill God and destroy the world if he could.
The final result of this destruction of rebels is a way was made to save the whole world and allow anyone who desires it ( including the rebels themselves) eternal life and purpose
He is their creator and the one being rebelled against so he has that right
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 10:25 am
June 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
This one sentence packs so much nonsense, it's hard to know where to start. Do you count women and children as rebels? And as far as men are concerned, how can a mere mortal kill the omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being? This kind of sloppy thinking paints precisely the picture of an insecure and vengeful God that you, guys, are trying to avoid. Own goal, I guess.
Comment by olegt — June 28, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
As for your first expectation demonstrating that a statement is false requires some evidence for it. There was none presented in the review. That's why I focused on the issue of inconsistency.
As to your second expectation I would refer you to both the New and Old Testaments as the numerous books in both demonstrate a consistency of character. A principle character property of God is his sense of justice. This is generally ignored by critics because it brings the focus back to us and our behavior. Another is his sovereignty. He is sovereign over his creation. The potter molds the clay and decides what to do with it. The molded clay does not inform the potter.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Olegt:
Even if I grant your assertion it would not prove insecurity and vengence, only a failure to refute the charge. Frankly Olegt, I doubt that most people making the charge have enough familiarity with scripture to sustain it. In the internet age one can visit a website and get a templated version of complaints he has no real understanding of.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
And if the one doing the shortening was the creator of that life and the one who made death an inevitability the term shortening rather than murder is an accurate descriptor. If you intend to critique scripture based on scriptural inconsistency then you need to contend with the wholeness of it. Death is a transition rather than a terminating act. The individual would live on albeit not on earth. You can't mix atheistic and scriptural metaphors when critiquing scriptural consistency.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Ah yes, obviously any historical data that conflicts with your current beliefs is some sort of attack or conspiracy. Why obviously every single Christian is an absolute authority on the complete history of religion. What could a so-called "scholar" possibly know that they don't? After all, they have God whispering directly in their brains!
Why do you consider this narrative anti-Christian? I guess you are assuming the motives of the author, perhaps with good cause in this case, but isn't it possible that an unbiased observer could study history and come to truly believes this change has occurred? (I believe the change he discusses is real based on my reading of historical texts, including the Bible itself) And why is God's message changing "anti-Christian"? Do you know the mind of God so well as to be certain he laid out his absolute final plan 2000 years ago? Perhaps he gave those people the guidance they needed given their circumstances and for a later people he gave improved guidance and perhaps he continues to offer further improved guidance in modern times?
I do find it fascinating how easily an apologist can glance over these divine atrocities, but that's just me I guess. I guess you have faith that God wanted Jephthah's daughter to die for some higher purpose.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Amazing how easily the religious mind justifies genocide. And they wonder why us atheists think religion is dangerous.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Hi hrun. I went back to Tom's article to look for the hyperbole and the consequent complaint based on it. Quoting:
I can tell you from experience that when someone says that everyone will be there or that everyone goes to that restaurant, linguistic precision is not guiding the speaker. Conversations tend to be that way. It even seeps into our sense of humor although humor tends to be culture sensitive so this might not go over in Germany, but an noted American athlete and comic once responded to a friend's suggestion that they go to restaurant x for dinner by saying that noone goes there any more. It's too crowded.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
No need to worry Todd. The justification was based on a divine command. If God exists then obediance makes eminent sense. If he does not then complaints about God's character are vacuous.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
To the contrary Todd, historic data is an excellent apologetic source.
At TT that usually means me. Few other Christians delve into the history like I do.
I usually cite accurate historic sources when making an historic argument. There are scholars supporting all sides of issues.
Front and center is the God who would wipe out cultures that practice child sacrifice.
How easily you bait and switch Todd. There is no such thing as a divine atrocity for one who declares that God does not exist. Maintain some logical consistency of your own. As I've pointed out consistency requires critiquing actual claims which in this case means that death is a transitional event rather than a terminating one. BTW, one of the author's claims was that moral evolution proceeds in a positive direction. That is falsifed by events that have taken place within the lifetimes of people still living. Genocide has many forms- Stalinist, Nazi, Pol Pot, Mao, Biafra… Hard to see a flow in the direction of moral improvement based on real historic events.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Bradford, I actually had heard of hyperbole before. Usually, when important information is being conveyed, hyperbole is a linguistic tool that is not well suited. I was simply amused by the fact that when it suits somebody, they simply can claim that something stated in the bible is hyperbole while on the other hand claiming that the bible is the direct word of god to the human race. I know, some people don't have a problem with this, I would find it rather confusing.
But it's only a minor point in comparison Tom G's justification for genocide, this just pales in comparison.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
hrun,
Hope you had a nice bath. I like to swim a lot, myself. My next time at the pool will bring me to a total of 50 miles since I started logging it late last year.
Anyway, you wrote,
I invite other commenters to read the context in which I mentioned hyperbole. You will find that I made reference to Ancient Near East scholarship in another article. Scholarship is one good way to determine the context of a writing, and thus to discover (for example) contexts in which hyperbole was common. In my blog post I also made it clear that my conclusions were not dependent on the passages being hyperbolic anyway, because the scholarship on which that depends is still very tentative. And I treated it as such.
Your response at any rate is exactly what I predicted in the post: I did not expect it to convince atheists and skeptics that God is good. My purposes were very openly less ambitious than that: to show that one who believes God is good can continue to hold that position rationally even in light of these OT passages. Your need for bleach says nothing very rational about how well or poorly you think I accomplished that, or your rationale for taking that position.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
olegt
Yes all unregenerate humans are rebels by nature it’s called original sin and its a primary doctrine of Christianity.
A particular rat might not have chewed up my electoral wiring and defecated in my food yet but all rats would if the opportunity presented itself.
A rat is a rat by nature and human beings are God hateing rebels by nature.
I never said he could I said he would if it could (and destroy the world)
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I have a moral question for the God practices genocide crowd. Is it better to slaughter those who sacrifice babies and little children or is it preferred that we leave them alone and allow the sacrifices?
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Bradford:
Surely those are not the only two options available to an all-powerful god?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
He could make them robotic and rob people of their free will.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Come on Bradford, are you saying it's OK to commit genocide on an entire people whose murderous habits you disagree with? Couldn't god have simply killed with a bolt of lightning those individuals who actually committed the sacrifices? And explain his reasons to the rest of them? Soon enough they would have thought twice about continuing their sacrifices. But no, god had to kill them all, including women and children. And that's fine with you apparently. What if god tells you in a revelation to kill your own family? Would you obey him?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Here is your chance to shine Raevmo pretend you are God. What would you do?
Remember that God while all-powerful is constrained by his own nature he can't wink at sin.
Also remember child sacrifice is only one of the sins these folks were committing.
An even worse transgression is that they were spreading their vile rebellion to the point that it threatened to destroy the only means that God could put things to right and save the world.
And also remember that death is not the end and God continually offered amnesty to any who would give up their rebellion.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
No, every one of them would sacrifice their children or worse if given the chance and everyone already knew that child sacrifice was wrong and the penalty for rebellion was death that knowledge did not stop anyone.
You are not very familiar with history are you. Today every one knows about these awful events yet scores of children are sacrificed every year in America to the god of convenience.
He won’t, He does not have to now. That’s the point his plan was successful Christ died and rose from the dead the war is won the rebels are defeated.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
First we have Tom G playing apologist for Genocide in his link. Then we have this:
Genocide is equal to a loving landowner tending his land.
And the we have this:
A binary choice between 'slaughter' (in this context probably meaning the same as 'loving landowner tending his land') or standing by and allowing the sacrifices.
Is this really what you guys believe? Or do you feel the need to simply explain and justify something for which there is no good justification? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
fmm:
I'd give em all an iPhone to play with so they wouldn't have time to even think about killing their kids.
Or perhaps I would punish those who stick to their habit and reward those who give it up. You know, like letting their harvest depend on their behavior. If that doesn't work, escalate a bit. Plenty of options for a god. Resurrect the killed kids would be another option.
Winking and genocide are not the only options.
I guess a lot of people don't believe these awful events actually happened. But what is god waiting for? Let him destroy the world again and select a new Noah.
But what if he did for some reason unknown to you? Would you obey him?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I don’t follow you. That's not what I said.
Who said what happened to these rebels was Genocide?
Who says the deliberate killing of countless organisms in a proscribed fire is not Genocide?
Was the invasion of Normandy Genocide?
God is constrained by his nature he can not stand by and allow the sacrifices he must do somthing.
It's what I believe and if God does not exist then all beliefs are equall and none of this matters.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
hrun,
That is utterly distorted and frankly offensive.
And speaking of false binary options:
I don't believe anything at all like what you've presented. And I don't "feel the need to … justify something for which there is no good justification." It's so ironic the way you sent a false binary our way just a couple sentences after complaining about one you think we're presenting.
You're doing the very thing you say we're doing wrong.
I believe God is good, and in my post I showed how that belief may rationally be maintained in spite of these OT incidents. Let me repeat: I believe God is good. The OT incidents do not stand as contradictions to his goodness.
I made very clear in my post what I was trying to accomplish there, and you missed it. I really doubt you care what I have to say, or whether the argument makes sense, or any such thing. You've found a target to lob comment-missiles at, and here they come.
One characteristic of genocide is its treating its targets as less than human. This is just a blog, but there are real people on both ends of it. You're a real human being, and so am I. Calling me an apologist for genocide, distorting my beliefs, misrepresenting me, offering false binaries, talking about the need for bleach—doesn't all this remind you of something? Stereotyping, prejudice, casting moral aspersions, and dealing with a false, distorted image rather than the real person, are the way racist Whites have dealt with African-Americans. It was the way the Nazis turned public opinion against Jews. It's the way you're acting here on this blog.
I'm not saying you're guilty of anything approaching genocide. I do not, and I would not accuse you of being an apologist for genocide, or for supporting it in any way. But by taking these dehumanizing steps, even on a blog, you're walking the first steps down the long decline into genocide. You're not there, you're nowhere close to that level of massive horror, but you're moving that direction.
You're moving in the direction of the very thing you say we're doing wrong.
Wake up and look at yourself.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Lots of folks with iPhones kill their kids
That is exactly what God did
Again that is exactly what God did. Have you ever read the Old Testament?
That is what will happen and it cost him his own death on a cross
You complain when he acts and you complain when he does not act. There is just no pleasing you is there
Besides as I've been saying he does not need to now because of Christ he can reconcile a fallen world and make it right with out destroying it.
He won't. I have his word on it and I can trust the word of God.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
It was not supposed to be seen as a binary choice. It was an attempt to ask question that might get to the bottom of this.
Sure I quoted fmm correctly when he compared the slaughter to a landowner lovingly tending his garden. And surely Bradford suggested the binary choices.
If indeed you were not being an apologist for genocide… you wrote:
You claim that it can be 'good' for certain nations to be killed. Now, you can claim that 'a nation being killed' is not genocide. But that's a hard sell. So unless I have very poor understanding of the English language, this sounds very much like you are being an apologist for genocide (i.e. you are defending in writing that killing a nation is no contradiction to goodness).
Ah, sorry, I will simply call you an apologist for killing whole nations (rather than an apologist for genocide). I hope that now I do understand you correctly and you don't feel stereotyped and misrepresented anymore.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I did but apparently you missed my context. The point of my statement was to show that this is all a question of perspective
Is a proscribed burn on a distressed prairie a slaughter? What about exterminating rats from a building? If not why not?
I would suggest that from the perspective of a noxious weed or of a rat it would be slaughter.
Why is your perspective superior to theirs?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
No, I got that. It is that "perspective" that makes up the justification for the killing of a nation. Without that perspective it doesn't work.
Because I do not attempt to justify the slaughter of whole nations.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
What? Does a rat or a weed do that?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
You can’t kill a nation. Nations are not alive. Nation is merely an abstract term.
You can however punish individual rebels and criminals and you can also slaughter groups of innocent civilians because they are different than yourself
The latter is genocide the former is justice.
God never commits genocide he does however establish justice.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
hrun,
You're still distorting. I was not offering an apologetic for "killing whole nations" as a general principle, which is the implication of what you wrote. I was offering a possible explanation for a very limited action in an extremely limited circumstance.
You presented a quotation out of context. As I wrote at the beginning of that post, it was going to be a long post because there was no way to do the topic justice in a shorter form than that. In fact, right after the sentence you quoted, I made reference to another earlier post that was essential for understanding the intent of that statement.
Here's the problem. Some things require thinking. Some things even require extended thought. Anything of that nature can be distorted by sound bites, and any person presenting a thought of that nature can be made to look like a distorted kind of person, by putting forth sound bites from what they have said or written.
Any dummy can do that. It's the easiest thing in the world. Actually to work through an extended argument, and deal with it for what it really says, takes a lot more work, a lot more time, and yes, more mental capacity than is required for mocking another person via sound bites.
In his latest book, page 108, Dallas Willard wrote something that was pointed toward a different topic but applies in cases like this as well.
I'm not saying you don't have the mental capacity to do more than mock via sound bites, or to follow an argument. I'm calling on you to use what you have, and not to settle for such a small and petty, stereotyped and prejudiced sort of thing.
You're refusing even to acknowledge that there is an argument there, much less to try to follow it.
Take a look at yourself. Again.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I did not claim that you were offering an apologetic for "killing whole nations" as a general principle. I simply said that you were offering an apologetic for "killing whole nations". Maybe not all the time. Maybe not by anybody. But in some circumstances by some entities apparently "killing whole nations" is actually good.
Does this still distort what you are arguing?
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Oh seriously, you want to argue semantics?
Yup. You are still calling killing an entire nation (please try to understand the meaning of how the term as used here and by Tom G) as justice. First you compare it to a lovable landowner tending to his land, and now you call it justice.
Tom G calls it as not being contrary to good. You are in good company.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Seriously? You are trying to claim that if god doesn't exist then I shouldn't complain that human commit atrocities in his name? Are you thick? If god does not exist that makes zero difference if humans are behaving based on the delusional belief that he does exist. These are human atrocities that are merely being justified by claiming they are divine. Religion hides human malice, there is no god. That is all the more reason to point out the evil committed in god's name, because it is human evil and as humans we can stop it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Looks like god didn't make us very well, I blame shoddy craftsmanship.
Funny that, he stood by and watched them for thosands of years, then apparently spent a few years giving a shit, then immediately went back to just watching them happen while doing nothing. Some nature he has there.
I do not believe god exists and I do not believe all beliefs are equal. I think there are more possibilities than you have considered.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
God is so good that he's still good even when he's evil! In fact he has to lay some smack down from time to time just to prove he's so good that his own evil can't touch him. Blind devotion is another theistic trait that scares rationally minded people.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
hrun, you asked
I'm pleased to be able to say you are moving closer to an accurate statement. You haven't actually arrived there yet, because (as I've already said) what I'm arguing can't be properly stated in so few words, but you're at least facing the right direction.
Keep walking. Maybe you'll even move as far as trying to understand what I wrote, which you've been mocking so shrilly. Remember, it's an extended argument, and it might require some extended attention.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Todd, you might take a look at some of the advice I've been giving hrun, i.e., before you resort to sound-bite mockery, the first refuge of lazy minds, try to understand what I had to say.
As I said to hrun, I'm not saying you don't have the mental wherewithal to follow an extended argument. I'm just calling on you to use what you have. One-liners in an argument like this are the equivalent of "nyaah-nyaah boo-boo" on the playground. You can do better than that.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Fascinating. A very similar exchange took place on the very same topic (i.e. the Biblical justification for genocide) at Uncommon Descent about a month ago, and with the same glaring lack of rational argument. No one here has yet cited Plato's Euthyphro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro), but since it was only a matter of time, here it is:
Is an act "right" because God says so, or must God say so because it is "right"?
Tom Gilson, Bradford, fifth monarchy man, and others apparently take the first position: that any act is "right" (i.e. morally justified), including genocide and the slaughter of innocent children, so long as God (who has His own reasons and is under no compunction to reveal them or justify them to us) commands it. Ultimately, this position is based on the principle that certain ends (e.g. the replacement of an "evil" culture – the Caananites – with a "good" culture – the Jews) justify any and all means, up to and including the murder of innocent children.
The usual suspects (Olegt, Raevmo, Todd, et al) and others apparently take the second position: that the mere fact that God has commanded something does not make it "right" (i.e. morally justified), as demonstrated by his commandment of the genocide and the slaughter of innocent children, which still seems "wrong" to most compassionate people, no matter how "right" the outcome. This position is based upon the principle that evil means (such as the murder of innocent children) cannot ever justify supposedly "good" ends, no matter how lofty.
Personally, I have always interpreted Plato's Euthyphro as a plain and simple demonstration of the moral superiority of the second position over the first (that's how it seems to be interpreted in the dialog), but then I'm a Quaker, so what do I know — we just make it up as we go along, right?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that this thread, like most recent threads, has rapidly degenerated into what amounts to "dueling apologetics". Someone commented recently that there seems to be less and less difference between Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent. I have noticed precisely the same drift, and find it very discouraging. What was once a relatively interesting venue for speculating on alternative explanations in the science of evolutionary biology has become a venue for unrestricted ad hominem argumentation (on both sides).
Sad, really, but not entirely unexpected…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 28, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I'll just have to take your word for it. I think the facts, clearly readable here and on your blog speak for themselves. And so, apparently, do you. Let's just leave it at that.
Comment by hrun — June 28, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Allen,
As I told hrun and Todd, you can't sum up a complex position like this in just a word or two, or even a paragraph or two. I think it's safe to say that any one-paragraph summary is going to come out making God look like something other than he is, and the situation something other than it was.
In fact, I'll make it easy on all the rest of you. I'll grant you my concession in advance. Whatever short summary you plan to write of my position on this, or Bradford's, FMM's, or any theist's, I'll agree with you write now that in those terms, God will look like a moral monster.
What I won't agree with, however, is that a fully-thought through, extended series of biblical reasoning leads to the same end.
Oh, and by the way, there has been more than one false dichotomy brought up on this thread already. Euthyphro just adds to the list. Your supposed two-horned beast of a dilemma is actually a triceratops. But I've already had enough discussion about that on my own blog.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
hrun, I'm content to leave it there, just as you said.
Comment by TomG — June 28, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
TomG:
Not being a regular reader of your blog, could you provide a link to your discussion of the Euthyphro here? Thanks – I'm always curious about glosses on the classics…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — June 28, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Allen MacNeill:
My actual position takes note of two distinctive characteristics of the God of Abraham. First, he is a creator able to sustain and prosper one beyond the grave. That gives God options we would not have. It means eternity matters and is his perspective.
The second relevant characteristic is God's justice. It is not compromised and not limited to considerations of what happens within a few short earthly years. The justice demands redressing the horrific practice of child sacrifice. Obviously that includes those actively practicing or going along with it. Children have the unfortunate tendency to imitate the faults of their parents. That would have been true of the Caananites. If given a choice of exposing children to the eternal consequences that would result from following in their parents' footsteps or ending their lives early and allowing a much more pleasant eternity the choice is a no brainer. It would be both just and merciful to punish the adults for what they merited while sparing the children from the same fate.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Allen MacNeill:
Those same usual suspects have ignored a more important issue I raised namely, the central theme of author Wright- his assertion that morality is evolving to be ever more kinder and gentler. But that is contradicted by events in the lives of those of us still living. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Biafra, Rwanda and more encompass genocide on a scale unimaginable to the ancients. Atheists do not believe in the God they critique so their critiques are sound and fury signifying nothing in the end. Much more relevant to them is the documented genocides which put a lie to the contention that we are becoming more humane and are more so than the ancients we excoriate.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Actually that is not my position at all. My position is that good does not exist outside of God but good is not good simply because God commands it .
God can not be evil because if he is not good he is not God. If it could be demonstrated that Yahweh was not good he would at that instant cease to be God. That does not mean that we always understand the whys and wherefores of his actions.
The problem is that we finite humans with limited knowledge dare to sit in judgment of their infinite creator with out knowing the whole story.
You see the same sort of thing when a spoiled brat thinks his father is cruel and mean because he sets boundaries and makes him suffer consequences for his actions. The father is not evil the brat is just selfish and ignorant of the facts.
This is exactly the sin of Adam and its still the sin of rebels today as witnessed by this very thread
Then again I’m a Baptist so what do I know.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 28, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Well, the ancients imagined a genocide so complete that only Moses and family even survived it, so I think they had ample imagination for genocide. None the less, I believe some humans are morally evolving; this does not imply that I think all humans are morally evolving. Places like Africa are still largely influenced by primitive superstitions and terrible atrocities happen there. Yet elsewhere people's spheres of moral concern continue to grow towards a love of all life. Moral concern is a luxury good, when you live a comfortable life with a high standard of living it's easy to care about those less fortunate. When you are struggling to feed your children it's hard to care about anything else. We are lucky that science has helped to create products that greatly increase our standard of living and thus afford us the luxury of expanding our spheres of moral concern. As such science helps to evolve our sense of morality.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 1:37 am
June 29th, 2009 at 2:15 am
So in your infinite wisdom you have decided that some humans are evolving and others are not. And the unevolved reside mostly in “places like Africa”
very interesting
This kind of reasoning sounds very familiar. In fact it is exactly this kind of thing that lead to colonialism in the past.
Savages filled with superstitious ideas are deemed unworthy and unfit to govern their own affairs.
We would be doing them a favor to pointing them in more enlightened directions (by force if necessary) after all it’s for their own good.
The white mans burden and all
It is exactly this sort of argument that often leads to real genocide.
Todd you truly scare me some times
God save us from those who declare themselves to be the more evolved
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 29, 2009 @ 2:15 am
June 29th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Yes, places like Africa have a major crisis in terms of lack of education and lack of opportunity. I’m pointing this out as a major problem. Why you would assume this means I want to perpetuate these problems for personal gain (colonialism) or that this makes the uneducated somehow inferior (calling them savages) is beyond me. Well, actually I understand it perfectly, you want to twist a simple statement into an ad hominem attack. You know very well you are misrepresenting what I said and yet you lack the integrity not to twist it into an obviously slanderous attack. The problems in Africa are completely solvable through education and investment in infrastructure. There is no need to use force, these people want schools and education and jobs. Of course the on-going wars between Christianity and Islam in many parts of Africa make the required improvements nearly impossible.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 2:31 am
June 29th, 2009 at 2:33 am
By the way, "moral evolution" is transmitted culturally, not genetically. The "information" of moral evolution is the meme, not the gene. I would assume an informed reader would understand this, but realize now that I need to assume less of this audience.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 2:33 am
June 29th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Bradford:
According to the ancients, and people who can't let go of ancient superstition, god wiped out all life on earth, save Noah and some family and pets. Everything else pales in comparison I should think. Or don't you believe in the flood, Bradford?
Comment by Raevmo — June 29, 2009 @ 2:50 am
June 29th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Did you imagine this version of events? What did only Moses and his family survive?
Places like Africa? Concentration camps were found in Europe. Terrorism largely in the Mid-East. The Killing Fields in Cambodia. Stalinist purges in Eurasia. The Red Guard in China. Serbian massacres in Europe. You really need to become better acquainted with recent history.
This is secular mythology which conflicts with the facts.
We're approaching the root of the problem. Moral behavior does not consist of "caring" in the form of emotive contemplation and pathos. It is found in action and country club western nations are found wanting in this regard.
Feeding your children is caring. It's action living up to words. Real caring is revealed through action.
Science has nothing to do with advancing morality. At the time the Nazis were rising to power, Germany had a reputation in the sciences unequaled by any nation on earth. The scientists of note that came out of the Germanic culture were the whos who of that era. Einstein, Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Planck, Schrodinger, Geiger, a young von Braun and many more. It's one of the reasons the Third Reich came as such a shock to some who revered German culture and thought it above crass immorality. You have your own mythology which is more pernicious than you imagine. It's danger lies in the blindness that afflicts its adherents. Science catalyzing moral perfection is a narrative. A faulty one. Human goodness or evil is found within. Some very evil people are well educated and well healed. Poor people can be virtuous. It's not a matter of science or technology.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 5:56 am
June 29th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Raevmo:
You don't believe that which you are complaining about was real but would rather complain about something you think is fictitious than acknowledge events you know are real because of their their implications for the author's central theme.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 6:14 am
June 29th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Bradford:
I'm not complaining about what's not real, I'm complaining about what's very real: theists being OK with genocide when they think the genocide has their imaginary master's approval. When they start using cynical euphemisms to justify mass-slaughter.
As for the author's central claim: even taking into account the 20th century mass slaughters, I think the world-wide per capita chances of dying a violent death have steadily decreased over time.
Do you believe in the flood?
Comment by Raevmo — June 29, 2009 @ 9:18 am
June 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Yes, most of those are recent history. History, as in the past. We should learn from them, I think the world has. This is not to say the lesson won't some day be forgotten, but we can hope not. Regardless, in the here and now some of these problems continue in god-fearing parts of the world so we should focus on applying the lessons of the past to stop the atrocities of the present.
And you offer what evidence, just your personal authority? I guess international aid donations aren't considered moral concern in your book (its just politics)? Or vigils in support of protesters in Iran, a country many consider to be our enemy and part of the axis of evil (they don't really care)? I guess you ignore the rise of vegetarianism or groups like Peta, perhaps it never dawned on you that these people are extending their moral concern beyond humanity (they are just crazy loons)? The fight for women's rights? The fight for equal rights? The fight for gay rights? Yeah, no evidence for increased moral concerns. Then again, I live in liberal urban America, perhaps where you live people still don't give a damn about anyone beyond their family or church circle.
To some extent I disagree, moral behavior most definitely begins with caring. Caring leads to speaking, speaking spreads the meme of concern for others, and spreading memes lead to action. I agree those with the conviction to take action are the real moral leaders, but even an act so small as speaking your mind influences your environment.
So you seemed to agree that one first needs the luxury of comfort before one can dedicate their actions to helping, but you think science provides zero role in affording us this luxury? Because science has been abused you think it is a mythology to believe it can be helpful, yet you justify the abuses of religion? And I'm the one living in a mythology? Interesting.
I agree with this. Human goodness is found within each of us. It comes from us, not from god. Anyone can be virtuous, but as you mention its action that counts most and a comfortable live affords us the liberty to act in beneficial ways unavailable to the less fortunate.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 10:06 am
June 29th, 2009 at 11:25 am
This is a very shallow analysis for a biologist. If you operate under the assumption that the God of Abraham exists then death sentences are imposed within your DNA. You are destined to die in any case by the one who crafted your biological make-up. But that leaves out consideration of your immortal soul. Death is a transition, not a final state.
And your evidence for this is?
Yes.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 11:25 am
June 29th, 2009 at 11:35 am
No, it was right in front of you.
Concentration camps were found in Europe. Terrorism largely in the Mid-East. The Killing Fields in Cambodia. Stalinist purges in Eurasia. The Red Guard in China. Serbian massacres in Europe. You really need to become better acquainted with recent history.
The aid donations pale in proportion to the problems and the richness of western nations.
Vigils by some. Headcracking and murder by others. All on the same planet. Moral betterment? Sounds like more of the same. Handwringing while domestic abuse and nuclear bomb building continue.
I love animals but Peta has problems of its own as documented in previous TT posts. Not a good example of morality.
I live in the most densely populated state in the nation. We care as much as any group of Americans. If you are a woman and want the support of feminist groups be sure not to hold conservative views. Ask Sarah Palin.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 11:35 am
June 29th, 2009 at 11:41 am
To the contrary. I stated that the poor can be virtuous. Morality has nothing to do with comfort.
Research makes some thing possible such as disease fighting, a good thing and technological advances, good when used for good purposes. It does not lead to better morality.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 11:41 am
June 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
What if this planet is a prison of sorts, and what if the consciousness of every single one of those slaughtered masses in Canaan and Midian was the equivalent of a Hitler in a prior life on some other planet? How would that color your attitude? Would you care as much? Maybe you are lacking some relevant information. And maybe you are unimportant enough to ever receive it. That would be too bad, wouldn't it. But by all means keep flinging poop like your ape cousins.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Sorry, I wouldn't want any "what ifs" to color my perception, better to stick with experienced reality (even with the limitations that imposes). Besides, according to god during his human years we should love and forgive those people regardless. Jesus didn't say, "love your enemies unless you think they might have been Hitler in a prior life."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I see I was right, the protesters "don't really care" and the animal rights activists are “just loons”! So in other words you have per-judged any possible exception to your worldview. The blinders are on, therefore you see no improvement. I ask you this, what do you think a graph of the per-capita rate of people dying violent deaths over the last 100,000 years would look like? I would expect a few spikes here and there (major wars and atrocities) but a generally decreasing trend over time. I would also expect to see no significant improvement in this line correlated to the rise of any major religion throughout human history. I've made a testable prediction that by one metric human society is becoming "more moral" (inflicting less violent deaths per capita) and further I have predicted no correlation between this metric and religion. I've made a testable positive claim, why don't you prove me wrong?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Don't you think the whole thing is fiction anyway? Adding information to the story is just amending a piece of fiction, right? So, why not humor me and answer my question? (I can think of a reason.)
That's his instructions to his followers, who were not to attempt to take Jerusalem from the Romans as the zealot freedom-fighters were attempting to do. If you really want to study the Bible, I suggest reading the last author, where that same Jesus returns and wreaks havoc on the planet that is basically in a unified open rebellion against him. "Blood shall flow up to the horse's bridles." If you think the character of Yahweh changed from Old Testament to New, you haven't studied it much. He's still very much a "god of war." And if the Bible is true, he intends to finish the project he started.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Protesting what is going on in Iran is fine but much better is real action on the part of the world aimed at stopping the maniacs. The world is much more powerful than the Iranian government. But the world is composed of those with financial interests in Iran they are protecting and political careers that are more of a concern than effective concerted action that would end the domestic terrorism and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those thugs. That's the moral thing to do Todd. Rattling on about how much one cares does not accomplish much. Let's see what moral actions Obama and other world leaders will put into effect in a world I'm told is getting progressively better from a moral standpoint. This is a litmus test of the theory.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
So what EXACTLY is the moral thing to do? Smite Iran. Kill the whole nation? Or just bomb it back to the stone ages? Or is it economic sanctions? Maybe a full scale land based invasion after a prolonged period of bombing? Assassination of all political leaders? Just curious. You seem to have much moral clarity on this issue. Since it is a litmus test, I assume you know what is right and what is wrong.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Stupid stereotyping hrun.
I see you've recovered your wits. Yes, if the world stopped trading with Iran the regime would fall within weeks. The immoral thing to do is protest how much you care for people and do nothing about it.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
What do you mean? I was throwing out potential suggestions. And the 'bomb it back to the stone ages' was certainly something that conservative pundits were advocating– much more so than 'economic sanctions'. And since in many respects you appear to be conservative, I figure I'd throw those out there.
So economic sanctions against Iran is the moral thing to do. Isn't that's what has been done to Cuba forever? Why has their regime not fallen? Is it because the sanctions are insufficient? Are they not properly enforced? So now what do we do?
How do we make everybody stick to the rules of economic sanctions? Threaten them with economic sanctions as well?
Yes, we all can very easily identify what is the 'immoral' thing to do… in general it's everything that we wouldn't do. That's why I asked what the moral thing to do is.
And I really do not yet see in a practical sense how this could be achieved.
I mean, seriously, if you use the 'if the world would just stop trading with Iran' as the moral solution, then why not directly use the 'if Iran would just stop being evil'. It's more direct.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Conservatives are considerably more nuanced than that hrun but if it is easier for you to deal with strawmen you might want to watch the Wizard of Oz someday. If we were to decide to bomb anything it would be installations used to process material for nuclear weapons but that is something for someone with more information available than I have to decide.
It's not an all inclusive sanction for one and Cuba is considerably less industrialized than Iran for another.
That's a good question for those of you maintaining that we are becoming ever so more moral in our behavior. I don't hold to that theory and point to events like those in Iran as evidence for my position.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Bradford, I apologize if you took offense, it was really not important for me to guess right. Let's just leave it at that, since it's a distracting tangent to the interesting point of how to figure out what the moral thing to do is in an exceedingly complex situation.
Okay.
Well, it is a good question for you, too. You said you knew what the moral thing to do was. You even wanted to use this as a litmus test for the Obama administration. Surely, you would know what exactly the Obama administration should do in the face of incomplete Iranian economic sanctions.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Back to the real world. There are two problems in Iran. The protests about which Obama et. al. can do little. Then there is the nuclear weapons problem I think is very difficult but which offers more possibilities. The Isrealis sought a green light from the Bush administration after the presidential election to let them try and take out key parts of the Iranian development program via the military option. Bush turned them down. Only history will validate who was right but we ought to make every reasonable effort to neuter their capabilites with regard to the nuclear option.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
See, now this a more nuanced answer that all of a sudden does not have the crystal clear moral clarity anymore. So now I am somewhat uncertain on how this is still a litmus test?
We had 'doing nothing' is morally wrong and enforcing a world wide embargo that topples the regime is morally right. One is not being advocated, and the other needs further explanation (or is any way to enforce the world wide embargo morally right since it serves a morally right goal).
And what about Israel? Would it have been morally right for them to take out the nuclear facilities? And if it is right, is it wrong for the US not to support the strikes? Or is the US morally obliged to do the bombing strikes themselves?
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
You're losing the reference to the OP. The review contends that there is a direction to "moral evolution." I indicated that was nonsense. I was disputed on that point by some TT commenters. To validate my position I pointed to a moral solution for the Iranian crisis. The fact that realpolitik does not accord with the moral option of world wide sanctions is another indicator that the direction of moral progress is not as the author argues. The fact that the most moral antidote is not realistic indicates the deeply flawed nature of humanity. That's a counter theme to the review and a centerpiece to the OP.
Denying that regime nuclear weapons is a morally defensible position. Whether Isreali special ops or Americans do it is a tactical problem, not a moral one.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I was not that interested in the OP.
You made a clear statement that you know that the moral thing to do was about a situation that is just exceedingly complex. I simply question that you know exactly what the moral thing to do is in this case.
If you will, I indicated that this was nonsense.
Heh. A 'morally defensible position' sounds much less certain than 'it's the moral thing to do'. And of course 'denying' nuclear weapons is morally defensible. The problem comes in when we have many options of how to do it. For example, is 'denying' nuclear weapons by a nuclear first strike morally defensible? How about by bombing all nuclear infrastructure? How about bombing all nuclear and research infrastructure? And so forth…
Beware of statements that claim moral certainty in the face of extremely complex situations.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Moral solutions and realistic options differ. Complexity in this case is largely the creature of what is impractical to do based on preservation of selfish interests. We know sanctions fail because of greed and competition and even moral apathy. None of that mitigates from the desireability of a bloodless remedy even if that remedy is not feasible.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Yeah, it's sorta like protesting against the Iranian regime here in the US (or like coloring your blog green): It's morally right, but unfortunately it doesn't work.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Why? Modifying a story with mitigating information is hardly an absurd exercise. If you kill someone, the outcome will be very different for you if you were merely pissed at the person, or if you were defending yourself against an attack. The mere fact of you killing someone would not be enough to adjudicate guilt.
You say Yahweh was simply a genocidal maniac. Given the same facts, what additional mitigating facts would change your view? If you say, "none", then the exchange is pointless, and have a nice day.
I specified more information: their consciousness existed in a prior life on another planet and they committed acts like a Hitler.
I see I'm dealing with a 12 year old. Never mind.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 30, 2009 @ 1:06 am