Where Are the Moral Believers? Rebellion Against God as an Immoral Monster
In the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Guy P. Harrison writes:
We just don’t see millions of believers in the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god, for example, shunning him solely for his moral crimes. There are no large organizations campaigning against religion from the moral high ground rather than the perspective of disbelief. There are few, if any, anti-God books written by theologians who still believe in a god. Rebellion need not be tied to disbelief, so where are the righteous rebels who stand against gods who have done great evil? Where are the moral believers?
Fear of hell or some other divine punishment for refusing to follow a god does not seem to be an adequate explanation, not when one considers history’s long roll call of courageous heroes. Across cultures and across centuries, good people have suffered banishment, imprisonment, torture, and execution because hey refused to bow down before evil human leaders. It seems likely that a significant number of believers would rebel in the same way, if they faced up to the serious faults and crimes attributed to their gods. Fear of torture and execution in the present (in reality) must be at least somewhat comparable to fear of a god’s wrath in some vague afterlife to come (in belief). [...]
Why aren’t millions of believers saying, “Yes, I know there is a God because the universe is intelligently designed, and I believe that the [Bible, Koran, or Torah] describes him accurately. Based on the actions of this god, however, I cannot follow or worship him because I am a decent human being.”
The crimes attributed to the gods people believe in are unambiguous. Some react by denying that they really occurred. In many cases, at least, this is a legitimate response — some of the events described are implausible or at least have little historical evidence backing them up. At the same time, though, these same believers don’t take the extra step of saying something like “But if these stories were true, God would be an immoral monster whom I would never worship.” Why not?
Other believers accept the stories as true, which makes sense given the fact that if the stories are denied, then the basis for accepting the veracity of other stories in the scriptures becomes much more difficult. In doing so, however, these believers are moved to make all sorts of excuses for the awful things their god has done. Some of these excuses include saying that there was a higher purpose which we puny humans cannot understand, that the people who suffered really deserved it, that everything God does is by definition moral, and so forth.
Such believers sound remarkably like an abused spouse making excuses for the awful ways her husband treats her. Excuses like this would never be accepted if used on behalf of a human who committed awful crimes and who was responsible for widespread death, destruction, and suffering. Many believers, unfortunately, are committed to a religion which doesn’t allow them to even consider the possibility that they are followers of an immoral monster. This, in turn, demonstrates just how little value is really placed on critical thinking, skepticism, independence, and the possibility of dissent within religious belief systems.
Read More:
Comments
I have often used a similar line of argument. It works well with the incoherence of Judeo-Christain belief and the problem of evil. I say that even if there is a God, he is not the benevolent God the believer says he is. Then I reference the Bible directly, that God killed all the first born sons of Egypt for the transgressions of their fathers, then God ordered and blessed what anybody would consider war-crimes today by the Isrealites. Talk about moral relativism! Then of course there is Jesus saying that for simply not believing in him, one is equal to the worst wrong doer and will be sent to hell. What a charlatan!
Of course, not all believers believe that God is all powerful. Such is not the case in process theology and in certain conservative and reformed branches of Judaism, for example. Indeed, the term “omnipotent” never appears in the Bible.
True, its exponents, such as Rabbi Kirschner (author of “Why bad things happen to good people) are looked on unorthodox. Yet why is it so important that God be all powerful?
The answer has to do with the psychology of the majority of believers: they cannot accept a less than almighty God because deep down they believe that might makes right. If might makes right, then almighty makes all right. Their God is ultimately nothing but power. Scratch a theist and you often find a relativist.
They worship power .They do not fathom that their god is a psycopath . And they do not fathom that mere ingnorant bigots made up their morallity and their god . So,their morality is subjective wheras ours is objective in that all can see what is good or bad for people, other animals and the enviornment : except for psychopaths and sado-masochists, we inherit empathy for some others and we need to make that worldwide as Paul Kurtz admonishes to do.Ours is providional as is science and like since there are disagreements. It is neither relativistic nor absolutistic but contextualistic. Inverse to what theists assert , we do not get our morality from themm,but on the contrary, when they use reason and facts , they use ours.
The original article confuses good with justice. Two different concepts.
I think there is a god that is basically a presence - almost a rabbits foot or a nudge. Quakers feel what they call a “tenderness”. It remains elusive and anyone who tries to speak for it is either a sucker or a crook.
It is easy for someone who has a beef against something to take information out of context to support his gripe. Also, it is easy to lump things together so as to generalize their comments. This author, and some of the respondents here, simply do not understand that there are very distinct differences among religions and among the people who practice it.
What do Atheists know about God personally? Do they even know how God really works? The athiest image of God is manufactured out of the little bits they can read out of the Bible, or out of the quotes of theologians. Their conception of God is totally human-based, and all of God’s actions are therefore couched in human terms.
Why?
Does the quantum physicist have to translate quantum mechanics into your terms just so that you can criticize it?
Does quantum physics have to simplify their definitions and their mathematical formulas just so that you can understand them?
When you rent a home from a landlord, do you have the right to dictate what the terms of his lease should be?
The point I am making is, “Don’t expect others to redefine what they know to be true just to support your arguments or your limited understanding of their knowledge.” Likewise, don’t talk about a subject like you really understand it when you really do not know even the basics.
True. If you think that’s been done here, please support your claim.
Please support your claim.
I don’t know of any gods to know anything about, personally. I know of many alleged gods, and am familiar with what many god-believers claim about their gods.
Please support the implicit claim that there are people who have a conception of a god that is not totally human-based.
If what they claim to “know to be true” is the subject being debated, then what you are saying is just an example of the fallacy of Begging the Question.
OK. Can you provide any evidence that know the basics of the subjects at hand here?
It’s been said that if you get into an argument (heated debate) you’ve already lost..trust me, I’m married
Each side will eventually get offended, and at that point pride keeps a person from saying “I’m wrong”. So, let me explain my viewpoint another way; with my short experience.
I was an alcoholic, driving home on my motorcycle while drunk many many times, addicted to pornography, and just an overall mess. Then I was “saved” by believing that Jesus Christ died as payment for my sins (based on commandments in Bible). I no longer am addicted to alcohol & porno, and have an found an undescribeable PEACE knowing my “fate” and that someone upstair is looking after my every move. If you talk to many believers you’ll find a life transformed similar to mine. It’s not based on fear of a “monsterous” god, it’s based on a love as a child would have for his/her parents.
As far as previous notes, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is a just God: just as sometimes a child rebels and needs correcting, God does the same with us. Sometimes it’s us that cause the problems…it wasn’t like that in the Garden of Eden, because there wasn’t sin.
Thank you.
People who follow other religions experience transformations. People who follow no religion experience transformations. What you describe has no bearing on whether your god or religion are true.
Love of God is based on fear, otherwise your religion is not orthodox
Feel free to support this claim.
“When it comes to the question of God’s existence (in the context of traditional, philosophical theism), there appear to be two options: belief or disbelief (which might include denial). Those who believe in this god also believe that it is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent source of morality and grace. The option of believing, but denying that God is good, is ignored.”
WRONG. I love how atheists have just decided to allow the Abrahamic religions, a.k.a. monotheistic religion, to stand for EVERY person with a religion.I’m a polytheist and I believe the Abrahmic god is just as valid as any other, and I personally think he’s an asshole.Seeing as how both good and evil exist in all humans, I can’t picture a deity without some measure of both. However, I deliberately chose not to worship Yahweh or his bastard son Jesus because of the way he treats his followers (see book of Job), and because Jesus preaches weakness and complacency.
I would appreciate it if you so-called “free-thinkers” would, in fact, think freely and stop referring to everyone who worships a god or gods as “Religion”(sic), simply because your friend Dawkins does so. You people are the worst hypocrites of all. You claim to be “free of delusions” but succumb to the herd mentality with superlative ease.
I refuse to be lumped in with Christians,Jews,or Muslims simply because you are less capable of thinking in terms other than black vs. white/us vs. them than the people you claim to be superior to.
If you are going to make charges against the subjective philosophies of groups of people, then the individual positions of those groups of people MUST be known and represented/debunked separately.Otherwise, you are simply making generalizations,which I don’t need to tell you is the foundation of the arguments of many hate groups,such as the KKK.
Finally, because many atheists seem to display a paranoid fear that “Religion” is going to “destroy the world”, I would just like to add that I have no personal intentions of doing any such thing.I don’t want to convert anybody to my system of thought and I don’t generally go around putting others’ down either. You believe what you believe, and I’ll follow my beliefs.Neither of us can conclusively prove our position,anyway.In the future, however, I’d appreciate it if you thought a little deeper on the subject before just making assumptions.
“The option of believing, but denying that God is good, is ignored.” Never heard of Gnosticism, huh? Maybe you should leave Theology to people who have a genuine interest in the subject,instead of just researching ways to piss off Theists.
Wrong. Didn’t you notice how I was very, very clear that I was talking about “traditional, philosophical theism” and therefore was not talking about every religion?
I would appreciate it if you would point out where I did what you are complaining about.
Indeed I have. I know so much about it that I know that it doesn’t fall in the category of traditional, philosophical theism. Apparently you don’t.
I also know enough abut theism and theology to know that theism isn’t a proper noun and therefore theists shouldn’t be spelled with a capital letter in the middle of the sentence.