The video begins with the following comment by Hayden Carroll:
Recently atheist Alex O’Connor, and former atheist turned Christian Dr. Francis Collins discussed a variety of topics regarding the nature of reality, and how God fits into that picture. As I watched, I could not help but find myself rooting for Alex and his arguments. Alex O’Connor is an incredibly sharp and genuine agnostic; …
Well, he is either atheist or agnostic, he can’t be both. Hayden Carroll then continues his comments as follows:
… and while he fails in disproving God, he does expose many of the massive holes created by credal Christianity that the restored gospel resolves; so I would like to highlight three key points in their discussion: the first is the indefensible notion of biblical inherency.
I had previously discussed their objections to the concept of biblical infallibility and inerrancy (including infallibility and inerrancy of modern LDS scripture) in three previous blog posts which can be seen here, here, and here, therefore there is no need to discuss it at length in this post. Suffice it to say that LDS theology has no issue whatsoever with the concept of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture—including modern LDS scripture—for the reasons previously explained. The second issue I have with the above statement is that there is no such thing as “creedal” vs. “non-creedal” Christianity. All Christianity is “creedal” in one form or another—including LDS. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a “creed”—the same as any other Christian church might. It is called the Articles of Faith. It can be seen here. All Christianity is “creedal” in one form or another, including LDS. There is no such thing as “creedal” vs. “non-creedal” Christianity. Then he shows a video clip in which Alex O’Connor argues against belief in God and Christianity, as follows:
Alex:
Also the moral qualms, the same moral intuition that I am told I am supposed to rely upon to prove the existence of God, is that same moral intuition that I am supposed to ignore when I encounter the less than enviable situations of the Canaanites, or Hebrew slaves, or non-Hebrew slaves to make things worse. But also in the New Testament: the treatment of women is something that raises a lot of eyebrows. … But if I am looking at the Christian religion, that moral intuition that so powerfully tells people, well, you know certain things are right or wrong, you know it even if you want to sort of try to psychologize it, or talk about Evolution, or anything you know somewhere, that there is a moral feeling that certain things are right or wrong; and even if I say, okay, sure, yeah great, so what does that mean I should do? Well, that should lead you to Christianity. And then the first thing I see opening that book, is something which contradicts the very moral intuition that I was supposed to use to get there in the first place, that leaves me with some cause for concern.
My response to that is, that is an argument for the existence of God, or for the truth of Christianity, that Alex O’Connor has made up for himself. It is not a common argument for the truth and Christianity, or for the existence of God, as far as I know. If you argued in that way, that would make every religion on earth equally true, because every religion teaches morality, it teaches right from wrong. Every religion teaches that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, lying is wrong etc. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Judaism, Islam etc., they all adhere to those moral standards. If you applied that as the criteria for determining the truth of a religion, that would make every religion on earth equally true, because they all adhere to those moral principles. What sets Christianity apart is something else. What convinces me of the truth of Christianity—or more precisely, of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is the conviction that comes to me by the power of the Holy Ghost when I read the word of God, including the Bible.
Another error that Alex makes in that argument is that in the absence of the existence of God, there can be no “moral standard” of any kind, because there is no independent lawgiver. If someone’s “moral intuition” tells him that it is okay to murder someone and steal their money, there is no independent criteria that can be applied to prove him wrong. In the absence of God, or an independent lawgiver, there is no independent “moral standard” that can be applied to establish that Alex’s “moral intuition” is superior to that of a thief or a murderer. If the universe is a cosmic accident, and we came from nowhere and will disappear again into nothing, then there can be no independent “moral standard” of any kind. Whatever anyone does, that he thinks suits him, or serves his interest best, is “right” for him as far as he is concerned.
And with regard to the writings of Paul, I believe that Paul did compose those writings and epistles; but some of the things that he said were relevant and applicable to the cultural norms and values of the time. It does not necessarily make them applicable for all time, or for our time. What he said about women (1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:33-35; Ephesians 5:22-24) falls into that category. It doesn’t mean that he was wrong, or wasn’t inspired; nor does it mean that his writings and teachings on those subjects at that time, are equally relevant and applicable to us in our time. The advice that Paul gives in Romans 14 provides the necessary explanation. An instruction that may be appropriate and applicable to a given society and culture at a given time, may not be applicable to other cultures and societies at a different time. To those comments by Alex O’Connor, however, Hayden Carroll gives the following response:
Do you understand Alex’s point here? He is asking how Christianity can claim to be consistent in its morals, when some parts of the Bible tell you to love your enemies, but in other parts God is telling men to hack babies to death with their swords. There are many examples of biblical contradictions; and anyone who pretends there are not, is demonstrably wrong.
There is no contradiction. Whatever God commands at any given time, according to the circumstances of the time, is always right. When he says, “Thou shalt not kill”, he is right; when he says, “Thou shalt kill”, he is also right. God decides what is right and what is wrong at a given time, and under a given circumstance, not Hayden Carroll. When God sent in the Flood to wipe out the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family, were there no women and babies who got drowned? When God sent down fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, were there no women and babies who were destroyed? It is God who decides what is right and what is wrong in a given circumstance, not Alex O’Connor or Hayden Carroll. Then Hayden continues his response to Alex’s comments as follows:
So, is there a solution to this issue? Well there is, if you reject biblical inerrancy; and we as Latter-day Saints do.
Incorrect! He likes to posit himself as some kind of “spokesman” for Latter-day Saints, and he isn’t! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adheres 💯 to the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, as previously discussed. Then he continues:
Do we have to assume that just because the Bible says that God commanded the slaughter of babies in the Old Testament, that he actually did? Is it possible for a Latter-day Saint to think that the original author thought that God commanded it, when in reality he did not? Does the slaughter of babies fit the consistent message of the LDS Canon and the doctrine of the restored gospel, or is it an outlier? Do we believe that the Bible and all of the authors were without error in their writings and understanding of God’s revelations? See, the nice thing for Latter-day Saints is that they can look at the overall message of God’s prophets throughout time; then we can identify outliers that seem out of character with the collective prophetic witness; and recognize that we may be justified in thinking such outliers are not inspired.
He should speak for himself, not for Latter-day Saints. He is again questioning the reliability, infallibility, and inerrancy of scripture from an LDS point of view, which is incorrect and unjustified on all accounts. The infallibility and inerrancy of scripture is fully acceptable from an LDS theological point of view, as previously discussed in the blog posts mentioned. He then continues as follows:
For example, the Bible teaches, “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Does God really want women to keep silent in the churches? If that is true, why were there female missionaries in the New Testament, and why do we commonly have women teachers and speakers in Sunday meetings and General Conference, and essentially at all levels of the church.
As mentioned earlier, those statements made by Paul were relevant and applicable to the cultures and circumstances of the time. It does not make his statements incorrect for the circumstances of the time. But it does not make them necessarily relevant or applicable to our time. He then continues:
Now please don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that each person has the right and authority to reject any of the LDS Canon because they don’t like it.
Except that that is exactly what he is doing. He is deciding for himself which bits of scripture he likes and wants to keep, and which bits he doesn’t like, and wants to discard. He then continues:
While we don’t hold the Bible to be inerrant, we do hold it to be highly reliable. There are major themes and ideas that mutually reinforce one another. The point here is just to say that unlike many Christians, we don’t have to defend every outlier in scripture as if it was inerrantly spoken by God himself.
The Bible as we have it is not perfect. Joseph Smith in his inspired version made changes to it. But he was a prophet, and made the changes by revelation. He didn’t do it at his own whim and fancy, as Hayden Carroll does. The Bible is part of the LDS canon, equal to the rest; and contains the “fullness of the gospel,” as does the Book of Mormon (D&C 42:12). All scripture is inspired by God, “and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Either something is scripture or it isn’t. If it is, then it falls into that category. You don’t pick the bits you like, and discard the bits you don’t like. He then continues:
The second problem for credal Christians is their notion of a completely unconstrained God; and it comes up in their conversation in the context of our universe, which is finely tuned for Life.
He then shows another clip from the video most of which I will skip, and will quote only some highlights from Alex’s comments:
Alex:
Of course it is compelling, it is a great mystery, and it is an amazing finding … this is the thing that sort of confounds me, is that before the universe exists, and you just have sort of God up in the ether, he is sort of thinking about creating this universe, to put it crudely, and for some reason God is confined to these very narrow restraints, and in fact could not create a life fitting universe but within those constraints, I mean to create the same universe, so not a boring universe, it is still an interesting universe, everything is the same we are, still acting as we are acting now, it is just the gravity is stronger … So once he has made that choice, that he wants this universe … he can’t make that interesting universe, but by this very specific value of the constant of gravity; and so that acts as a constraint on God’s creative power; because God wants to create this beautiful thing. It is kind of like saying … if God wanted to create the Mona Lisa without using a paintbrush; like traditionally I think theists want to say, well he could do that, he could just pop it into existence, there are ways of God to sort of get around physical constraints. And if I said, well, no, I think that God chose to use a paintbrush, because otherwise the Mona Lisa couldn’t have been created, and that would have been uninteresting. But the question I am asking is, could he have made the Mona Lisa without the paintbrush?
That is a dumb question. Mona Lisa was not created by God. It was created by Leonardo da Vinci, who was a very talented artist, and gave us many great paintings—Mona Lisa being one among many. Could Leonardo da Vinci have given us the Mona Lisa without a paintbrush? Probably not. Could God have given us the Mona Lisa miraculously, without a paintbrush (and without Leonardo da Vinci)? Of course he could have! He could have miraculously given us all the paintings in the world that have ever been created by all the artists in the world, without using a paintbrush (and without the artists who created them); because he is omnipotent and omniscient, and can do anything he wants. But why would he want to—when he has given us the artists, and gifted them with the talents they needed to create them? That is a foolish and dumb question. Could God have given us a Ford Mustang without the company, factory, and engineers that manufactured it? Of course he could! But why would he want to—when he has given us the talented engineers, mechanics, companies, factories etc. to make them? That is not how God operates among men. Alex then continues his questioning as follows:
Could he have created the world, as interesting as it is today, with a stronger force of gravity? You know what I mean? Like, I understand what you are saying, that he wouldn’t choose to have a gravity that has a universe that has a big crunch, because it wouldn’t lead to life. That would be so uninteresting. But what I am saying is, why couldn’t there be a stronger constant of gravity, that in our current model would lead to a big crunch, because God is God, he can create that universe nonetheless, and avoid a big crunch somehow; or is he constrained by the constant of gravity, and what he can create?
That again is a very unwise and foolish question, because whichever other way God had created the universe, Alex could still have asked the same question, “Could God have done it in some other way?” God could have created the universe in lots of other ways; and whichever he had done it, Alex could have still asked the same question: “Could he have done it in some other way?” God has created the universe the way he has; and we are fortunate to enjoy the blessing and privilege of being part of it. It is a foolish and pointless question to ask if God could have done it in “some other way”. Skipping some more of the conversation, Hayden Carroll continues his response to Alex as follows:
Do you see what Alex is getting at? Alex questions God’s ability to create the universe in a different way. Collins, like most Christians, is reluctant to say that God is bound by anything. What is the easy solution to this concern of Alex? It is the Latter-day Saint position, that God is constrained in some sense by what we call Eternal Law. Our notion when we say God is all powerful, is simply to say that God can do all things which are possible to do. A totally unconstrained God is a major problem; the entire biblical story makes no sense if God could have simply saved and exalted all mankind with the snap of his fingers. Just think about it for a minute. If God can do anything at all, and has no constraints, why is Jesus dying on the cross? Why couldn’t God make a different plan that just made sure none were lost, and no sacrifice was needed at all? What Alex is fundamentally asking is, Why is the world the way it is? Alma’s son Corianton asked a similar question to his father, and Alma revealed something incredible and radical about God’s relationship to law, in Alma 42.
Then he quotes several verses 13, 22, and 25 from Alma 42 and continues:
Could God save a person against their will? If I hated God, and chose to reject him with a complete knowledge of him and his Son, can God just give me a pass, and let me into his kingdom? Why not? Let me ask a more provocative question, can God save us on his own? Think about this carefully; if God could save us on his own, why did he choose to sacrifice his Only Begotten Son? This is more of a critique of the creedal Christian view of the world. If God’s goal is to save as many people as possible, why not just bring us all to Heaven? Why not create only creatures who would accept him? Remember in the creedal worldview, God created hell. If God is not bound by anything, why not just forgo making the need for hell in the first place, by only creating beings that won’t go there? This is the problem of a radically un-constrained God.
He is now mixing several different things. Firstly, the creation of hell is not a “creedal worldview;” all Christianity teaches that God created hell, including LDS (D&C 29:38). Secondly, the Bible teaches that God is bound or constrained in several different ways. He cannot lie for example, it is impossible for him to lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). He is holy, and cannot be unholy. He is just, and he cannot be unjust. He is merciful, and cannot be unmerciful. God is “love,” and can never be anything other than “love”. He is unchangeable, and he cannot be changeable. God is bound by all those constraints. All of that is taught in the Bible; and Christians generally acknowledge it. That is not the point here. The point is, are there laws independent of the existence of God to which God is subject, or by which he is bound or constrained? Or is God himself the author and creator of such laws? That is the real question that he is posing here. Is there a “law of gravity” independent of the existence of God, by which God is bound; or is God himself the author and creator of the law of gravity? Is there a law of morality, or holiness, or justice, or judgement etc., independent of the existence of God, by which God is bound; or is God himself the author and creator of such laws? That is the real question that is being asked here. His point is that such laws exist independent of the existence of God, by which God is bound. That is what he means by Eternal Law—which is not confirmed by the Bible, nor by modern LDS scripture. God is the author and creator of all law, including those by which he chooses to be bound. And the last question he addresses is, how we come to believe in God; and focuses on personal revelation as a means of faith, or belief in God. This is how he starts:
Now the last problem the restored gospel solves is the problem of personal revelation. During their conversation, Alex is asked what it would take for him to believe in God? Now most atheists will say that if they experienced some type of miracle, they would believe. Trent Horn recently explained why this line of reasoning does not work. … Luckily Alex is a much sharper guy than most, so he gives a far more interesting answer, when asked what would cause him to believe in God.
Alex:
One of the most legitimate ways to come to believe in God, if not the most legitimate way, is through a sort of personal experience, revelation. It is not the kind of thing that is going to convince another person, that is why it is laughed out of the room in debates. If you are doing a public debate with somebody, like if we were here having a debate, and you were trying to sort of convince me that God existed, and you said, well, I had this sort of message from God, then everyone would laugh you out the room, because that is not going to convince anybody. But that is not supposed to convince anybody. As far as it is convincing you, yeah, it is like the most legitimate way imaginable to come to believe in God, …
To this then Hayden Carroll gives the following response (most of which I will skip):
Do you see what Alex is doing here? He is essentially saying that arguments for God’s existence are secondary, and some kind of experience, some type of personal revelation is what he believes would be necessary to convince him. He just simply has not felt that he has had that personal revelation; and personal revelation is exactly what we are taught in the restored gospel is the fundamental basis for our belief in God. …
Two issues with that. Firstly, “personal revelation” is still a miracle. It may not be a miracle observable by everyone else; but still, it is a miracle to the person who receives it. Secondly, that is not how historically people have come to faith, or belief in God. While the idea of personal revelation has a special relevance, application, or meaning for Latter-day Saints, for reasons that I will point out presently; that is not how traditionally and historically people, both Christians and non-Christians, have come to believe in God. Paul said, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Jesus said, “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Faith, or belief, is ultimately a matter of personal choice. We choose whether to “believe;” or to “harden our hearts,” as Paul wrote: “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts” (Hebrews 3:15). It is ultimately a matter of choice, otherwise people would not be condemned for not believing: “He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). That is how faith in God has operated throughout history.
When it comes to the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, the situation is a little bit different. The LDS Church makes a special claim that no other Christian church, religion, or denomination does. It claims to be a Restoration, by revelation, by prophecy, by angelic ministration, by priesthood authority and keys etc., of God’s original and true Church—and it has a special witness to prove it, it is called the Book of Mormon. It is given by revelation, and is “another testament of Jesus Christ,” and bears witness to the Restoration of the gospel in the last days. It has other purposes and uses as well; but that is its primary purpose. And it contains a promise within it, that those who read it sincerely and prayerfully in faith, with a genuine desire to know of its truth, the truth of it will be made known to them by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is where the idea of “personal revelation” comes from, in the LDS context. If Alex O’Connor just wants to “believe in God,” he doesn’t need a “special revelation” to enable him to do that. He can believe in God in the same way that millions, upon millions, upon millions of Christians (and non-Christians) have done throughout history. As Alma says in the Book of Mormon, “all things denote that there is a God …” (Alma 30:44). The idea of a personal revelation, or witness, relates specifically to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ—because it is a special case. It is not the same as just “believing” that there is a God. It is about accepting the restoration of the gospel in the last days, which is a different kind of thing. There are millions upon millions of Christians (and non Christians) throughout history who have believed in God; and they did not do so by a “personal revelation”. Indeed, faith comes first, before a personal revelation can be received. That is what it says in the promise made in the Book of Mormon. We must ask in faith, before a witness by personal revelation can be received:
Moroni 10:
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Faith in God comes first, belief comes first, followed by a personal revelation as a result of it; not the other way. We ask in faith, and personal revelation follows; we don’t wait for personal revelation to give us faith. So Hayden Carroll and Thoughtful Faith have got it all backwards again, wrong way around, as usual!
No comments:
Post a Comment