Analysis Of If God Is Dead Is Everything Permitted

1251 Words6 Pages
How can we be expected to trust a God who Himself has gone against the morals that He teaches? In Elizabeth Anderson’s article “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted” Anderson brings up many arguments as to why the moral understanding of the bible and religious scripture brings up multiple examples of unreliability. Both in the writings and of God Himself. Throughout the article Anderson mentions the inconsistencies and inaccuracies within the bible and other religious writings, and how their moral teachings which were considered right are now considered wrong in the present day. The religious stories from all sorts of different religions have been shown to cause countless events that have made a number of people suffer, and these were seen…show more content…
This is an important point, because if our understanding of God is that He is purely good, then why would so many of this heinous events occur. “Theist reply that because God is necessarily good, He would never do anything morally reprehensible Himself nor command us to preform heinous acts.” (Anderson, 2007). However, God is seen punishing not only those who are considered to be evil, but also those who are innocent, He causes floods, plagues and death to many people because of one person’s act, or if He was angry. This is completely opposite to our understanding of God loving us all and to our most important idea that God is perfectly good. Even if these acts were seen as punishing those who are considered evil, then God would have not done any act that would harm someone, nor would He permit us to do so. The bible is filled with these inaccuracies, is God loving of all, or just the few that follow Him, it states different allowances in stories (Infidels.org, 2016). It is my understanding that these stories are proof that God is not purely good, which itself is an argument for Him not to exist or that the stories themselves or false. Murder was perfectly fine for the soldiers of the First Crusade, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child, however it is written in the bible that murder is prohibited, it is a sin. Many other events like this occurred. When we look…show more content…
However, when you look at the times that these events occurred and transcribed, these were times of a lack of scientific understanding. The people didn’t have the tools or capability to understand how volcanoes or plagues worked, so in order to come up with a satisfying answer, they turned to God. Meaning that disastrous natural events, were not understood as natural, and the people of the time attempted to come up with reasons as to why the occurred, and that a God being angry and causing pain on them would be a satisfying reason. As Anderson pointed out there are no geological evidence of great floods, and many events that could have occurred such as plagues, most likely would have occurred without the existence of God, yet God made a great scapegoat. If an event happened that caused suffering then God was clearly angry, and if brought generous periods then God was happy with what people were doing. For example, the 10 plagues of Egypt were caused by God for the Pharaoh refusing his will, yet there are many scientific explanations as to why these could have occurred or similar events. Unfortunately, we cannot know the full truth since the stories are the only accounts we have. Since we have no other accounts, it makes sense as to why people would start to question the stories
Open Document