I’m reading “godless; How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists” by Dan Barker. It a really good read, and the arguments by the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation have to give pause to believers because a) Barker’s background as a beloved pastor; b) his well-reasoned arguments; and c) his lack of bitterness/excess of love.
Writing a God himself, Barker takes on (and I think shreds) the Christian concept of hell. Here’s an excerpt:
[Because I send anyone who doesn't believe in me to hell,] I may as well have created only believers in the first place.
Since I am onmiscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would … choose me. This would produce no conflict with free will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated simply by not having been created in the first place. (I would call it Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell.
For the believers out there, how would you counter than argument?
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
1 response so far ↓
1 ProfessorSteve // Feb 8, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This strikes me a bit like an argument along a similar path as the movie Minority Report. If someone hasn’t done something yet, are they still guilty of it?
Let me ask you this: if you knew that one of your sons was going to rebel against you and your wife, and never turn back, but make a point of twisting the knife annually, would you kill him now, before he got that chance? (lets assume this is legal)
Let me ask you another one: Suppose there had been a pill you could have given your then-future wife on the day you met that would have caused her to fall instantly in love with you. Would you have done it? And, how satisfying would that love be, knowing that it had been forced - never knowing if she would have loved you without that pill?
You must log in to post a comment.