“I’d rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints; the sinners are much more fun…” Billy Joel
For two thousand years, a great deal of fanfare has surrounded the
idea that people need to be ‘saved’ by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior
because we are all sinners. The idea of sin goes back to the very first chapter
of the Bible in the Book of Genesis, in which the first man and woman, Adam and
Eve, perpetrate what is known as The Fall. Certainly, such a notion is a
primary reason why some theists go to great lengths to justify a belief in their
singular God and His son. Only, a critical analysis of this particular creation
myth reveals a god that, if actually existent, is a god of questionable morality
and perhaps even malicious.
In the book of Genesis, after God has made the Earth
and heavens, He decides to make man in the likeness of Himself (and other
unnamed gods) for no reason that is made even remotely obvious to the casual
reader. Then, because this man, Adam, is lonely, God makes animals for the man
to have dominion over. Next, He makes a woman for Adam, presumably because
having sex with sheep is inappropriate. God places the both of them in the
beautiful garden of Eden
where they may live happily ever after, but not without a dire warning: Do not
eat from the Tree of Knowledge. If they do, God warns, they will die.
Most of us are familiar with what happens next. A
serpent comes to Eve, telling her one lie and one truth. If Eve eats fruit from
the Tree of Knowledge, not only will she not die—a lie—but she will come to
have knowledge of good and evil as the gods do—the truth. After eating the
fruit (presumably a bad apple), she then gives her husband fruit from the tree
and he eats it too. They now know the difference between good and evil, which
seems to come as a surprise to the typically described omniscient God the next
time He comes around.
Incredulous, God punishes Adam and Eve. For starters,
they’re going to die—and the serpent who instigated the entire affair, who gets
off relatively easy by comparison. In addition, not only are Adam and Eve going
to die, but God tells Eve she is going to bear tremendous pain during
childbirth and subjugates her to her husband, while Adam is sentenced to the
backbreaking task of having to grow their own food. Finally, they are cast out
from the Garden of Eden least they try next to eat from the Tree of Life and
live forever.
It appears Adam and Eve sinned; they disobeyed God,
and from this a reader is to extrapolate a lesson: If you disobey God, the
consequences will be undesirable, to say the least. However, a philosophical
question arises as to whether or not Adam and Eve acted with ill intentions
towards God and whether or not they should be punished for what they did.
I think it is
fair to point out that it is perfectly clear that Adam and Eve had no knowledge
of what was good and what was bad prior to eating the forbidden fruit. God may
have told them that eating the fruit from this particular tree would result in
their death, but they had absolutely no cause to believe that either death,
disobeying God, or prancing around the Garden unclothed were bad things until after they ate the fruit.
With that in
mind I think it equally fair to say that it is God then that explicitly bears
the responsibility for creating the circumstances that would cause Adam and Eve
to “fall.” What reason did God have for putting the Tree of Knowledge in the
Garden of Eden? Why did He create a serpent that would be so beguiling as to
fool Eve? If He was testing Adam and Eve, He must have known they would fail
this test given that God is (or described as being later on in the Bible) all-knowing.
Of course, if God had chosen not to know the future regarding this matter, God is
either irresponsible or worse, a sadist. For the theist who wishes to take this
creation account seriously, the absence of any analysis is required to think
that God might not be evil. But we mustn’t judge too quickly.
We learn by reading
further into the Book of Genesis that thanks to Adam and Eve’s disobedience, every
subsequent human being suffers consequences.
Because of the first man and woman, everyone is now born with a stain upon
their soul as punishment for Adam and Eve’s insubordination. Certain
monotheists call this “Original Sin,” something from which they think everyone
is in need of being “saved” from. But what God does to Adam and Eve is akin to
my requiring you to rob a bank with me, not tell you the details of the plan,
then have you die during the heist so that I can get away unscathed. Best of
all, your ancestors take the rap! Again, we must ask the compelling question as
to why God would set the events of mankind into motion in such a manner. If we
take into account that the Judeo-Christian god is described as being as omni-benevolent
as He is omniscient (though we cannot figure out why from the Genesis account,
other than to have faith that what the Creator creates is good), why did The
Fall turn out to be anything but good? Couldn’t an all-powerful God have
prevented this mess?
We, as human
beings, must require that we know God’s plan in order to determine whether or
not His punishment from the onset of our supposed history is just. Yet, if God
is silent, if His ultimate plan is a matter of speculation, we might speculate
many things—and that includes discovering who the Wizard of Oz really is. Given
the account of man’s creation in Genesis, somewhere, somehow, one or more of
God’s three, traditionally ascribed, major attributes—omnipotence, omniscience,
and omni-benevolence—has failed to make either who God is or the story of
Genesis (or both) credible.
God’s supposed
goodness suffers the greatest damage in Genesis. After all, a child doesn’t
know the meaning of a punishment until they are actually punished, so it seems
odd to me that God would choose to punish his creation (and his creation’s
creations) so severely. If God’s reasoning was to think that it would surely
teach humans to never disobey Him again, He positively failed on that account.
It is this
failure to be kind to his creations that casts doubt upon his other attributes,
most notably His capacity to see the future. If God knew, or even could have
logical deduced what the outcome of The Garden of Eden scenario might have
been, He should have refrained from creating Adam and Eve. [That is, if humans
hold God to any recognizable moral standard. Heck, even God’s own standards.] If
God did not know what the outcome of events would be, then He is not
omniscient.
Unfortunately, the
best theistic defense is to characterize God as a perfect entity and this, they
argue, by definition must include omniscience. Thus, if what the theist says
about God’s omniscience in relation to His perfection is true, then God had to have known what was going to
happen. If that’s true, we must
return once again question God’s
supposed benevolence. “Ah,” the theist will continue, “Keep in mind that God is
perfect. God cannot not be benevolent.” But this would make God amoral since a
being can only be moral if able to make choices. Even if God could choose evil
but never did, we still couldn’t be certain that he could commit evil if He’s
never made that choice. God must have free will then, hence, no one can be
positively certain that God was without some evil intent in the creation of
mankind. The theistic defenses of God’s qualities that allude to perfection drown
in a circular sea of reasoning as quickly as any other characteristic ascribed
to God.
Given
the contrivances in the story of Genesis, one should find it difficult to
entertain tradition monotheistic descriptions of God seriously. God cannot be
perfect because omniscience/amorality prevents this from being the case (a
theistically “moral” person would argue, anyway). Nor can God be omniscient
without casting suspicion on His “benevolent” motives. We might, for a second,
consider that God is indeed supremely powerful given that the logic necessary
to make the attributes of God mesh with the story of Genesis is as impossible
as a square circle. But if God can only do what is logically possible then God’s
attributes are reduced to contradictions, though perhaps we should have seen
that coming. On the other hand, we humans are not omniscient and we’re not
perfect. Maybe that’s a good thing.
References
God. The Holy Bible .
1000th. Hippo: Synod Press, 393.
Krueger, Douglas E. What Is
Atheism?. 3rd. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus, 1998.
Plato. The Trial and Death of
Socrates. 1st. New York, NY:
Dover Press,
1992.
Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God.
1st. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1979.
No comments:
Post a Comment