On Fri, 5 Apr 1996 00:32:49 +1000 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
>SJ>But the real question is not "Is killing Jews a bad thing?" but "Is
>killing humans a bad thing?" Now one might argue that this is not an
>absolute because killing in self-defence, or mercy-killing, etc.,
>makes killing justified in some circumstances. But this merely
>establishes the absolute general principal that killing humans is a
>bad thing, even though there may be some special circumstances, that
>mitigate its badness.
DM>OK. Let us look at a "special circumstance", Steve. Let's look in
>the Book of Joshua, Chapter 10. Steve, if you haven't actually read this
>chapter before, AND felt the full horror of it, do so now.
I have indeed read this chapter before and "felt the full horror of
it".
But how do *you*, as a presumed moral relativist, claim that the
killing in "the Book of Joshua, Chapter 10" is a bad thing? According
to moral relativists, there are no moral absolutes, only social
conventions geared to survival of a particular group. On your moral
relativists grounds, therefore, Joshua had ample justification to wipe
out his enemies, in order to assure the Israeelite's survival in a
land dominated by the much more numerous Canaanites, who had already
declared war on the Israelites.
So what is your problem, Derek? If you are claiming that killing
other human beings is always wrong, then you are espousing moral
absolutes. Which is it that you believe, moral relativism or moral
absolutism?
[...]
DM>And just so we are absolutely sure who bears the responsibility for
>this genocide, we'll have verse 40 again.
DM>40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
>and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left
>none remaining, BUT UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED,
>AS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL COMMANDED.
Indeed. Joshua was commanded by Yahweh to "devote" (Heb. herem) ie.
"utterly destroy" all the Canaanites. This was as originally
instructed to Moses by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:10-18:
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of
peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it
shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they
refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that
city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the
sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the
livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as
plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God
gives you from your enemies.This is how you are to treat all the
cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the
nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your
God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that
breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God
has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the
detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin
against the LORD your God."
Note that only the Canaanites were to be utterly destroyed. The reason
is given, because they would corrupt the pure religion of Yahweh, the
one true God, with the "detestable things they do in worshiping their
gods", ie. child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, etc.
Archer says:
"In certain instances such as the capture of Jericho and of Ai, Joshua
records that the Israelites completely exterminated the inhabitants
according to the command of Jehovah Himself. It needs to be
emphasized that the responsibility for this extreme measure rested
with God (that is, if this account is to be trusted) rather than with
the Hebrews. This needs to be emphasized in view of the frequent
statement heard in some quarters that the "primitive minded, half
savage" Israelites performed this atrocity because of their backward
state of religious development. The text makes it very plain that
Joshua was simply carrying out divine orders when these inhabitants
were indiscriminately put to the sword.
What was the justification for this total destruction? The subsequent
history of Israel serves to illustrate very pointedly the grave danger
that remained for Israel so long as the Canaanites were permitted to
live in their midst. Given over as they were to the most degenerate
forms of polytheism and sexual impurity, these depraved inhabitants
of the land were sure to exert a baneful influence and spread a deadly
contagion among the covenant people of God. Recent archaeological
discovery has brought to light concrete testimony to the crass and
brutal features of the Canaanite faith as displayed in the literature
of
the Ras Shamra Tablets. Throughout the region there seems to have
been a readiness to incorporate into the indigenous worship all the
foreign cults that were practiced by the surrounding heathen nations.
Thus we find a series of hyphenated gods: Teshub-Hepa (the Hurrian
storm-god and his consort), the Osiris-Isis cult from Egypt; Shamash
(the sun-god) and Ishtar (the bloodthirsty goddess of war and love)
and Tammuz (a fertility god ) from Mesopotamia. Many sites have
yielded serpent stelae and Ashtoreth images with sexual symbols. In
view of the corrupting influence of the Canaanite religion, especially
with its religious prostitution (cf the abomination of Baal-peor in
Num. 25) and infant sacrifice, it was impossible for pure faith and
worship to be maintained in Israel except by the complete elimination
of the Canaanites themselves, at least in those areas which the
Hebrews were able to occupy. Much of the periodic spiritual decline
and apostasy which marked the history of Israel during the time of the
Judges is attributable to a toleration of the Canaanite inhabitants
and
their degenerate religion in the midst of the land."
(Archer G.L., ."A Survey of Old Testament Introduction",
Moody Press: Chicago, 1964, p261)
DM>So, would you care to explain what was so "special" about the
>"circumstances" surrounding these wholesale slaughters, that God found it
>necessary to condone, and even participate in the slaughter of women,
>children and babies. And not even just condone and participate, but even
>perform one of the greatest miracles ever attributed to Him in order to
>ensure that there was enough time to ensure that one particular act of
>genocide was fully completed.
The first point we need to get clear is: did "God" order the
destruction of the Canaanites? There are two possibilities:
1. No. This is your position, because you don't believe that God
can be known or that God doesn't exist. In this case, there is no
problem. This is just another minor war in a long history of
purely human wars. God cannot be blamed, only men.
2. Yes. This is my position. I believe that God did order the
destruction of the Canaanites because they were evil and a great
threat to God's plan to establish a nation Israel through whom He
would, in the fulness of time, send His Son Jesus, who would
bless the world immeasurably and procure eternal life for uncountable
millions.
The point is, you cannot hold 1. and argue against 2. If 1. is right
then 2. cannot be wrong by definition. However, if 2. is right then
1. is wrong by definition. Either way, you can't prove 2. wrong.
Zacharias says:
"Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University
of Nottingham in England. As soon as I finished one of my lectures,
he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily, "There is too
much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God." I asked
him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me. I said, "If
there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a
thing as good?" He paused, reflected, and said, "I guess so. " "If
there is such a thing as good," I countered, "you must affirm a moral
law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and
evil."..."When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is
good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a
moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and
evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral
lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not
prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If
there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there
is no evil. What, then, is your question?" There was a conspicuous
pause that was broken when he said rather sheepishly, "What, then, am
I asking you?"...Let me summarize: 1. To justify the question, God
must remain in the paradigm; without God, the question
self-destructs." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word
Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p182-183)
DM>It would appear that, at least according to God as revealed in the
>Book of Joshua, the God-commanded wholesale slaughter of humans is
>not necessarily a bad thing. Like, for instance, if God's people
>covet the land of those they intend to slaughter?
My point is that this is only a problem *for Christian theists*. It
cannot be a problem to agnostics or atheists.
DM>But of course, we know better. We know that what the Israelites did
>was an unmitigated evil. An unmitigated evil commanded and assisted by the
>Judaeo-Christian God. If the above is true, then my atheist/agnostic
>morality is higher than the morality of Joshua and the God of Joshua,
>because I know that what they did was unjustifiable, and they thought that
>what they did was justifiable.
What "evil"? What "morality"? How "unjustifiable"? These are all the
language of moral absolutes. Where do you get these moral absolutes
from?
If there is no God, then this was the work of man. It *cannot* be a
problem to you, because you either believe God is unknowable or He
doesn't exist. Please make up your mind, Derek! :-)
DM>Can you imagine what it would be like now if the U.S.A., or some
>other nuclear power, was governed by people who condone what God and
>Joshua did to Ai, Jerico, Hebron, etc.? How safe could the rest of
>the world reasonably feel?
If they were moral relativists, why would they "feel" anything? If
Saddam Hussein gets nuclear or biological weapons and wipes out New
York, how could moral relativists say he was wrong?
>SJ>C.S. Lewis wrote:
>"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent
>behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations
>and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is
>not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but
>these have never amounted to anything like a total difference.
DM>I would suggest that Joshua's morality concerning the sanctity of
>human life was totally different to what is considered appropriate
>today. Of course, the racist element of right-wing "Christianity"
>have a precedent in Joshua.
The point is, as a presumed moral relatavist, how would you counter
"the racist element of right-wing `Christianity' "?
SJ>... Men have differed as regards
>what people you ought to be unselfish to- whether it was only your own
>family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always
>agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has
>never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have
>one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not
>simply have any woman you liked." (Lewis C.S., "Mere Christianity",
>Fount: London, 1977 reprint, p17)
DM>Have men "always agreed" that you slaughter your enemies down to
>the last man, woman, child and baby, as the ancient Israelites did?
No. But when it is a war of self-defence, men have often agreed to
wipe out whole cities full of men, women and children. Think of
Hiroshima, which makes Joshua's destuction of the Canaanites, look
like a Sunday School picnic.
[...]
>SJ>I would argue "moral standards" are more than mere "personal beliefs".
>They are built-in. We are "hard-wired" with moral natures. Only a
>theist can account for this - we were made moral in the image of a
>holy God. The "naturalist" cannot rationally account for his "moral
>standards", since to him they are just "personal beliefs":
DM>What leads you to believe that only a theist can account for our
>"hard-wired" moral natures? Would it not be more reasonable to
>believe that the basis for our common morality is in our genes? This
>appears to be reasonable, since I understand that a number of inheritable
>(and therefore genetically based) mental disorders manifest as amorality.
It would not matter to a theist if "the basis for our common morality
is in our genes". But if you argue that, then you are no longer a
moral relativist.
The next problem you would have is working out whose "genes" were
right - yours or Joshua's? :-)
DM>And if the basis for our common morality is in our genes, from
>whence did it come? Was it a direct gift from God? Or was it an
>indirect gift of God via the evolutionary process? Or was it simply
>necessary that, as a social animal, we, like every other social
>animal, either behaved altruistically, mostly to our close relatives
>and less to the rest of our group, or we ceased to be social?
Even if granted, this would just be an "is" not an "ought". Just
because it is part of our "evolutionary process", why should we
continue to obey it? In fact, Dawkins argues that we shouldn't obey
our selfish genes:
"...in The Selfish Gene Dawkins shows how not only competitive, but
also apparently cooperative behaviour of organisms such as parental
care and social organization, are really the result of every gene
looking out for itself and trying to increase its numbers. Then, at
the end of the book, comes an interesting surprise: 'We are built as
gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to
turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the
tyranny of the selfish replicators'. So human beings, alone among the
species, have the possibility of 'deliberately cultivating and
nurturing pure, disinterested altruism'. Culture can triumph over
nature in this one species. It is not entirely clear how an organism,
constructed by selfish genes for their own perpetuation by whatever
means they can devise, can escape their cunning influence. How can
such autonomy, such freedom to choose altruistic behaviour, arise
unless it, too, is of benefit to the genes that generate this
property, in which case again altruism is really self-interest?"
(Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of
Complexity", Phoenix: London, 1994, p29)
And on this basis, how can you condemn Joshua? He was behaving
"altruistically, mostly to" his "close relatives and less to the rest
of our group"?
DM>How can we test these and other alternatives? Based on the
>teachings of the Bible, Joshua and some other huge moral lapses
>notwithstanding, we are expected to behave altruistically to all
>people. But IS that how we behave, especially under stress, when our
>real natures are revealed? No, we revert to the moral nature within,
>i.e. me and my family first, my tribe second, anyone else with whom
>I share significant common purpose third, anyone with whom I have no
>disagreement fourth, and anyone who stands against us can expect a
>fight.
What "moral lapses"? On the above basis, haven't you just excused
Joshua?
DM>If our moral nature was to behave altruistically to all, then
>theists could account for it. More, I think evolutionists would be
>very hard-pressed to account for it. But the true nature of our
>altruism/morality, which is often only revealed under stress, has so
>much in common with other social mammals (those who are most
>genetically similar to me come first, and so on), and so little in
>common with Biblical teaching, that I think the conclusion is
>obvious.
Here you are a bit confused, Derek? On your basis, the Bible was a
production only by men, not by God since either he doesn't exist or he
is unknowable. So why on your basis should Biblical teaching have "so
little in common" with "the true nature" of this "social mammal"?
DM>Our morality is a product of evolution. The only questions that
>remain are, (1) Was/is God involved in evolutionary processes?
>(2) If so, to what extent?
According to you God is unknowable, so your answer to both 1. and 2.
are either "no" or "I don't know"?
You would need to define what you mean by "evolution". If you mean
Darwinist macro-evolution, then there is no need for "God" to be
"involved in evolutionary processes. If however, by "evolution" you
embrace the various forms of God-guided "evolution" (in its broadest
sense), then most, if not all Christian theists would deny that man's
"morality" is *solely* "a product of evolution".
DM>These are theological/philosophic questions, the answers to which
>we disagree without significant hope of agreement.
Agreed! :-)
DM>What I am hoping that you will see is that, while our moral IDEALS,
>i.e. what we aspire to, might be derived from religious or cultural
>influences, our moral actions when stressed are the product of the
>genetically-based altruism we inherited from our social-mammal
>ancestors.
So, on your basis, why was Joshua wrong to exterminate the Canaanites,
since his "moral ideals" where "derived from religious or cultural
influences" and his "moral actions" were "the product of the
genetically-based altruism we inherited from our social-mammal
ancestors"?
>SJ>"...Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist
>and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth,
>and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one's parents) and
>things (persons and animals have worth). If physicalism is true as a
>worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts.
>Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to
>cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally
>prescribe that another physical state ought to be. If physicalism is
>true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should
>do to be in conformity with the moral universe. Rather, "ought"
>serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially accepted or
>psychologically desired goal (e.g., "If one wants to have pleasure and
>avoid pain, then one 'ought' to tell the truth") . Moral imperatives
>become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a
>preference for Burger King over McDonald's." (Moreland J.P., "Scaling
>the Secular City", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, p93)
DM>I would suggest that "oughts" or "moral imperatives" have much less
>to do with subjective preferences and much more to do with our
>genetic inheritance. They are imperatives because they REALLY ARE
>part of us. All that our religion and culture does is to formalise
>and, perhaps, polish them a little. But notice how quickly the
>formalities and the polish disappear in times of great stress. If
>you doubt that, look at how we honour those few people who DO hold
>the high moral ground under great stress.
Christianity hold that man is a fallen being, and to some extent he
has reverted back to his animal (as opposed to his spiritual) nature.
So man's actions today cannot be regarded as normative:
"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right
there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I
see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against
the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work
within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from
this body of death?" (Rom 7:21-24)
But you miss Moreland's point: "If physicalism is true as a worldview,
there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts".
[...]
>SJ>Tim's argument might be true if all religions were equally valid.
>But even he might believe a religion that taught as its highest truth
>"love your neigbour as yourself" (Judeo-Christianity) was more true
>than one which had temple prostitutes and sacrificed its children to
>idols as did the Canaanites and the Incas.
DM>Just step back a bit and you will see temple prostitutes and child
>sacrifice for what they really were. Like much associated with
>religion, they were about the exercise and flaunting of power.
On your basis, what is morally wrong with them then?
DM>Temple prostitutes were, as much as anything, a source of income
>and, no doubt, a bit of blatant "Rank hath its privileges" for the
>priests. Child sacrifice was simply a brutal exercise of absolute
>power. If a leader could cause people to sacrifice their children on
>his command, then he knew that his power over them was absolute.
>And, equally or more importantly, they knew it too!
The religion of the Bible was absolutely opposed to such practices,
and that is why Yahweh commanded Joshua to wipe the practiontioners of
those "detestable things they do in worshiping their gods" (Dt 20:18).
Are you now claiming that the religion of the Bible was morally better
than that of the Canaanites?
DM>But all of this talk of temple prostitutes and child sacrifice is
>little more than a diversion. There are no temple prostitutes or
>child sacrifices in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. How does
>Christianity substantiate a claim to greater validity than those?
On the contrary, Derek. The discussion of "temple prostitutes or
child sacrifices" is *central* to our discussion of why Yahweh ordered
Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites. You trying to switch the
subject to the relative "validity" of "Judaism, Islam or Buddhism" and
"Christianity" is a transparent "diversion". But one I will take up
in the next thread! :-)
[continued]
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------