Layman & Euthyphro

Pulled from Atheism.org in their "Quotation of the Minute" box:

"[Given the legitimacy of purely hypothetical questions] . . . even if God would not approve of torture, it is still true, according to the divine command theory, that if He were to approve of torture, then torture would be right." (Layman, p. 38)

Layman has latched onto the Euthyphro dilemma, which has no compelling force against Christian theism. His statement is non-sequitur when contemplating a God who is (i) immutable and (ii) omnibenevolent, and a moral order that is (iii) grounded in the very nature of God. All three are hallmarks of Christian theology.

----------
Layman, C. Stephen. The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundation of Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (1991)

Bauchman on Postmodern Theodicy

I transcribed the following from a brief video clip featuring the voice of Voddie Bauchman Jr, a sampler of his thoughts on the "Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World" (possibly from his Ever Loving Truth Bible studies) posted at the DesiringGod.org Facebook group Don't Waste Your Life. I don't know where the original video is located, and I got nowhere with YouTube.com, so I can't include the video here.

Student: I just wanted to ask you that, um, if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then how do you reconcile the issue of theodicy?

Bauchman: Took a semester of philosophy, right?

Student: Well, yes. How did you know?

Bauchman: 'Cause if you hadn't, you would've just said, "Listen, God's so powerful and so good: how come bad stuff happens?" But I'm not going to answer the question until you ask it correctly.

Student: Worked on that all week. What do you mean, "ask it correctly"?

Bauchman: You're not asking the question properly.

Student: What do you mean, ask the question properly? It's my question! You can't tell me how to ask my question!

Bauchman: I will answer your question when you ask it properly.

Student: How do I ask it properly?

Bauchman: Here's how you ask that question properly: You look me in my eyes and you ask me this, "How on earth can a holy and righteous God know what I did and thought and said on yesterday and not kill me in my sleep last night?" You ask it that way and we can talk. But until you ask the question that way, you don't understand the issue. Until you ask the question that way, you believe the problem is 'out there'. Until you ask the question that way, you believe that there are somehow some individuals who, in and of themselves, deserve something other than the wrath of almighty God! Until you ask me the question that way, until you flip the script and ask the question this way and say, "Why is it that we are here today? Why has he not consumed and devoured each and every one of us? Why? Why, oh God, does your judgment and your wrath tarry?" When you ask it that way, you understand the issue. When you ask it the other way, you believe in the supremacy of man; how dare God not employ his power on behalf of almighty man. You flip the question around, you believe in the supremacy of Christ; how dare I steal his air."

Shove This Down Your Throat

"What I can't stand is Christians who shove their beliefs down my throat."

Of all the ill-thought rhetoric coming from atheists, this oddly phrased tripe is one of those heard most often. (The verificationist mantra tops that list.) I am going to ignore how improbable that notion is, beyond anything other than hyperbolic rhetoric, and instead focus on another, far more revealing aspect of this issue: the fact that we Christians are routinely subjected to a militant campaign of atheistic beliefs.

After presenting a theistic argument for metaethics (values and morals), someone responded to me with, "Well, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it." And that remark gave me pause. For maybe the first time ever, I actually stopped and gave that remark some thought. Well now, what does he mean by this statement? Quite simply, he means that what I presented is 'not fact'. More elaborately, he means that one cannot 'know' these things are so, these things I presented about God and metaethics; it is merely my personal perspective on something which is ultimately unprovable (i.e. there is nothing within reality to which the terms of my propositions correspond).

But do you realize what he has done? He doesn't realize it. By telling me that the sum of my argument is only so much 'opinion', he has shoved HIS beliefs down MY throat, because his statement is true only under his particular belief system! (In this case, some version of Scientistic Agnosticism. Some fundy atheists out there might object to the idea that they have a 'belief system', but it matters not because they do have one. No, it's not atheism; but it is atheistic.) The epistemic virtues that produce a statement like that certainly do not stem from my belief system. Such virtues are found somewhere else: in practically every case, the atheist's belief system. By insisting, in a matter-of-fact way, that my metaethics argument is only so much 'opinion', the atheist has shoved his beliefs down my throat—

—and is truly a hypocrite.