Is God a Moral Relativist?

September 28th, 2006 Heinz Kiosk Posted in Commentary |

INTERNET DEBATES about the validity of the theory of evolution are common. On American-dominated websites, newsgroups, and bulletin boards the debate is usually between Christian biblical literalists (of various stripes) on one side against Christians who interpret the relevant biblical passages less literally, atheists, and agnostics on the other side.

A common argument used by those who reject evolution runs follows: “If the Bible isn’t literally true, then there are no absolute moral standards, because absolute morality comes from God. That would be really terrible, so the Bible must be true and evolution must therefore be false.”

Doubtless some who reject evolution on moral grounds might nitpick that the above argument doesn’t truly describe their position, but in my honest opinion it is close enough to the opinion of many to be going on with. Now, the smarter logicians amongst us will have noticed that the above argument is actually a whole series of logical fallacies, but that isn’t what is concerning me today. I want to concentrate on just one leg of the argument, which is the claim that absolute moral standards come from God.

The problem with the claim that absolute moral standards come from God is that sharp-eyed readers of the Old Testament will note that many practices and institutions that modern people consider to be objectionable appear to be ratified and codified by that document. Even in the New Testament Jesus speaks approvingly of masters who beat their slaves when their slaves have made an honest error. Genocidal wars, endorsed by God, are described with lip-smacking enthusiasm. God himself kills all but eight of the world’s inhabitants, including all the babies and young children, because the general level of moral behaviour is not up to His standards.

Noting this has led me on a number of occasions to question those who reject evolution on moral grounds about their position on such practices as slavery, given that these practices benefit from biblical endorsement. Frequently the answer comes back in weasel words that seek to distance the respondent from biblical practices without actually criticising the Holy Text. But I have been surprised to often receive the answer that slavery is OK. This has happened enough times (with a paucity of reaction, let alone condemnation from other creationists) for me to be sure that the position of feeling comfortable about the institution of slavery is common amongst Christian fundamentalists.

Here is a summary of the creationist positions on slavery that I have come across:

• The Bible endorses slavery, so it is fine, and I don’t care who knows it. (the Captain Fitzroy position, sometimes adopted by creationist in unguarded moments, perhaps if posting while drunk)
• The Bible endorses slavery, so it is fine, but I know that it is socially unacceptable to admit this so I’ll dodge and weave, duck and dive, spin like a top, if the subject comes up. (I believe that this is the majority creationist position. They are aware that the bible endorses and codifies an institution that is sickening to the majority of Western people. They’ll go to any lengths to avoid stating their own position on the subject, because consciously or sub-consciously they can see that this is a lose-lose argument for them)
• The Bible endorsed slavery. But that was all about Jews a long time ago. God has changed the rules so what was OK in the past is now evil. This is fine because all morality comes from God. (the “God is a moral relativist” position. It does rather undermine the idea that absolute morality comes from God if God is free to periodically change his mind…)
• The Bible endorses slavery, and when you think about it slavery is just like paying taxes or paid employment, so you can see where God is coming from. (The creationist crypto-Marxist position. This is a surprisingly common response, equating slavery with the normal commercial free-market practices of the Western world. It is curious that so many creationists can endorse this response while simultaneously associating their beliefs with right-wing thought.)
• What??? The Bible doesn’t endorse slavery! No! No! No! Ah… oh yes, those verses… I’d not seen them before. Well, I’d better forget about all this as soon as possible because it makes me feel uncomfortable. (The position of the unsurprising number of creationists who haven’t actually read the Bible and can be assumed to be equally ignorant of both theology and science. The same people are usually extremely shocked to discover that their poster-boy, Dr Behe, endorses common descent and an old earth. On three separate occasions I’ve been urged to read “Darwin’s Black Box” by different creationists who clearly hadn’t gone to the trouble of reading it themselves first, but that is another story.)
• You think the Bible endorses slavery? No, those codes were God’s attempt to eliminate slavery. He knew that if slave owners were forbidden to buy jews and forbidden to kick their slaves to death. (well, that isn’t actually forbidden as long as their broken body clings to agonised life for 24h) the institution would soon collapse. Yet another example of God’s wisdom. (The “if wishes were horses” position. Adherents to this view often also try to give slavery a nicer name, such as “bond service”, presumably in the belief that if it doesn’t sound so nasty then it isn’t such a nasty institution. These people could presumably garner handy support from the PC crowd)

Embarrassingly missing from the above creationist stances is a simple, “slavery is wrong”. But it is easy to see why. Creationists get their science and history from a literal reading of the Bible. It would be odd indeed if they didn’t also get their morals and Law from a literal reading of the Bible.

Heinz Kiosk