Comment of the Week: Humans Worship Cruel Gods
I never understand why people want to worship such a cruel God.
If any God is going to be mad and punish me, condemning me to suffer a cruel fate, I would rail against that God and further I would have to wonder if all the commandments from said God were just as cruel?
If a human leader tries to make other humans suffer a cruel fate (whatever that means) other humans dethrone that leader. But if it is a God, then it is all knowing and we should bow before it?
What kind of God is delighted by that kind of acquiescence? that kind of broken spirit?
Why would I want to worship a God who delights in torment or hurting one of it's subjects? and if that God does not delight in it, but still hurts others, then I have to wonder about the intelligence level, or moral level of such a God. Why is it not creative enough to get around killing and torturing?
I wouldn't elect a leader like that.
I would not worship a leader like that either.
[original post]
Although it's easy to say that we would not accept leaders like this, isn't it also true that there are many such leaders throughout human history and that people submitted to these leaders? Revolutions against cruel leaders were not common until much more recently and even today it's possible for leaders to get away with much cruelty. It helps, of course, if people can be made to believe that they don't have any choice in the matter — and isn't that the case when it comes to gods?
Even in supposedly "modern" societies we can find similar behavior: people who remain with unambiguously abusive partners. Why don't more women just leave the husbands and boyfriends who are emotionally and physically abusive? A common reason is that these women don't believe that they deserve any better. They are told that the abuse they endure is the normal pattern for such relationships and/or that the women have brought the problems on themselves. Once again, isn't this a common aspect of religious doctrines in religions with cruel gods?
Comments
Excellent post. I find there are two apologetic replies to this:
1. To excuse the cruelty as justified and good using some justification that would never apply outside of the theological context.
OR
2. To say that god is god (or god is “good”) and has a free pass to do whatever he likes, and we should support it even if we can’t understand it and it appears to be wrong. It is either justified because he is god, or it is justified because it _must_ be good, as god _must_ be good.
An example of #1 is the genocide of the Amalekites. Generally apologists will indicate that Amalek was warned and that he had aggressed against the Hebrews. If you ask these people if it would be OK for the US(or any country) to genocidally attack another nation (killing even infants) if (a) the other nation was the aggressor, and if (b) the US first warned they would kill every living human in retaliation–generally they will say “no.” And ultimately, that means that they’re actually using an extention of apology #2–whatever god does must be labeled “right” even if it appears to be obviously wrong. And the apology #1 is nothing more than an ruse to justify the action of the god–which really isn’t justified by the explanation at all, but is simply “right” via might.
#2 is problematic to say the least. It boils down to two options:
(A) Might makes right. And who really agrees with that (or would admit to it)?
(B) What is the basis for labeling X as good when X appears to be bad, and we can’t really conceive of any explanation for why X’s actions are “good”–as they appear really evil. The person begins with the assumption, without justification, that god is good. Then, what follows is that ANYTHING god does is therefore good–no matter how evil it appears. If I can’t explain how it could possibly be good, I simply trust it IS good, and that I fail to understand how it is good. This begs the question: How do you know god is good? If an action cannot be judged as evil based on an evaluation of all that is known about the action; how can it, then, be assumed to be good when all we know if it is that it appears evil?
In other words, if I admit “I don’t understand the mind and ways of god, but I trust god is good”–upon what is my trust based? If we lack understanding of god, then it must be just as likely he’s good as evil. We have no way to judge if god is good or evil in such a case. So, what justifies a conclusion that god is good?
Answer: Wishful thinking.
One of my favorite subjects re: the “God is Good” argument. The poor brainwashed fools that are taught god is a loving caring and kind father, who will send you to hell and horrible suffering, or kill you or cause you undue pain or illness, to quote the late, great George Carlin, “but he loves you”.
No one understands the mind of God? Pardon me, but I can’t understand the mind of the “believers”. No wonder there are so many religious crazies.
When someone points out the cruelty of Hell, I find that apologists generally claim that “God doesn’t send you to Hell”, and they often add something about non-believers “choosing” to go to Hell by being non-believers. Does anyone know what this really means? Do they really think God is powerless to keep non-worshipers out of Hell or, better yet, to eliminate Hell from existence?
Of course, they never realize that if people can end up in an afterlife purely for what they believe without a god sending them there, then it could just as easily be true that Christians are Hell-bound and everyone else is Heaven-bound, or that only atheists are Heaven-bound while everyone else is Hell-bound.
>I find that apologists generally claim that “God doesn’t send you to Hell”, and they often add something about non-believers “choosing” to go to Hell by being non-believers.
Yes, this is funny. I just about missed this in another strand I frequent. Someone wrote that god either doesn’t care if we suffer or is powerless to stop our suffering.
The argument you note abover is frequently put forward by theists as a third option. But it’s really not. It’s the “powerless” option.
If we inhabit a system where hell happens to people, and god is all powerful, then god set up a system (or maintains a system) that includes a torturous hell. And he’s cool with that. So, he either doesn’t care that some people will suffer in hell, or he can’t affect the system to eliminate hell as an option.
If he thinks I should go to hell, then he doesn’t desire that I avoid it (doesn’t care). If he doesn’t want me to go to hell, then I shouldn’t–unless he’s powerless to adjust this system.
It’s funny. Xians are saying the exact same thing–but they don’t even know that’s what they’re saying. To them it’s just a matter of how it’s worded. “You chose to not believe in god.”
Yes–and you then think your GOD will choose to send me to hell–and call it justified. That is, he has the power to stop it, but not the will. That’s why “he doesn’t care if people suffer” _means_.
Or they say, “God doesn’t want ANYONE to go to hell; he wants everyone to be saved.” And if that’s true then the fact that anyone goes to hell indicates he can’t enforce his will–so he lacks the power to stop people from going to hell and suffering.
He either CAN change the result but won’t. Or he wants to change the result but can’t.
Christian “rebuttals” to this are just restatements of the same dilemma that they seem to interpret as counters for some reason…?
Stalin isn’t sending you to the hulag- you choose to go.
I guess this fits under “the revolution will not be vilified”… except for God, instead of the communists.
Hey, Samuel Skinner, I make similar arguments at:
http://www.agnosticforums.com/general-religion/1320-i-am-born-again-evangelical-christian-18.html#post23832
By the way, what’s the hulag?
Exactly! Stalin doesn’t _want_ anyone to got to the gulag. He’s very sad about having to send you. But what choice does he have, since you question his authority?
The Jewish god states that he is jealous and displays the same tactics to stay in power as those of other dictators.
The point that interested me was why the moral standards that he sets for himself should be any different to those that he sets for his followers.
It then dawned on me that without the power to intimidate or kill, no dictator could remain in office and thus the so-called evil part of their makeup is a very “necessary” in order to instill the required degree of fear and thus ensure compliance with their dictates.
In order that I should not become a god in competition with the dictator (god), I am not allowed to have the same licence to torture and kill but am bound to keep the peace in the serfdom by “loving my neighbour”
His moral standards are thus necessarily different to those of his followers.
History shows that this dictator (god) will eventually be overthrown as his evil deeds catch up with him but it will take brave men that are prepared to be burnt at the (figurative)stake to do so.
Many people never really grow up. They remain paranoid and megalomanic at the same time. God cares about them enough to cause them misery as a sign of his love. (Child abuse anyone?)
The Problem of Evil boils down to whether God is unable or unwilling to solve it.
The ‘God is cruel’ concept comes from believing he must be unwilling. No such God is worthy of our worship, and instead deserves our contempt. In the words of Bakunin: “If there was a God, it would be necessary to abolish it.”
There is the other side of the coin, that God may be unable to resolve the Problem of Evil. Some Christians liken Hell to drug addiction. The only way you can get out of it is through rehab (Jesus), but rehab is not throwing you in Hell because you don’t accept it.
In this case, God is unworthy of our worship as well. Not morally unworthy, though. It’s merely useless to worship him. It makes him pitiful rather than cruel. If such a God existed it might be possible to have a relationship with it, but to give up our free will and obey its every dictates would be as unconscionable as doing it for some purported human authority. Now, an evolutionary biologist might know more about science than I do, and God might know more about sin than I do, and it might be worth my while to listen to their advice on certain things, but I shouldn’t just blindly follow either of their advice.