June 3rd, 2009
Incognito made a challenge to the Tiller Argument in the comments. Here is our response:
Let’s build a new argument, starting from Incognito’s
1) Killing a newly baptized 8 day old baby guarantees the child salvation.
2) To guarantee the salvation, we must murder the child.
3) Murder is against God’s laws.
4) Something against God’s laws cannot be morally praiseworthy.
5) Not all actions that guarantee salvation are morally praiseworthy.
6) God wishes that none should perish but have everlasting life. (2Pet.3:9)
7) From 5, thus, some actions which fulfill God’s wishes are immoral.
8 ) God, being omniscient, knew this prior to creating the world.
9) God, being omnipotent, could have created the world in such a way that immorality was not required in fulfilling his wishes.
10) God, being good, would have refrained from creating such a world.
11) Thus, either omniscience fails, omnipotence fails, or benevolence fails, or some conjunction of them fails.
12) Thus, Christianity has mischaracterized the true nature of God.
13) Thus, Christianity is false.
QED
1) Killing a newly baptized 8 day old baby guarantees the child salvation.
Religious debates aside, I think this whole argument is badly flawed from the get-go.
Assuming this is canon in some denomination; I think the first point would have to be that an 8 day old baby who dies (by flood, fire, starvation, murder, SIDS, etc) is granted Salvation.
None of the rest of the points follow at all – the whole point of salvation, as far I can interpret from most religions is that everyone is supposed to work towards salvation, usually by following the “rules” set out.
There is a WORLD of difference between say “and 8 day old who dies goes to heaven” and saying “let’s kill the 8 day old guarantees heaven”.
The principle would seen be to follow the rules yourself, live a good life, raise the child under the rules & both are “saved”, not “save the child but damn yourself”.
For someone who doesn’t argue religion, you’re doing an awful lot of it, and you’re putting together logic chains with some very weak links (though starting with Incognito’s first premise was probably a mistake).
You also continue to criticize “Christianity”. That’s like criticizing Asians or Europeans – after a couple of thousand years of discussion, division and migration you’re talking about a pretty broad category of people & beliefs that only bear a superficial relationship to one another.
It feels like you’re taking cheap shots, and I don’t *think* that was the intent.
Rory
I have recently become more interested in Christianity and have been doing a lot of reading in the area – as with everything, my interests at the moment are reflected in the blog content. I am taking Christianity as a test case for religion in general. As you know I equally disbelieve all religions, but it’s really not possible to discuss all of them at once when disputing the validity of a supernatural worldview. I know Christianity best and so am best able to talk about it. Also the only comments I ever get about religion are from Christians, actually specifically one Christian, so my posts tend to reflect that particular conversation. I’ve been having some private email debates on this issue simultaneously.
Using the formal argument format is of course from the discipline of philosophy and it is a way of making one’s claims very clear and open to examination, removing rhetorical devices and other such distractions. If there is a flaw in the argument it is open for all to see and make counter claims – this is actually the fairest and most honest way to try and make one’s case. The fact that Christianity can be stumped in this format perhaps suggests there are problems with the claims of the faith. Actually I think this should be immediately apparent to anyone who has read the Bible, which has many contradictory claims. There are entire books dedicated to providing examples of these contradictions.
The rest does follow logically. The fact that it is problematic is, as far as I can see, a result of the contradictory dictates in the Bible. This may not trouble you – plenty of religious people are not troubled by the contradictions and theological problems that come from the Bible. I take it as one more plank in a cumulative case against religion. If God had a clear idea of what the rules are around salvation and death and murder and what pleases him, why did he not make it clearer? If he’s god, surely he could have. Surely he could have made the Bible include anything he wanted. If he chose not to be clear to the people who want to please him (Christians), why?
I agree there is a world of difference between a natural death at 8 days and a murder at 8 days. But for me there are no theological complications to do with salvation which clearly suggests the baby is better off dead than living its life. After all, there is nothing greater than being in God’s presence for eternity, unmarred by sin or the pain of life in this veil of tears. This all follows from the Bible – I didn’t make any of it up. But to me, a murdered baby is an absolute tragedy because that baby now has nothing. All we have is our earthly life – to have it taken away is the worst crime. There is no consolation prize in the afterlife. Therefore all life should be treasured.
You clearly have a sense that there is something wrong with saying it’s okay for a baby to die, I assume no matter the cause. You would prefer for all babies to be happy and loved and free to grow up and experience the joys and pains of a normal life. Me too! I think this tells us that you (and I) get our moral sense from somewhere other than the Bible. We just *know* it is wrong for a baby to die, no matter how you justify it. We both reject the logic of the bible, at least on this point. For me this is no problem as I don’t accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God or anything other than a piece of literature.
As for failing to distinguish between different Christian sects, yes, I have not considered the unique claims of each of the tens of thousands of different Christian groups. I am trying to be as fair as possible by going right back to the source material, the Bible. The fact that Christians are so unclear about the real message of their god, as evidenced by the huge number of different groups, is really just more evidence to me that the bible and Christianity cannot be right. Doesn’t it worry you, wondering if you’re following God’s teaching properly? When you consider how many different interpretations there are, how many different Christian groups? How do you know you’re in the right one, following the right rules? When the punishment is eternal torment in hell, you’d think a loving God would have made his wishes a little clearer.
I don’t intend it as a cheap shot. I think religion is deadly serious – Dr Tiller’s wife would agree. I strongly oppose organized religion in the form it currently takes, and I oppose the assumption of a supernatural worldview. I take it so seriously that I dedicate many -many!- hours of my life to reading and writing and talking about it. I belong to social groups that have as their mandate the promotion of a naturalistic worldview and debunking false claims of the supernatural. When I want to take a cheap shot, I’ll start writing about the claims of creationists.
As for not wanting to argue about religion, really, I admit to a lot of mixed feelings on this score. I feel it is important to challenge it, but I am not sure how effective formal debate it. I become interested to reengage when important events like Dr Tiller’s murder occur. I’m still working out for myself how I want to approach these issues. As has been documented on this blog, I’ve changed my mind more than once about how I want to do things – this is the risk of making your stream of consciousness a permanent record! But I guess that’s just me being human.
And finally, I really want to let people know I don’t hate religious people. Religion is easy to come by and hard to leave, and people are just people – almost all of us are just trying to get along and do the best we can and I believe religious people, certain fanatics and unscrupulous preachers aside, are good people. The problem is it’s hard for me to target the belief without people feeling like I’m targeting them personally. My best analogy is – I hope you will forgive it as it is religious! – love the sinner, hate the sin.
Rweston, yes, I agree, the entire argument is absurd. That is the point. When the actual beliefs of many Christians are closely examined, there are absurd conclusions. My point isn’t to justify killing babies. My point is to demonstrate the absurdity of Christianity.
You can dodge behind the old “but that’s not what *real* Christians would do” maneuvre (which I take to be your point when you say attacking Christianity is like attacking Europe), but it’s simple:
Either you accept natural grace or you do not.
If you accept it, then death by *any* cause leads immediately to God.
God wishes for salvation, not damnation.
A pious madman who murders babies is guaranteeing their salvation.
So, just what kind of theological system are we talking about here when its most fundamental tenets can be implemented by psychopaths and the insane?
This is reminding me of the time in Firefly when River Tam tried to fix the bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP2Ar-kjwCo
“Noah’s ark is a problem.”
Let’s build a new argument, starting from Incognito’s
1) Killing a newly baptized 8 day old baby guarantees the child salvation.
2) To guarantee the salvation, we must murder the child.
3) Murder is against God’s laws.
4) Something against God’s laws cannot be morally praiseworthy.
5) Not all actions that guarantee salvation are morally praiseworthy.
6) God wishes that none should perish but have everlasting life. (2Pet.3:9)
7) From 5, thus, some actions which fulfill God’s wishes are immoral.
8 ) God, being omniscient, knew this prior to creating the world.
9) God, being omnipotent, could have created the world in such a way that immorality was not required in fulfilling his wishes.
10) God, being good, would have refrained from creating such a world.
11) Thus, either omniscience fails, omnipotence fails, or benevolence fails, or some conjunction of them fails.
12) Thus, Christianity has mischaracterized the true nature of God.
13) Thus, Christianity is false.
Unless 2Peter 3:9 continues with “God wishes that all should be saved by any and all means, even if the methods violate other commandments” don’t have God’s wishes fulfilled by the abortionists.
In the same way when a parent “wishes their child happiness” he doesn’t tacitly support the child achieving happiness by murdering and eating people, if the child is so inclined.
As for point 9, if murdering a baby were the only way to obtain salvation for the child, it would then be “required” of course the baby can be saved without the murder, ergo it is not required.
I question the utility of providing a flawed argument in response my dismantling of a previous flawed argument. If there is any demonstrable absurdity here, I would suggest it’s not in the Christian points being so mishandled.
~I.
An argument was offered about the nature of the world, given certain non-controversial theological beliefs, demonstrating an absurdity at the heart of Christian theology.
A rebuttal of the argument was offered. No positive defence of the doctrine of natural grace was offered.
That rebuttal was used in toto to construct a new argument concluding that the Christian God is incoherent.
This was again rebutted. First, the argument was questioned as lacking “utility.” I’m not sure that the usefulness or uselessness of an argument in any way stands as evidence *against* that argument. But, since I am required to spell it out, the usefulness of the argument is as a reductio ad absurdum. The job of the interlocutor is clear: either deny the reductio, or grant it, and deny the abusrdum. I see no evidence of either countermove.
(And again, no positive defence of either natural grace or the Christian conception of God was offered.)
We never tried to establish that baby murdering was *required* – only that according to your religion it is morally praiseworthy. You are trying to show equivalence where none was demonstrated, in effect attacking something we never posited. Would that be a straw man, or just a misunderstanding?
The problem is in the incoherent, contradictory rules of the Bible, not the logic.
Ok- You’re taking this seriously Fine, but your first entries in the logic tree are, in an of themselves a dubious starting point :
2) To guarantee the salvation, we must murder the child.
Really you’re going to start the logic tree with a MUST murder the child because somehow your job is to Guarantee salvation for the child?
No – you’re starting with a tenent that, so far as I know, doesn’t exist in Christianity. People are supposed to follow the laws/commandments, and I don’t know of one that starts with determining the fate of others.
I would guess that you are supposed to follow all the rules, one being don’t murder – if there is a rule that says you must also guarantee salvation for babies please present such commandment. Absent that, it’s not “morally praiseworthy” to kill an otherwise healthy child.
You’re creating your own “rules” in the logic chain then saying they come from the Bible.
I’ve taken the logic courses and am familiar with what you’re doing – but with a logic chain each premise has to be “true” and the second premise is, well, not in evidence in the belief system – THAT’s what I have a problem with.
Salvation is a message Christians generally preach – and although children are baptized under some denominations, generally one makes a CHOICE to join a church & be baptized – the central message of “Christianity” seems to me to be about free will, and making a choice to accept the teachings. Salvation is a personal matter, not a decision made for you.
Rory,
Presbyterian turned Philosphy student presently “Existentialist Aethist” if that really means anything.
To be clear, I questioned the utility of providing the argument, not the utility of the argument itself. I was more questioning the apparent method you were employing in order to achieve the assumed goal.
Goal – Showing Christianity is incoherent / absurd.
Method – Providing flawed arguments critiquing a position (Christianity) to demonstrate that the position is absurd.
Again, I’m questioning the utility of the provision of the argument, not the argument itself.
As for natural grace, why would I defend it? I thought it was assumed when you used it in your first premise. The same is true with the Christian conception of God. I’ve rarely encountered a person who trots out an argument and then asks the critics to provide a defense for the assumptions he presents in his own argument.
As to BV’s comments…
You present the problem as ‘immoral things can accomplish God’s desire.’
The problem is in the Petrine exegesis. God’s desire that all are saved is not the same as God’s desire for all to be saved through any means necessary. As another example, if you were to say “I wish meat consumption in North America dropped by 50%” and I engineered a virus that wiped out a great many people, and so dropped the meat consumption, I couldn’t really claim to be doing your will.
So, immoral acts don’t fulfill God’s desire, because his desire is not “that all should be saved by any means, including murder” This is of course consistent with premise #10, God’s goodness.
Your premise:
9) God, being omnipotent, could have created the world in such a way that immorality was not required in fulfilling his wishes.
If God could have created the world in a way “that immorality was not required…” the implication is that under the current system, immorality IS required.
If immorality is not required, as I’m demonstrated, in that murder is not necessary for salvation… then premise #9 falls, as does the argument.
~I.
Point 2 follows logically from 1. It doesn’t need to be a stated Biblical tenet, it’s a logical result of a biblical tenet (salvation is the best outcome for anyone).
It is also not exclusive – maybe there are other ways to guarantee salvation (though I can’t think of one), and nor is it phrased as a required duty. Perhaps you would choose not to guarantee salvation.
The central teaching of Christianity is up for debate. Your personal opinion of this may be correct according to God but then again maybe not – if he exist he didn’t see fit to tell us what his central teaching was. The thousands of sects founded in his name and on his book is a testament to that. The contents of the Bible are not up for debate, or at least not nearly so much since we can at least all agree on what edition we’ll consider (King James at our house). This is why we relied on the Bible to inform the argument.
If salvation is a personal matter, and no one can make the choice for you, what do you think happens to a baby that dies, according to the Bible? Since it hasn’t made the choice to become a Christian, does it go to hell?
And of course it is a totally ridiculous argument! That was largely our point: there are fatal flaws in the theology. Doesn’t sound like the work of an onmipotent, omniscient being to me.
The only way to defeat Premise 2 is to offer an argument that concludes its denial – in other words that murdering a baby does not guarantee its salvation.
This is a defeater for natural grace.
This leaves the theist in pretty bad shape, because any argument concluding that natural grace is false implies that God condemns infants to the lake of fire.
The debate seems to be centred solely on the logic. Does that mean you accept the underlying notion that a reducto ad absurdum with biblically inspired premises would invalidate Christianity, or at least a biblical foundation of Christian apologetics? If so… here ya go!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
If not, why not? If you can answer that satisfactorily then the specific argument at hand is moot.