Critiquing: How Can I Stay Balanced in My Belief That God Is Always Good to His Children?

April 8, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Belief Balance — Prosperity Teaching — God’s Jealousy — Knowledge of God — Biblical Interpretation

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content from “How Can I Stay Balanced in My Belief That God Is Always Good to His Children?” by Amy Hall and Greg Koukl. The analysis highlights logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. It also examines the need for evidence-based belief and proposes methods for testing alleged promises.

---

Maintaining Belief Balance

Claim Assessment

The content asserts the importance of balancing belief in God’s goodness with the rejection of prosperity teaching. The discussion points out:

“God is always good. I mean, there’s no imbalance in that.”

This assertion oversimplifies the complex issue of defining “goodness” and assumes that the listener accepts a particular definition without questioning it. This approach can be seen as a begging the question fallacy, where the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion.

Logical Consistency

The argument against prosperity teaching is presented with claims about the nature of goodness:

“The word faith movement has done is it’s not properly defined goodness. On their view, sickness is bad. Poverty is bad.”

This section lacks a clear explanation of why these definitions are incorrect and what the proper definition should be. It creates an appeal to authority fallacy by assuming the listener accepts the speaker’s authority on defining goodness without substantial argumentation.

God’s Jealousy

Inconsistencies and Fallacies

The content addresses the question of how God can be jealous if love is not jealous:

“In the Old Testament, we have something very different. God has sacrificed himself… God has rescued a people.”

The explanation here is convoluted, attempting to differentiate types of jealousy without clear linguistic or contextual support. This reasoning risks a special pleading fallacy, where exceptions are made for God without applying the same standards to other claims of jealousy.

Knowledge and Omniscience of God

Explanation and Inconsistency

The discussion on whether God gains knowledge based on Exodus 32 presents another logical challenge:

“God knew that Moses was going to intercede for the people. And he did make a claim, I’m going to destroy these people… And Moses said, you can’t do that.”

This explanation attempts to reconcile the apparent change of mind with God’s omniscience. However, it does not adequately address the logical inconsistency of a being who is both unchanging and capable of changing decisions. This inconsistency is a classic paradox and highlights the difficulty of maintaining logical coherence in such theological arguments.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims made in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious. For instance:

“Our best life. Christian’s best life is not here. It’s there, and we are being prepared for the next life.”

This claim assumes an afterlife without providing evidence. Assertions about an afterlife should be substantiated with more than scriptural references to avoid being unfalsifiable, making it impossible to verify or refute the claim.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content often relies on scriptural references and personal beliefs to support its claims, showing confirmation bias. This bias can lead to overestimating the impact of faith-based arguments without considering alternative perspectives.

Special Pleading

The argument about God’s jealousy and knowledge exhibits special pleading, where unique rules are applied to God to avoid addressing logical inconsistencies.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises of God, one could employ several methods:

1. Empirical Studies: Conduct surveys and studies on the effects of faith on individuals’ lives.
2. Historical Analysis: Examine historical instances where claimed promises were allegedly fulfilled or not.
3. Philosophical Inquiry: Engage in rigorous philosophical debate to test the coherence and plausibility of theological claims.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

Mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence is crucial. Claims about the nature of God, the effectiveness of faith, and the reality of an afterlife should be proportionate to the evidence supporting them. Without strong evidence, high confidence in such claims is unwarranted.

Conclusion

This critique has highlighted several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases in the content “How Can I Stay Balanced in My Belief That God Is Always Good to His Children?” by Amy Hall and Greg Koukl. The reliance on scriptural authority, the presence of logical fallacies, and the lack of robust empirical support undermine the credibility of the claims made. For a more convincing argument, the content should include substantial evidence, address potential biases, and ensure logical consistency.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.