Grim to the end

Let’s have one last look at the comment from Challenger Grim in which he attempts to defend C. S. Lewis’s argument that free will limits God to showing up only in “the faintest and most mitigated degree.”

Well first of all, what you mention, could still be the “faintest and most mitigated degree.” Think about it as… “capacity for rejection.” In ancient times, beliefs in gods were quite prevalent (maybe even justified, but that’s another discussion). Thus, even with God’s appearance, ancient people would still be able to reject Him for someone/something else (and the Bible is filled with the Israelites doing so). Imagine now that even a fraction of what happened then were to happen today. Would not the world become 100% religious overnight? You have to think in context. That in the past, more of God could be seen, than can be today.

There are two problems with this answer. First of all, by making this argument, Grim is inadvertently admitting that “knowing God exists” and “submitting to God” are two entirely separate things. Thus, the free will argument fails to show that God is in any way obligated to deny us the information we need in order to reliably verify His existence. Even if we knew He were real, we’d still be free to choose how we respond to Him.

The second problem is that Grim is failing to consider the larger context. Let’s agree that the world today is a great deal less credulous about the existence of gods and the reality of magic and/or miracles. The question is, why is the world more skeptical? Is it not precisely because of God’s consistent and universal failure to show up in real life? Grim has the cause and effect precisely backwards: skepticism is not the cause of God’s absence, God’s absence is the cause of the world’s skepticism. And if God were to show up again, it would only restore the situation that allegedly existed in Bible times. People would once again believe in gods, and would freely choose whether to submit to them or resist them.

Also you have to remember that the Bible itself states that everything was in preparation for Christ (Christian view/edition anyway). Thus, everything in the OT was a set up for the NT. Now that Christ has come and changed the game, there’s no need for God to play it the same.

Unfortunately, if we assume that Jesus was indeed God the Son, his arrival on earth only blows the free will argument away completely. There is no way that showing up in person, healing the sick, raising the dead, and even bringing yourself back from the grave, counts as showing up “only in the faintest and most mitigated degree.” And even if it did, by Lewis’s argument, Jesus ought to be here healing the sick and raising the dead, since this sort of showing up, being “faint” and “mitigated,” would not violate our free will. Argue it how you like, there’s no way to make the free will argument consistent with itself, the Bible and the real world.

Nor does it help to argue that God changed the rules in the New Testament. Even if He did, this would not change the fact that the free will argument is a sham, nor would it change the fact that God does not show up in real life, and that His absence denies men the opportunity to put their faith in Him. Whether you get rid of you sins by slitting a sheep’s throat or by putting your faith in a “Lamb of God,” if God does not show up for you, your faith is in the words of men (and possibly in your own feelings and superstitions).

Besides, it makes no sense to claim that God went through all the elaborate Old Testament preparations just to get the world ready for Christ, only to abandon the whole project and disappear once Jesus blipped on and off of the radar screen of history. If God put that much work into preparing for the New Covenant, you would expect Him to be willing and able to carry out the project once it had launched. Departing the scene, and leaving believers easy prey for gullibility and the wiles of unscrupulous men, just isn’t a part of good project management. It’s like working for centuries to build a rocket to take a man to the moon, and then launching it without anybody on board to steer it. You’re just begging for failure. Is that really the way a wise and omniscient God would run things?

Mark Twain was right: it is easier to tell the truth. As soon as you start trying to sell a lie, your story turns out to be inconsistent with reality in some way, and each attempt to explain away the inconsistency only introduces new and greater problems. We all know this; it’s where Carlo Collodi got the idea of Pinocchio’s nose that gets longer and longer the more he lies. Try all you like to defend the Gospel, but the fact of the matter is “as plain as the nose on your face.”

 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...
Posted in Unapologetics. 7 Comments »

7 Responses to “Grim to the end”

  1. jim Says:

    So, when God sacrificed His One Son,
    He then rolled down His sleeves, and was done???
    Now, He’ll watch from a distance,
    offering no assistance,
    and then burn us in Hell…just for fun.

    ‘Course, it’s OUR fault, for not lending ear
    to His silent reproach, for it’s clear
    that He’s made His will known
    in a dusty old tome
    and ONCE in a corn chip (so I hear).

  2. kennyb Says:

    According to christian theology, the purpose of free will is to make true, freely given bonding (communion) possible. I bond with my children through continuous, present experience. Their daily presence and communication does not overwhelm my “faith” in them. Am I supposed to instead love a family that “acted” 2000 years ago?

  3. B8ovin Says:

    While I appreciate your attempt to refute Grim’s fairy tales by showing their internal logical inconsistencies, I personally don’t employ the theistic centered argument alone. Granted, Grim’s post dealt only in the realm of biblical and theistic theory, but there are plenty of scientific rebuttals as well, that would argue against free will in relation to religion. I won’t present those arguments in detail because I think you and your readers probably know them. I will say, however, that it seems the height of hypocrisy for adherents to talk about free will.

  4. jim Says:

    I agree, B8ovin; from a scientific as well as a philosophical standpoint, freewill seems to be a fantasy all around. There are some great articles on the subject over at Naturalism.org…though, I think that’s a separate argument.

  5. B8ovin Says:

    Jim, I know what you’re saying about the thrust of Grim’s argument, but I don’t think Duncan is limited in his response. Though Grim seems determined to advance only theistic relevance, I think our esteemed blog host can put forth any variety of rebuttal.
    I’d also like to add behavioral science to the list of disciplines that argue against “free will” particularly in areas of religion, or at least, that free will is the first sacrifice when one surrenders to the “madness of the crowd”.

  6. Chigliakus Says:

    I’m not really sure if the good Deacon believes in free will or not, he hasn’t taken any of the bait in the comments section, that’s for sure. I do know that a fair number of my atheist friends cling to their belief in free will long after they’ve stopped believing in god. Many people don’t seem to understand that whether free will exists or not, it really doesn’t change much with how you live your life.

  7. yoyo Says:

    I thought this was a good response to Grimms argument, unfortunately it wont change his ideas one iota. leaving aside free will for just a second, the whole “OT is just preparation for the new times” argument makes their god a very strange and profligate beastie.