Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
Mapau,
It’s all silly crackpottery from people who have not thought it through or are just dogmatic believers who are set in their ways.
I have thought quite a bit about this, and as the finite and inferior beings at the table, we suffer from a lack of information (among other lackings). We're not omniscient. How then can we know that we are even aware of all the variables? We cannot. You seem to be making the same presumption that others make, namely that if God were real, he could/should just sit us down, and explain every factor, every contingency, every mitigating circumstance to us, and we would be capable of fully understanding it, and would accept it as reasonable. There is no reason to believe that any of that is the case. Yet the skeptics continue to insist that anything they are asked to accept must make perfect sense to them, as if we mortals are the final judge. (The implicit assumption there is that all the God stuff is myth invented by man. If that were the case, then it _could_ be fully explained and understood by mortals.) The conclusion here is that that the Bible, and any other communication to us from on high has to be a watered-down, simplified version of the actual truth. Again, using my analogy from above, when explaining something to a 3-year old, it is necessary to simplify, simplify, simplify. Many important details may have to be left out of the explanation. We see a 2-D shadow; the real object is hidden from us. We read the abstract, but the full article is behind a paywall. (I'm clearly running out of analogies.) Logic is logic, but there may be additional information/circumstances/factors that we are not aware of nor even able to sense or comprehend. Therefore we cannot factor it all into our logic.EDTA
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
What do we call 911 for? Do we call it when a mosquito bites us? Do we call it when we see someone gets dissed by another? Do we call it when there is trash on the lot next to a store? Why not? Their trivial. But what separates these from the situation where one sees a group of young men attacking an older man on the street? From a situation where a man is raping a 12 year old girl? From the systematci killing of an ethnic group? And from our famous example here, the torturing of a a baby? Is there a line between what is egregious and what is not? If so what is it? Are these later examples, trivial too? In the total scheme of things for the Christian God, are not even these more harsh things trivial? After all this world is only a stepping stone. Where should God step in? Or should he ever? ----------------------- But what happens when God steps in? What will our existence be like if God did step in? And it was obvious? ------------- Leibniz once said that this if the best of all possible worlds and by that he did not mean life on this planet alone but our entire existence. We just don't know why it is the best? But maybe we could understand more about why it is the best, if we start from the assumption that it is the best and then maybe we could understand why it is and then why God would never make an obvious call to 911.jerry
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Folks, I'm neither atheist nor materialist but Seversky is correct about this omniscience thing. It's all silly crackpottery from people who have not thought it through or are just dogmatic believers who are set in their ways. We, too, are Gods and were made in the image of the Gods. So says the Bible (just in case you are Christian). Human civilization will steadily increase in knowledge for eons until we become just as knowledgeable as the original Gods who created the universe. We're just babes in training for now. Besides, there isn't an incomprehensible logic for the immortal Gods and a lesser logic for us mortals. That's ridiculous. Logic is logic. One more thing. An omnipotent and omniscient God cannot regret his decisions. The God of the Bible does. Live with it.Mapou
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Seversky:
That’s what I was taught but it doesnn’t make any sense.
It makes perfect sense.
God is supposed to be omniscient.
God is not beholden to our definitions. Also God would know ALL possible outcomes with free will providing the contingency. Nothing is set in stone.Virgil Cain
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain @ 10
I was taught that the point of suffering and evil was to see how people responded to it- as a show of character of sorts.
That’s what I was taught but it doesnn’t make any sense. We run tests like that because we don’t know for sure what the outcome is going to be. If we did we wouldn’t do the experiment because there’d be no need. God is supposed to be omniscient. That means he already knows the outcome of any experiment we can think of - and that includes how people respond to suffering and evil. That explanation of why there is suffering and evil simply doesn’t work if God is omniscient.Seversky
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
F/N: A 101 on the challenge of evil, per Boethius, Zacharias and Plantinga, with a bit of Plato tossed in too: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_gdvsevl KFkairosfocus
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
I was taught that the point of suffering and evil was to see how people responded to it- as a show of character of sorts.Virgil Cain
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Because he's Jewish and the emergency numbers in Israel are different.Roy
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
An omniscient being cannot change his mind. He is impotent to do so because he knows what he's going to do in advance. If he changes his mind and does something else, then he's not omniscient. Think about it. Omniscience is an illogical concept. So is omnipotence but that's a different topic.Mapou
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Ben Goren makes the same mistake all believers in the "God can not be all good and all powerful if suffering exists..." fallacy. Ben is a time bound being and he can't know the final outcome. How can he tell when temporal suffering is good and when it is bad. He can't. For to make an accurate adjudication would require him to be eternal in time. To prove this I will appeal to some common sense that I know is held to by every person by how they behave. The behavior of all people shows that they will take onto themselves suffering for a greater good. So people choose to work, choose to exercise, choose to practice music, choose to go to school... they choose to do any number of (at the time) painful things in order to gain more at the end. This behavior is so universal it is found in every society. The concept and practice of suffering now to achieve a greater good later is universal. So why should someone like Ben Goren be surprised that the all powerful and all good God allows suffering to happen so that a greater good may be achieved. After all, God allowed His Son to withstand the true agony of the cross, that He might deliver all from the penalty of sin. These are truths that Ben Goren is willingly ignorant of. I heartily invite Mr. Goren to drop his willing ignorance and believe the truth.JDH
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
Jesus doesn't call 911 because he is on the main line. Duh.Mung
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Jesus was the 911 answer. It was a big call. Also God is always stopping problems. He just can't stop them all because of the problem that led to Jesus being the 911 answer. Its an equation.Robert Byers
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 8:
...for a perfect and omniscient being, God has apparently done a very poor job of communicating His intentions, beliefs and rationales.
This makes the assumption that God's intentions, beliefs and rationales are fully comprehensible to us. That is a huge assumption on which many atheist arguments rest, but one for which there is no justification at all. In fact, if there is (merely) a _superior_ being, then it would have to be the case that some things known to Him are beyond our ability to comprehend. As an analogy, a 3-year old does not understand why they have to get a shot at the doctor's office. In fact, they are not yet capable of fully comprehending why it is necessary. But it is necessary. All they know is that it will hurt. I can see one quick argument coming my way at this point: "But we (humanity) have done a pretty good job of understanding things so far!" How do you know that? How could you possibly prove that you (or all humanity, or at least one individual) have comprehended everything we've encountered so far? Not epistemically possible. People who argue against God always assume (always as a suppressed premise, I've found) that we would be capable of comprehending absolutely everything and anything that might be the case. Human hubris at its most extensive! Sorry. All arguments that depend on this assumption fail.EDTA
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Seversky:
What would be the point? If they are omniscient, any such deity would already know what was going to happen. In fact they would have known since the beginning of time so they could have sent a message by carrier pigeon or a letter or an email alerting the emergency services well in advance if they’d wanted to. The question, as always, is, if such a being or beings exist, why didn’t they want to?
This is an excellent question that most Christians cannot answer because they are taught to believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God. But it's a heresy and a form of idolatry IMO, i.e., the work of the devil. Such a God cannot possibly exist and the concept if falsified in the Bible. It's a concept that was introduced to Christianity by Catholic medieval thinkers in those days when they had serious discussions about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.Mapou
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
The anti-God crowd want a universe where there is no suffering, just pleasure. Everything should be easy and never hard. Coyne's God would never have created pain sensors, only pleasure sensors. The problem is that we live in a Yin Yang universe and there is no way around it. You can't have Yin without Yang. Not even an all-powerful God could create just a Yin or a Yang universe. This is the lesson Yahweh wants us to learn but Jerry Coyne et al cannot learn this lesson because they are forever crybabies, a bunch of wussies, really. Yahweh, too, must have gone through his share of suffering over the eons. There is no escaping this. We, humans, are being initiated into the company of Gods.Mapou
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Dennis says:
I suggest one more assumption overlooked by Mr Goren, i.e., that God may already be intervening in many ways of which we are unaware. We may be seeing only unavoidable situations in which competing priorities make God’s intervention unwise, and even in those God may be working to lessen the blow.
Exactly what I was thinking Dennis! Besides, why would God need to call 911? After all, He is God! He could save the person with a miracle if He so chose. Sometimes He works through humans - often times - but sometimes He alters the weather, supernaturally protects, helps people in trouble make the right choice by giving wisdom, or who knows what else! Recently, I read a very interesting story about how God intervened to save George Washington and the Revolutionary Army at one point in the war when they were trapped on an island. The skeptic will say it was just coincidence - he's welcome to his opinion - but General Washington knew it was God answering their prayers. Here was what Washington wrote after that supernatural deliverance:
Washington wrote later that year, Aug. 20, 1778: “Undergoing the strangest vicissitudes that perhaps ever attended any one contest since the creation … the Hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this – the course of the war – that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith. … But it will be time enough for me to turn Preacher when my present appointment ceases.”
You can read about the incident here: http://www.americanminute.com/index.php?date=08-27 Goren's argument is simply another version of the "God can't be both good and all powerful if He allows so much suffering in the world" argument. The other thing to remember here is that we often clearly see the instances when God does not deliver people from trouble, pain, and suffering. But I don't think we are often aware of the times He does protect us. If God were to protect you from an accident by inspiring you to take a different route to work one day, would you ever know that? Sometimes His protection is clearly visible as in George Washington's case, but other times we are protected without ever even being aware of it. Goren and his skeptic friends have a very man centered view of God - as if His sole reason for existing is to make man's life comfortable and smooth. If so, then his conclusion that "God" does not exist is accurate! The existence of great suffering in the world is not an easy one to understand and I don't pretend to be God or to be able to explain it all, but like Job, a man in the midst of dire suffering, said in response to his wife who wanted him to curse God and die, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (meaning not moral evil of course, but trials.) Goren speaks as one of the foolish scoffers would speak. He doesn't understand who God is and he tries to defame him by painting Him to be someone He is not. Anyway, why would God, the Creator of the universe, need to call 911? A silly thought! There are any number of ways He works to save people, but those are not good enough for this guy. If God doesn't do it his way, and if God doesn't help everyone all the time, then well, the obvious conclusion for this guy is that He doesn't exist. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, Goren included, but many of us see things differently. We do not answer to him, but to God. If our answers/opinions/beliefs do not satisfy him, so be it. His opinions/answers/beliefs as a skeptic in defending his worldview do not satisfy us either.tjguy
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Or we have done a poor job at listening and understanding what they are. Why does a perfect and omniscient being "need" to be more obvious. What is obvious enough? Just another "I wouldn't do it that way, therefore God doesn't exist". Placing expectations on something one doesn't believe must be difficult. Seems to me there is plenty of evidence, and God does do enough, not always in ways we understand or would like. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If someone is going to argue against the existence of God, do better than "I wouldn't do it that way". Pretty arrogant way of thinking. At least use an argument that is difficult to understand, say evil in the world.scottH
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger?
What would be the point? If they are omniscient, any such deity would already know what was going to happen. In fact they would have known since the beginning of time so they could have sent a message by carrier pigeon or a letter or an email alerting the emergency services well in advance if they'd wanted to. The question, as always, is, if such a being or beings exist, why didn't they want to? And has no one noticed that the reason apologetics are such a thriving field in Christian scholarship is because there is so much in Christian theology that demands explanation and justification. In other words, for a perfect and omniscient being, God has apparently done a very poor job of communicating His intentions, beliefs and rationales.Seversky
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
You missed his key assumption which is that God actually never called 911. How could anyone tell if an anonymous caller wasn't an angel or a human calling on God's request/command or even God himself. Even if he'd mention his name the callee'd hardly take that serious, so there really is no reliable data to base that assumption on. SebestyenSebestyen
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Just another garbled rehash of the theodicy complaint. Here's another insightful article by Mark Shea not without relevance to this thread: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/monsters.-moralists-and-happiness/Axel
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
I suggest one more assumption overlooked by Mr Goren, i.e., that God may already be intervening in many ways of which we are unaware. We may be seeing only unavoidable situations in which competing priorities make God's intervention unwise, and even in those God may be working to lessen the blow.DennisM
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Whiny Atheists need to HTFU. If you want to live in a perfect world, you have to earn it. Salvation of the Fittest grrrr. "Why doesn't Jesus call 911 waaaa". What an ingrate.ppolish
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Another in a long line of "God should do what I would do...maybe" objections.lpadron
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
semi related. I was impressed with this sermon from pastor Tim Keller last night as I listened to it. But then again many of his sermons are very good. I have come to respect him as one of the best pastors of our day. Tim Keller - The Terrifying and Beckoning God - sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6tnnU_wUi8bornagain77
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;
Is that not a reasonable assumption? Maybe it's the fact that I attend a Protestant church that makes the idea of such "privileged members" seem very strange. (To be clear, I am an atheist).daveS
September 4, 2015
September
09
Sep
4
04
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
1 11 12 13

Leave a Reply