Critiquing: Why Didn’t God Start Humanity Over Right Away by Destroying Adam and Eve?

July 25, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Divine Justification — Purpose of Sin — Theodicy Issues — Free Will — Eternal Judgment

---

Overview

The content addresses several theological questions, including why God didn’t start humanity over by destroying Adam and Eve immediately after their sin, the possibility of another fall in the new creation, and the nature of free will in the afterlife. This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the arguments presented, focusing on logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases.

Theodicy and Speculation

The content opens with a discussion about why God allowed Adam and Eve to continue living despite their sin. It acknowledges that many “why God” questions remain speculative and can’t be answered definitively:

“The rule is that why God questions or why did he, why didn’t he, are questions that frequently simply cannot be answered, because they have to do with the mind of God, which God has not generally revealed.”

This statement suggests an inherent limitation in human understanding of divine motives. However, it also introduces an arbitrary boundary that prevents rigorous scrutiny. The assertion that speculation is “hazardous” can be seen as an attempt to discourage critical analysis, which may be perceived as a method to deflect valid inquiries.

Claims of Divine Judgment

The content attempts to justify the continuation of humanity post-Adam and Eve’s sin by positing that God’s long-term purpose involves demonstrating his justice and mercy:

“There’s probably some for people to think that God is glorified in his judgments against sinners, and that this is somehow a good thing.”

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Circular Reasoning: The argument that God allows evil to display his justice and mercy presupposes that these attributes are necessary and beneficial without adequately explaining why. This creates a circular reasoning issue where the conclusion (God’s actions are just and merciful) is presupposed by the premise (God needs to display justice and mercy).
2. Assumption about the Divine: The claim that divine judgment glorifies God and is inherently coherent assumes a framework that is not universally accepted and lacks empirical substantiation. This assumption is presented as self-evident without addressing alternative perspectives or providing evidence for its inherent coherence.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims within the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious, requiring further evidence or justification:

1. Divine Purpose and Human Fallibility:

“God’s sovereign purposes in the long run…presumes something about God’s sovereign purposes.”

This statement assumes knowledge of divine intentions without providing concrete evidence or logical reasoning to support the presumption. It is a broad assertion that requires a more detailed explanation of what these sovereign purposes are and how they are known.

2. Impact of Sin and Free Will:

“So he clearly didn’t want to wipe out all sin with Adam and Eve, whether that’s because… the next one would have done the same thing.”

The assertion that subsequent humans would inevitably sin like Adam and Eve lacks empirical support and presents a deterministic view of human nature that is not substantiated within the content. This claim needs evidence from either empirical human behavior studies or theological doctrine to support the inevitability of sin in subsequent humans.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are present in the content:

1. Appeal to Authority:

“It just so happens that the Old Testament text is absolutely thick with these kinds of things, these kinds of characterizations of God.”

This appeal to scripture as an authoritative source without providing rational justification for its acceptance outside of religious belief can be seen as an appeal to authority. It assumes that the Old Testament is a definitive source on the character of God without addressing the need for external validation of these claims.

2. False Dichotomy:

“If we can’t sin, we have no free will. So my question simply is this, does God have freedom? Can God freely choose what he wants to do?”

The content presents a false dichotomy between the ability to sin and the presence of free will. It suggests that the absence of the ability to sin negates free will, which is an oversimplified and logically flawed argument. Free will can be considered in the context of making healthy choices without the necessity of sin being an option.

3. Straw Man Argument:

“It just troubles me that there are so many people that don’t see this, and they think, well, I can’t sin in heaven, well, then I’m just going to be a machine, and I’m not going to be able to love.”

This misrepresents the opposing view by suggesting that critics believe the absence of sin equates to a lack of love, which oversimplifies and distorts the actual concerns about free will and agency. The real concern is about the authenticity of choices without the possibility of sin, not necessarily the capacity to love.

Unfulfilled Promises and Testing Divine Claims

The content also addresses the concept of divine promises and their fulfillment:

“One of them was it served as a demonstration of God’s hatred of sin. So right at the beginning, you see God, God will judge sin.”

To test such claims, empirical methods could include:

1. Historical Analysis: Examining historical evidence for instances of divine judgment and comparing them with the claims made in religious texts. This would involve analyzing historical records and archaeological findings to substantiate the events described.
2. Behavioral Inquiry: Evaluating the implications and outcomes of such judgments in contemporary contexts to assess their consistency with the asserted divine purposes. This involves comparing the consequences of divine judgments with modern behavioral expectations and philosophies.

Conclusion

The content attempts to address profound theological questions but falls short in logical coherence and substantiation. The reliance on speculative reasoning and the presence of cognitive biases undermine the validity of the arguments presented. A more rigorous and evidence-based approach would be necessary to provide a logically coherent and persuasive explanation of the theological issues discussed.

◉ No Possible Falsifiability:

The Inherent Unfalsifiability of the Christian God and the Absurdity of Biblical Faith

The cornerstone of scientific inquiry is falsifiability—the principle that a claim must be able to be proven false if it is indeed false. Without falsifiability, any assertion, no matter how fantastical, could be claimed as truth without the need for evidence. This principle is crucial because it distinguishes science from pseudoscience. It is a method by which we can determine the validity of hypotheses through empirical evidence and testing. Christianity, and the notion of faith (Hebrews 11:1) it promotes, stands in stark opposition to this principle.

Faith Exceeding Evidence

Christianity demands a form of belief that transcends evidence, as stated in the Bible. This faith is not merely trust based on previous experiences or evidence but a blind belief in the divine nature of God, regardless of any contradictory evidence or logical inconsistencies. When believers assert that no conceivable action by their God could be considered as proof of anything less than divine perfection, they render their God unfalsifiable. This unfalsifiability implies that no matter what happens—whether it be natural disasters, horrific suffering, or blatant contradictions—the existence and benevolence of this God are never questioned.

[A related article on biblical faith.]

Critical Need for Falsifiability

In science, the ability to falsify a claim is essential. It ensures that hypotheses can be tested and disproven, which is how we build reliable knowledge. A claim that cannot be tested or potentially falsified is not scientific. It is a mere assertion, devoid of empirical grounding. The process of confirmation in science involves rigorous testing and the possibility of disproving the hypothesis. Without this, we cannot distinguish between reality and delusion.

The Absurdity of Blind Faith or Faith that Exceeds the Degree of the Evidence

The demand for blind faith in Christianity is not just a minor flaw; it is a fundamental issue that undermines the religion’s credibility. When believers are asked to accept doctrines and dogmas without question, to believe in miracles without evidence, and to trust in the divine nature of God despite logical inconsistencies, they are essentially abandoning reason and critical thinking. This type of faith is an abdication of the intellectual responsibility that underpins the scientific method and rational inquiry.

Even partially blind faith, where belief is based on some evidence but exceeds the proportion warranted by that evidence, is problematic. Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence. When individuals hold beliefs with more conviction than the evidence supports, they are still stepping away from rationality. This partially blind faith is a subtler, yet equally insidious, erosion of critical thinking. It encourages acceptance of claims without adequate scrutiny and perpetuates a culture where belief can outstrip evidence, undermining the very foundation of rational inquiry.

Sagan’s Dragon in the Garage

To illustrate the absurdity of unfalsifiable claims, consider Carl Sagan’s ‘dragon in my garage’ parable. Sagan posits a scenario where someone claims to have a dragon living in their garage. When asked for evidence, they offer excuses: the dragon is invisible, inaudible, and incorporeal, and it floats in the air, leaving no tracks. This dragon, much like the Christian God, is unfalsifiable. No matter what test is proposed, the claim is adjusted to maintain its unfalsifiability. Such a claim is scientifically meaningless because it cannot be tested or disproven.

Conclusion

The insistence on an unfalsifiable God and the promotion of blind or partially blind faith undermine the very principles of rational inquiry and critical thinking. For any belief to be credible, it must be open to scrutiny and potential falsification. Additionally, one’s degree of belief maps to the degree of the relevant evidence for the rational mind. Christianity’s requirement for faith that exceeds evidence is a glaring flaw that highlights its incompatibility with reason and the scientific method. The call for a degree of belief that exceeds the degree of the evidence is not a virtue; it is an intellectual surrender.

---

We warmly welcome further discussion on this topic in the comments section.