This is the first of four posts with the intention of discussing the essay. Each post discusses one of his four main points:
#1: God Is Silent
#2: God Is Inert
#3: The Evidence Is Inadequate
#4: Christianity Predicts a Different Universe
Before I continue, let me answer the question you may be screaming at your computer monitor right now: Why on earth am I reading something like this?! Well, as I have said before, I want no part of a faith that is based on ignorance. If I cannot read something like Carrier's essay without filling my heart with doubt, than something is wrong with my faith. I'd like to ask you: Can you read his essay without doubt creeping into your heart? If not, what does that say about your conclusions about God? I want (as Os Guinness describes) an "examined faith, unafraid to doubt". I believe it the only way to "know God more certainly, and enjoy God more deeply." (again Guinness)
God is silent
Carrier's first objection to Christianity is that God is silent. He rejects faith in Christ because God does not communicate with mankind in a way that an all-powerful being should:
The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong... It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do... Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion [about what he wants us to do]. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.
This difficulty has bothered me for a long time. God clearly does not communicate with us in a way that he could. He is all-powerful after all. But the problem does not start there: The Bible describes Him communicating with mankind in a very direct way in the past. In Exodus 3, God speaks directly to Moses via burning bush. So we know it is something that He has done in the past. So why doesn't He do it today?
I think the majority of Carrier's objections arise from a basic misunderstanding of God's relationship to man. Certainly the God that created the universe, the One who counts the stars and calls them by name, is able to grab us by the collar, look us in the eye, and tell us exactly what he wants us to do. But I think this is missing the point. God created us for a reason. He didn't create us to obey him, or do anything for Him. If he did, his communication (or lack of it) with us is certainly puzzling. I believe God created us to love him.
Love is never forced. I know this in a very real way; my two year old daughter has recently stopped giving me hugs. Of course, this makes me sad. Some days I really need to feel her tiny arms squeeze my neck. I could make her hug me; demand that she give me a "squeeze". Sometimes I do just that. But this kind of "love", forced love, is not really love at all. Love is not forced. I believe that God is silent because he will not force us to love him. He gives us hints of his existence and character in a way that only an infinite being can if he wants to reveal part of himself to a finite being without overwhelming that finite being...
Ironically, Dan Barker, in his book Losing Faith in Faith, hit the nail on the head:
It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being. [source]Well said, Dan. God wants us to love him, not because "if we don't he will send us to hell" or because "if we do, he'll send us to heaven". He wants us to love him because he made us, because he loves us, and because of what he has done for us.
In Miracles, C.S. Lewis puts it this way:
The sin, both of men and of angels, was rendered possible by the fact that God gave them free will: thus surrendering a portion of His omnipotence (it is again a deathlike or descending movement) because He saw that from a world of free creatures, even though they fell, He could work out (and this is the renascent) a deeper happiness and a fuller splendour than any world of automata would admit. [source]God somehow, in some way, suspended his sovereignty over our actions and gave us free will. He gave us a choice - He wants us to decide to love him.
Carrier has obviously heard this explanation before. He addresses it in his essay:
Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent.
I think this second option is correct. But here Carrier is focusing only on our free will to hear or not hear God's voice. Although hearing God is important, Carrier neglects to mention another, arguably more important choice we are free to make: how we live our lives. God gave Adam & Eve, and all their descendants, including you and me, the choice between right and wrong; we can choose whether or not to obey. God gave us the ability to decide who will be lord of our lives; Jesus or something else.
This is important, because a holy God cannot spend eternity with a soul tainted by sin. It becomes apparent that God took the ultimate risk: He gave us free will, and in doing so, took the risk that we would reject Him; that our choice would result in eternal separation from Him. I think it was a risk worth taking, because (as I described above) it is the only way real love is possible. So to me, it looks like Carrier is correct; God cares more about our free choice than about "saving our souls". It has to be that way for loves sake.
Carrier has a few more things to say about free will:
Right from the start, [the appeal to free will] fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God. Therefore, either God is telling them different things, or there is no God.
Some Christians put a lot of significance on the Holy Spirit, and understandably so; the idea of God dwelling within us, guiding us and telling us what is right and wrong is very appealing. However, I think Carrier has a good point. If the Holy Spirit is a significant force in guiding Christians, then God is intentionally sowing confusion in His church. The reality is that Christianity has an incredibly diverse array of beliefs, and they can't all be right. The church must be full of misguided people.
The only possible explanation is that the Holy Spirit is not a significant force in the guidance of the majority of Christians. And I am no exception. That's why, when I feel that "inner voice" nudging me in this way or that, I severely doubt that this is the Holy Spirit communicating with me. There is nothing different between me and the hordes of other misguided people sitting in the pew next to me every Sunday. I know this is pessimistic, but I see no way around it.
Either way, Carrier's first objection to Christianity is a reasonable one. Next on the list (and the next one I'll address here) is more serious: God is inert. Here he discusses, among other things, the problem of evil, and asks the question: Why would a good God allow suffering?
No comments:
Post a Comment