Critiquing: A God Who Told Me to Kill My Son Would Not Be the God for Me

March 20, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Question of faith — Abraham’s test — Unique circumstances — Divine commands — Biblical typology

---

Introduction

The content from “A God Who Told Me to Kill My Son Would Not Be the God for Me” presents a discussion on the biblical story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of faith. The speakers aim to reconcile this story with the notion of a morally perfect deity. Here, I will evaluate the logical coherence of their arguments, highlight logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, and suggest methods to test alleged divine promises.

Analysis of Arguments

Logical Coherence

1. Premise of Divine Command and Moral Goodness:
   • The central argument is that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac was justified by his faith in God’s ultimate goodness and plan. The speakers argue that Abraham’s actions were morally permissible due to his belief that God would either not allow the sacrifice or would resurrect Isaac:
   “He was convinced God was going to raise him from the dead” (p. 1).
   • This premise is problematic because it assumes without evidence that divine commands inherently align with moral goodness. The idea that faith justifies any action, regardless of its moral implications, lacks logical coherence.
2. Relevance of Context and Culture:
   • The speakers suggest that the ancient cultural context justifies Abraham’s actions:
   “You have to put yourself back there in a very primitive circumstance” (p. 1).
   • While context can provide understanding, it does not inherently justify actions that are morally questionable by modern standards. This reasoning could be seen as a form of cultural relativism, which can lead to justifying any action based on cultural norms, thus lacking a consistent moral standard.
3. Typology Argument:
   • The content uses typology, comparing Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac with God’s sacrifice of Jesus:
   “Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son. And God, of course, sacrificed his only son on the cross for our sins” (p. 2).
   • This comparison aims to imbue the story with deeper meaning but fails to address the moral issue of the command itself. It assumes the correctness of one event to justify another without providing a solid ethical foundation.

Logical Fallacies

1. Appeal to Tradition:
   • The argument heavily relies on the authority of scripture and tradition to justify Abraham’s actions:
   “This was an absolutely unique circumstance” (p. 2).
   • This is an appeal to tradition, which asserts that something is correct simply because it is traditional. This fallacy does not provide a rational basis for the morality of the action.
2. Strawman Fallacy:
   • The speakers create a simplified version of the critique to refute it:
   “This idea that this was just about Abraham being told to kill an innocent person” (p. 3).
   • This misrepresents the critique, which questions the morality of the command itself, not just the action.
3. Circular Reasoning:
   • The argument that God’s commands are morally perfect because they come from God is circular:
   “He was trusting in God’s character” (p. 3).
   • This reasoning assumes what it attempts to prove, offering no independent justification for the moral goodness of the command.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias:
   • The interpretation of the story is heavily influenced by prior beliefs about the goodness of God:
   “I think we have every reason to believe that God wasn’t going to carry this out and Abraham understood that” (p. 1).
   • This shows confirmation bias, where evidence is interpreted in a way that confirms existing beliefs, rather than objectively analyzing the moral implications.
2. Authority Bias:
   • The heavy reliance on scripture and religious authority to justify actions reflects authority bias:
   “There was no other circumstance in scripture like it” (p. 2).
   • This bias can impede critical examination of the ethical dimensions of the story.

Unsubstantiated Claims

1. Divine Promises:
   • The claim that God would resurrect Isaac if he were sacrificed lacks evidence:
   “He was convinced God was going to raise him from the dead” (p. 1).
   • This is a significant assertion that requires substantiation but is presented without empirical support.
2. Moral Perfection of Commands:
   • The notion that all of God’s commands are inherently morally perfect is assumed without evidence:
   “He was trusting in God’s character” (p. 3).
   • Such claims need empirical or rational backing to be credible.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

• The speakers make several bold claims about divine promises and the nature of God’s commands. In rational discourse, it is crucial to provide evidence for such claims to make them credible. Unsubstantiated claims undermine the logical coherence of the argument and weaken its persuasive power.

Testing Alleged Promises

1. Empirical Verification:
   • Promises of divine intervention or resurrection should be open to empirical testing. For instance, claims about miraculous events can be examined through historical and scientific scrutiny.
   • Consistent empirical evidence supporting such promises would provide a stronger foundation for belief.
2. Philosophical Analysis:
   • Analyzing the ethical implications of divine commands through philosophical frameworks can help assess their moral validity. This involves questioning whether such commands align with universally accepted ethical principles.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

• It is crucial to align the degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. High confidence in claims about divine promises or the moral perfection of commands should be matched by strong, verifiable evidence.
• Rational belief systems should adjust the strength of their claims based on the robustness of the supporting evidence.

---

Conclusion

The content from “A God Who Told Me to Kill My Son Would Not Be the God for Me” presents several arguments justifying Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac based on faith and divine command. However, these arguments exhibit logical inconsistencies, fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. To enhance the credibility and coherence of such discussions, it is vital to provide empirical evidence for divine promises, critically analyze ethical implications, and ensure that the degree of belief corresponds to the strength of the evidence.

---

If you have further questions or would like to discuss these arguments in more detail, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.