A hard-hitting polemic against (mostly fundamentalist) Christianity by Richard Carrier. Think theodicy, morality, slavery, and so on. Even references YouTube personality Matt Dillahunty.
What Carrier is saying struck me some time ago: since most modern Western Christians (including theologically conservative ones) agree with the atheists that God must be omnibenevolent if he is "all-good", they can´t really win the argument. It´s not hard for an atheist to demonstrate that the Biblical God *isn´t* omnibenevolent. Why believe in such a god, then?
It might be harder to use this rhetorical strategy against very traditionalist Christian groups, or against Muslims or Hindus, who presumably don´t believe that God´s "all-goodness" entails 100% constant benevolence. If they believe in an "all-good" god at all. Note, btw, that the only person in the Bible who claims that all-good means omnibenevolent is Satan! (When he tempts Jesus in the desert.)
But in a modern world in which nobody wants to be a martyr, and everyone prefers the prosperity gospel to righteous suffering, the Carrier-Dillahunty strategy presumably works very well indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment