Thoughts in a Haystack

PZ Myearshertz and Jeffrey Shallit have already justly excoriated William Lane Craig for his “defense” of God ordering the Israelites to kill children and infants. Craig's “excuse” for God is:

… the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Gee, do you think God could have then told the Israelites to use a method of “salvation” less painful and terrifying than running them through with swords or bashing their heads against walls? But Craig's God always was a bit of an incompetent.

Geek that I am, however, what interested me was Craig's answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, which asks "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The first horn of the dilemma is: if God commands good because it is good, then there is an independent moral code to which even God is subject and, therefore, he/she/it is neither the supreme authority on morality nor omnipotent. The second horn is: if the good is good only because God commands it, then there is no such thing as “morality.” It is just God's arbitrary command … the whimsy or caprice of a despot. Craig prefers the second horn:

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

Of course, Craig's “out” of the dilemma is that bit about “a holy and loving God,” which is somehow supposed to protect us from whimsy or caprice. Craig does no favors to his argument to recite the tale of Abraham, like a “Middle Eastern merchant haggling for a bargain,” getting God to promise to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if there are even ten righteous persons in the cities … which God presumably already knew one way or the other.

But, wait a minute! How do we know God is holy and loving? Why, God told us so in the Bible!

So, where did God get the moral duty to tell us the truth?

By Craig's own “reasoning,” we have no warrant to believe the Bible is anything other than a pack of lies told by an evil imp.

And given Craig's defense of infanticide, I think that is a much more reasonable interpretation.
.