Critiquing: If God Is Love, Why Did He Kill so Many People in the Old Testament?

January 16, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Logical Definitions — Morality and Love — Discipline and Punishment — Justice and Goodness — Role of God

---

Introduction

The content from “Stand to Reason” addresses the question: If God is love, why did He kill so many people in the Old Testament? Amy Hall and Greg Koukl provide a discussion aimed at reconciling God’s loving nature with the accounts of divine killings in biblical texts. This critique evaluates the logical coherence of their arguments, focusing on potential logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and cognitive biases while providing context for their claims.

Analyzing the Argument

1. Definitions and Logical Framework

Quote: “The word is has actually five different definitions, especially philosophically.”

Evaluation: The attempt to clarify different uses of the word is appears more like an evasion rather than providing a robust philosophical grounding. It introduces unnecessary complexity without directly addressing the main question. This may confuse listeners rather than enlighten them.

Logical Fallacy: This approach can be seen as an equivocation fallacy, where the ambiguity of a word is exploited to mislead or avoid addressing the real issue.

2. Moral Perfection and Dual Attributes

Quote: “God is the exemplification of love, but he’s also the exemplification of other things as well.”

Evaluation: The claim that God’s love and justice are equally grounded in His goodness attempts to harmonize seemingly contradictory attributes. However, the transition from abstract attributes to specific actions (killing) is inadequately substantiated.

Logical Inconsistency: The argument hinges on the assumption that justice and love must coexist harmoniously within God’s nature. This overlooks the potential conflict between actions that appear loving and those that seem punitive.

3. Discipline Analogies

Quote: “When parents who are good parents discipline their kids… it’s a good that the parent is doing.”

Evaluation: Comparing divine killings to parental discipline trivializes the severity of the acts. While discipline aims at correction and improvement, killings in the Old Testament involve the irreversible act of taking life.

Cognitive Bias: This analogy involves a false analogy fallacy, comparing two situations that are not truly comparable in terms of their moral and practical implications.

4. Justice as Goodness

Quote: “God would not be good if he let evil people off scot-free.”

Evaluation: The notion that justice requires severe punishment, including death, assumes a very specific and controversial interpretation of justice. This view is neither universally accepted nor substantiated within the content itself.

Unsubstantiated Claim: The content lacks evidence that justice necessarily involves killing as a just and loving act. The obligation to substantiate this claim is high, given the serious moral implications.

5. Example of the Canaanites

Quote: “He had them [Canaanites] killed for a reason… breaking every commandment imaginable and sacrificing children to demon gods.”

Evaluation: The argument justifies mass killings by emphasizing the victims’ alleged extreme wickedness. This reasoning fails to address why such collective punishment, including women and children, is justifiable.

Logical Inconsistency: The collective punishment approach ignores individual moral responsibility. This broad-brush justification lacks nuance and fails to align with many contemporary understandings of justice.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

1. Equivocation: As mentioned, using different definitions of is to sidestep the central issue.

2. False Analogy: Comparing divine killings to parental discipline and government punishment is misleading and oversimplifies the ethical considerations involved.

3. Appeal to Emotion: The content frequently appeals to the listener’s emotions by depicting extreme scenarios (e.g., child sacrifice) to justify divine actions.

4. Ad Hoc Rationalization: The arguments often seem constructed to fit preconceived conclusions rather than arising naturally from the evidence.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Justice Requires Death: The assertion that divine justice necessitates death is not universally accepted and needs more rigorous defense.

2. Goodness and Punishment: The claim that punishment, especially death, is an essential part of goodness is debatable and requires further evidence.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims: Given the moral weight of the discussed actions, there is a significant burden to provide compelling evidence and reasoning for these claims. Assertions that involve taking life should be backed by substantial justification.

Testing Alleged Promises

Methods to Test Alleged Promises of God:

• Empirical Observation: Observing outcomes of prayers and interventions attributed to divine actions.
• Historical Analysis: Studying historical accounts and archaeological evidence to verify biblical events and their contexts.
• Philosophical Scrutiny: Applying rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis to the principles attributed to divine actions.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Quote: “We should map our degree of belief to the degree of the available evidence.”

Evaluation: This principle is crucial for maintaining intellectual integrity. The content frequently makes bold claims without sufficient evidence, requiring listeners to accept significant assumptions. Encouraging a proportional belief to evidence ratio would lead to more reasonable and balanced conclusions.

---

Conclusion

The arguments presented in the content are fraught with logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. There is a pressing need for more rigorous evidence and reasoning, particularly when addressing morally and ethically charged topics such as divine justice and punishment. Mapping belief proportionally to evidence is essential to formulating a coherent and intellectually honest stance.

---

Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments section below. Let’s explore these arguments further together!