The Biblical Case Against Divine Command Theory

I'm writing all of this as an atheist, not as a believer, to show that there is a biblical case for looking at good and evil in a natural way instead of as something that hinges on God's commands. I do this to point out that atheists and Jews/Christians/anyone else who believes in the bible has a basis for a shared morality, despite our religious differences.

Some recent discussions have brought me back to a conversation in my old Bible as Lit class. The professor practiced Orthodox Judaism and had a great way of encouraging “heterodox” debates and discussions. One such discussion spun off into my last paper for the class, in which I argued that the Divine Command Theory was unbiblical.

For those of you who don’t know, Divine Command Theory is the idea that morality has its origins in the commands of God. William Lane Craig is one of the biggest modern proponents of this theory, and you’ll see it come up a lot in discussions of infanticide and other such bloodshed in the bible. Exhibit A: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

1 – “Good” and creation

Anyway, my professor had a different vision of ethics, despite being a theist. He was a moral naturalist; for him, good and bad were facts of nature. He had a great analogy (I’m paraphrasing, of course):

“God didn’t create the triangle and then decide that all of the internal angles would add up to 180 degrees. He didn’t create water and then decide to make it wet. He didn’t create trees and grass and then establish laws that trees would be taller than grass. He didn’t create the world and then decide what was good and bad about it through commands. What is good and what was bad were part of the nature of what he created, just like water’s wetness or the geometry of a triangle.”

He preferred the term “moral realism” for this, and hated any attempt to boil morality down into a list of rules. His favorite proof? Genesis 1. In Genesis, God doesn’t create good as a separate thing. He creates things and then observes that they are good.

Verse 4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Verse 10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good

Verse 12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Etc.

If good were just a synonym for “god commanded it”, then these verses would just be saying “And God saw the light and saw it had done what he told it to.” Possible, but exceedingly odd.

It would also be meaningless to call God good. It would just mean “God follows his own commands” or “God does what God wants”.

2—Adam and Eve
So I was really taken by this idea and decided to run with it. The biggest biblical disproof of the Divine Command Theory was in the story of Adam and Eve, which is where I focused my later paper.

Despite the length of the original paper, the argument was quite simple:

1) Divine Command Theory says that “good” is synonymous with God’s commands.
2) Adam and Eve knew God’s commands.
3) Adam and Eve did not know good and evil.
4) Therefore good and evil are not synonymous with obedience or disobedience to God’s commands.
5) Therefore DCT is false.

This is still pretty much the nail in the coffin for the biblical argument for DCT.

3—God and the creation of evil

Everyone here should already be familiar with Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

We are also all familiar with the Christian response: "evil" here should be translated as something else. They point out that it can mean disaster or misfortune or other things that we associate with "natural evils". That's all well and good, but there is one problem: it is the same word that appears in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. If we acknowledge this new meaning, then we have to accept the idea that Hebrew identifies "evil" with harm to well being . . . which is something that atheists generally get behind as well.

 

Who is arguing that morality is based on God's commands? Christians (at least me) are saying that objective moral values and duties are based on God's own nature. Meaning, God himself, not what he's commanding. There's a stark difference here.

 

William Lane Craig, and many others.

That's good, but not all Christians agree. Incorp and others have argued for DCT in the past.

 

He's a very good Christian Apologist, and I've read one of his books. I'd have to disagree if you feel that's what he's arguing. I've seen a few of his debates as well, and he usually always argues that God himself is the basis for objective moral values and duties. It makes sense to me.

Right, but you were false when you incorrectly claimed that Dr. Craig argued that God's commands were the basis of objective moral values and duties.

 

William Lane Craig calls himself a Divine Command Theorist, which is why I brought him up and linked to his article.

"I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. 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."

"So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong."

"On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command."

 

Are you sure you are not deductively deciding for yourself what these "objective moral values and duties" are and then projecting them onto God as his nature?

 

And the problem that you haven't recognized can be highlighted by this question: who controls God's nature, if not himself? You are essentially saying there is a more powerful moral basis that trumps God.

 

Well, if God represents the highest form of good, then it goes to show that there's no need for me to decide anything for myself. Its just obvious.

 

Yes your assumptions are just obvious, but that does not answer my question to you or even attempts to address it. Let me ask you a question that comes at it a different way: What are the objective moral values and duties?

 

One can just as reasonably make a constitutional case for ignoring the Constitution; but in neither case will any but the gullible be impressed.

 

Adam and Eve knew God's command, but they didn't know good from evil, therefore good can't be synonymous with God's command. If you see a flaw, debate it. If all you have is "nyu uh", then you aren't here to debate.

 

I'm afraid any logical connection between the premises and the conclusion escapes me.

Who the hell cares. I'm here to call it like I see it; and if that turns into a debate, swell. If not, go whine about it to someone who gives a flying puck.

 

Where is the source?

 

You tell me.
Let me ask you a question... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

You have alleged that there are objective moral values and duties, yet you seem to be unable to articulate any of them, let alone explain how they are the essence of God.

The ethic of reciprocity is the only thing that comes close to being an objective moral value as it is the singular lesson contained in every major religion since recorded history from the ancient egyptians to the major religions of today, and yet there is no necessary essence of God in it. It is a humanist position based on the trait of empathy. Now when you can provide me another "objective moral value", let me know.

 

Once again, check to OP.

 

You speak as if the frame of your original question wasn't crazy. You didn't ask for examples of objective moral values and duties. You just jumped up and asked, "What are the objective moral values and duties?" As if you could go to a grocery store and buy them. There are a countless number of objective moral values and duties.

Objective Moral Value #1:
Genocide is evil.

Objective Moral Value #2:
Burning someone's home to the ground for person reasons is evil.

Objective Moral Duty #1:
Respecting people around you

Objective Moral Duty #2:
Helping an old lady who has fallen down a flight of stairs


Those are just a few examples out of many.

 

I read it. I didn't see that link at first.

In any case... You're still wrong. He's not arguing that God's commands are the source of moral duties. He's arguing that moral duties are constituted by God's commands. A little bit of context can go a long way.

 

Constituted and determined by. As far as context goes, he continuously says he is a Divine Command Theorist. He says that even killing children is moral if God commands it. Look up Divine Command Theory, which he subscribes to. You are playing semantics to make him something other than a Divine Command Theorist, which is what he calls himself.

 

A knew B. B did not know C. Therefore A is not C. Where are you getting lost?

Let's try it another way:
If A and B are the same thing than knowledge of A is knowledge of B.

Get it?

 

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Stay focused. We're talking about God's commands being the basis of objective moral values and duties. I just proved to you that Dr. Craig did not say that. This is where you admit you were wrong.

 

That has everything to do with Divine Command Theory because that's what Divine Command theory is.

No, you tried a semantic game and it didn't work.

Trying to win by fiat rather than reasoned argument? You really have been reading William Lane Craig.

 

Where does Dr. Craig say this? He only argues that the Divine Command theory is only contrary to his nature, and not the sole basis of it or even the sole basis of objective moral values and duties.

Whatever that means...

You just hate to admit when you're wrong.

 

He says that he supports Divine Command Theory. He further says that moral values and duties are constituted by and determined by divine command. That makes them foundational. Trying giving an example of something that determines something else and constitutes something else, but is not the basis for that something else.

It means you are playing word games and splitting hairs.

No, I just require proof that I'm wrong, not decries by fiat.

 

He says his understand of the Divine Command theory is much much different than how the mainstream describes it. He explains this in your own source.

You're guilty of that too.

Like the whole reasoning and empathy thing?