(An Open Letter to Mr. William Lane Craig)

Some Christian apologists-- like a guy who writes books called William Lane Craig-- make the argument that because God is the maker of morality, God is above morality (i.e. the concept does not apply to Him). This is a mere assertion, which they are using in an attempt to excuse God's homicidal nature towards his children, as described in bible stories. As you may know, in addition to killing thousands (or millions) of His children, God also ordered His followers to slay thousands (or millions) of His children.

This assertion has several problems with it. First of all, it is not supported biblically. The bible neither directly states nor implies that God is outside of morality. On the contrary, God is characterized within a framework that we can easily recognize as morality. For example, Jesus claims that God is good: "Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is God." [Mark 10:18]. Not only does Jesus call God good, but he goes a step further. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." [Matthew 5:48]

[Psalm 145:9] "The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works." There are other verses, and the apologists know of them. Nowhere does the bible state the following: "The Lord thy God is the creator of these things known as good and evil, and thus He is above that which you call Morality." I just made that up. Apologists may be referring to Romans 9:21, which states that "hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honor, and the one to dishonor?", which is asking the question: doesn't God have the right to do whatever He wants to with us, and who are we to question Him? Well, just because a potter has the right to make the clay for vessels of different purposes, it does not follow that he is exempt from the concept of morality. The bible states quite unambiguously that God is "good". What biblical evidence can they show us as to why we should not take the bible at its word? Come on, how many times have we heard: "God is good"?

Secondly, this claim requires the following moral trickery:

1) They state that God is above morality by virtue of being the creator of morality.

2) They acknowledge that God kills millions of His children for non-violent offenses, condones murder, rape, theft, genocide, lying, etc., condemns finite beings to infinite damnation, and orders his followers to hack thousands of toddlers to pieces with their swords.

3) They still claim that God is "all good".

What follows from this is that the word "good" ceases to mean "beneficial and benevolent", and is quietly inclusive of some quite different adjectives. Hoping no one will notice, these apologists are able to perform a staggering feat of moral gymnastics, and encourage their fellow Christians to do the same. They re-define morality to include horribly barbaric acts that none of us would condone. Even William Lane Craig, champion Christian apologist, would condemn these deeds were they contained in any other book.

To illustrate this, let's make up a hypothetical example. Let's say the Hindu God Shiva, in the Hindu Holy Book the Vedas, kills 50,000 of his followers for no other reason than simply looking at a copy of the laws that he gave to them. After this mass killing, however, the Hindus still claim that Shiva is all-good. Would Mr. William Lane Craig say that their logic is correct? Would he say that their holy book is internally inconsistent? What do you think? (For the record, in the bible God kills 50,000 of His worshipers for looking into the Ark of the Covenant, a gold-plated wooden box containing the tablets of the Ten Commandments).

Take a different case: God looses his temper with His children because they aren't acting right, and He creates a global flood to drown every man, woman, child and baby on the planet (with the exception of 8). Those of us as parents can relate to this, right? Shouldn't each and every act of an all-good God be able to be described as "good"? If not, then what does "good" mean? If so, then you can't continue to call God good. Under the same conditions, what would the devil have done? If the devil had sent the worldwide flood, would Mr. William Lane Craig call the devil "good"? Granted, the devil was not the creator of said humans-- but if it's good when God does it and evil when the devil does it, doesn't making this distinction demand a framework of morality? The difficulty that Christians face is that they cannot, under any circumstances, call any action of God "evil"-- even if it is blatantly so. Hence the irrational apologetics.

Since Mr. William Lane Craig asserts that God is perfect and above morality, I'm sure that he would have no problem if he was ordered to kill a three-year-old girl with a sword, just like the Israelites were commanded to do under the leadership of Moses (following God's orders). Please tell me, William, how would you kill her? Stab her through the chest? Or cut her head off? That would probably cause her less suffering. What about a 6 month-old baby? Would you just use the heel of your boot? How did Moses do it? How many babies do you think you could kill in an hour? Are not these actions good? Perfect, in fact? Let's not beat around the burning bush.

This assertion that God is above morality falls flat on its face. How can I (not having your unconditional commitment to believe everything in the bible) be convinced of the truth of your assertion? How can your assertion in any way aid me in accepting the even bigger assertion that this God of yours does in fact exist? The Christian apologists would have us believe that God created a framework of morality in which He chooses not to operate, (so that He cannot be held morally responsible for war crimes and atrocities), and yet at the same time He states that He is "good", thereby operating within a framework of known morality. I'm not convinced. Are you? If so, what makes you so sure? Welcome to Freethought.

If apologists claim that God is above our human judgments of morality, then they need to stop calling God good-- they aren't allowed to do that anymore, because that's using a human framework of morality. But what they really mean is: When God does something nice, it's good; when He commits a war atrocity, it's none of our business.

There are really three questions that come to light in this discussion.

1) Does the bible contain any support for the apologists' assertion that God is above morality, or does it state that He takes part in it? I think the bible makes it clear. If God is the source of morality, how could He also be apart from it? He clearly considers himself to be good. Such a distinction requires a moral framework in which it can be distinguished. Otherwise, what's the point of saying it? He could just have easily said: "Don't think about good or evil when it comes to Me, I'm above all that." That wouldn't be any more confusing than anything else in the bible (it would actually clear up a lot of confusion!) But he didn't say that-- he said he was good.

2) Even if God IS above morality, have we no right to condemn any of God's acts? Must we as moral beings condone all of God's actions, even those that we find to be morally repugnant? Can it be possible that we have been endowed with reason simply that our souls may be caught in its snares, that we may be led by its delusion off of the narrow path that leads to joy and into the broad road towards everlasting death? Is it possible that we have been given a sense of morality simply that we may, through faith, ignore its deductions and avoid its conclusions? Ought the sailor to throw away his compass and depend entirely upon the fog? If reason is not to be depended upon in matters of religion, why should it be relied upon in matters respecting the rights of our fellow humans? (Credit to Robert G. Ingersoll for that one).

3) What kind of bearing does this argument make against the bigger question of whether God is imaginary? Does the claim that "God is above morality" even mean anything? Can any sentient being who can commit deliberate acts be 'above morality'? Is that even possible? Or does it mean "Don't judge the acts of God, because your questions embarrass the priests!" Because the bible was poorly written, without knowledge of the logic that would someday be applied against it, apologists have to invent explanations that are twisted and inaccessible, far from the straightforward explanation that a natural and benevolent god would give. Apologists are saying that we mere mortals can't hold God to any sort of moral standard when he killed Uzzah for touching the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling in the dirt when the ox stumbled, or when Moses had the man killed for breaking God's commandment by collecting firewood on the sabbath, or any of His other ten thousand horrific acts. This assertion has the appearance of attempting to rescue the reputation of a tribe of barbaric bronze-age savages and their malevolent sky-god, in order to make the stories palatable to people living in a more civilized age-- people who would otherwise reject these stories. It looks like an attempt to save a dying religion. It won't work. People are too intelligent to be fooled by your pseudo-intellectual game of cups and balls. We're not playing.