"I think this shows that the problem is primarily emotional, not intellectual. People just don't like the idea of a God who might send them to hell, and so they choose not to believe in Him. But that kind of attitude is just suicidal. Imagine you're standing in the middle of the street, and suddenly a friend on the curb says, "Look out! Here comes a car!" Now what do you do? Do you stand there and close your eyes real tight and say, "anybody who would run over me can't be a very nice person! If I don't believe in him, then it won't affect me! I just won't believe that he exists!" And then it is too late. A lot of people look at God that way. They think that just because they don't like the idea of God sending them to hell, if they close their eyes real tight and pretend that He doesn't exist, then it doesn't affect them. And that kind of attitude is just fatal."
This paragraph comes near the end of William Lane Craig's closing statements in a debate with an atheist, the whole of which is transcribed and published online, as are many such debates. Craig is one of the leading apologists for the Reformed Christian worldview, and he is obviously extremely smart and educated. No statement I make should be regarded as an attempt to cast doubt on the man's intelligence. I make this dislcaimer because I want to be clear on the fact that I believe most theist/atheist disagreements are the result of political, and therefore moral and ethical, differences, rather than merely intellectual ones. Certainly, there are stupid atheists and stupid theists, just as there are geniuses on both sides of the theological fence. Craig could well be a genius, though it's certain that I am not.
What bothers me most about Craig's analogy of God as the Reckless Driver (besides the fact that his description of an atheist's attitude toward god-belief is actually precisely that of the theist's denial of the reality of death) is the fact that he compares God, who is in no way whatsoever available for empirical analysis, with an obviously visible speeding car and its obviously dangerous operator. The non-believer, who can in no manner at all sense God as a metaphysical reality, is nonetheless portrayed as someone whose primary fault is the ability to ignore certain data he receives through his senses, for the sake of emotional security. The analogy is completely backwards and inept, and fails absolutely. Craig might have said something like this:
Imagine you're standing in the middle of the street and suddenly a friend on the curb shouts:
"Hey, you better move. I read somewhere that any second now a car is going to come thundering around that corner, and if you're standing there you'll be turned into road-pizza!"
Imagine that you look up ahead and see nothing. You hear nothing, you feel nothing. It's just an empty street. Sure, a car could come along at any time, but at the moment you see no point in scrambling over to the curb like an idiot just because your friend read somewhere that a car would come thundering and blundering along on this very street at any time. After all, your friend has been saying this for years, every day in fact since you and he started to walk down this street together on your way to work. But the car never comes.
"Besides," you point out, "wouldn't the driver have time to see me and put on the brakes? Is he drunk? Or is he just a reckless driver and a menace to the road?"
Your friend says, "No, you don't understand. The driver is extremely powerful, wise and merciful, and in fact loves you very much; but if you don't move out of the way, he'll run you right over. And not only that, you won't die. You'll actually have to experience the pain of being run over by someone who loves you forever and ever, for the simple fact that you played chicken with him and refused to get out of the way."
At this point you look hard at your friend and say, "Well, that doesn't sound very loving and merciful to me. But that's beside the point, because if I really did see a car coming, naturally I would get out of the way. I have no desire to play chicken with reckless drivers, no matter how much they love me. The reason I'm standing here is to let you know that your fear-mongering isn't going to work on me. The more you warn me about the possibility of becoming eternal road-pizza because I pissed off some reckless driver, the more I'm going to stand here, just to let you know that you can't manipulate your fellow men through this kind of psychological intimidation. If the car comes, I'll do the wise thing and get out of the way. But I don't see a car."
"That's just suicidal!" your friend shouts, teetering on the curb, not daring to step foot into the street. "Maybe the car will be coming so fast and furiously you won't have time to move! Isn't it much safer just to stay off the street? Why take chances?"
"Well, for two reasons." you say, "First, as I mentioned, I'm gonna stay here as a constant reminder to you that I will not be motivated by irrational fear. I will not take your word, or the word of someone who wrote something about this mysterious car and driver. Second, if this driver is truly loving and merciful, as you say, then I have nothing to worry about. No wise and merciful person would run down someone they loved. Your story makes no sense."
"It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the nature of the driver. He is very wise and powerful, and he is indeed very loving; but he doesn't demonstrate those attributes in the way that a normal person would. He lets all of us know that he is coming, at any time, without warning, and leaves it up to us whether to stand in the street like suicidal fools or to stay out of the way. If we believe in him and stay off the street, he will recognize our faith and reward us with incomprehensible bliss forever and ever; but if we doubt him and remain standing in the street, he will run us over as surely as the sun shines, because we dared to trust ourselves rather than the word of his messengers."
"And how do we know we can trust these messengers?"
"Because the driver tells us their words are true."
"And where does the driver tell us this?"
"In the words of the messengers!"
"Farewell, friend. Have a nice journey down the safe and comfortable curb of life..."
This paragraph comes near the end of William Lane Craig's closing statements in a debate with an atheist, the whole of which is transcribed and published online, as are many such debates. Craig is one of the leading apologists for the Reformed Christian worldview, and he is obviously extremely smart and educated. No statement I make should be regarded as an attempt to cast doubt on the man's intelligence. I make this dislcaimer because I want to be clear on the fact that I believe most theist/atheist disagreements are the result of political, and therefore moral and ethical, differences, rather than merely intellectual ones. Certainly, there are stupid atheists and stupid theists, just as there are geniuses on both sides of the theological fence. Craig could well be a genius, though it's certain that I am not.
What bothers me most about Craig's analogy of God as the Reckless Driver (besides the fact that his description of an atheist's attitude toward god-belief is actually precisely that of the theist's denial of the reality of death) is the fact that he compares God, who is in no way whatsoever available for empirical analysis, with an obviously visible speeding car and its obviously dangerous operator. The non-believer, who can in no manner at all sense God as a metaphysical reality, is nonetheless portrayed as someone whose primary fault is the ability to ignore certain data he receives through his senses, for the sake of emotional security. The analogy is completely backwards and inept, and fails absolutely. Craig might have said something like this:
Imagine you're standing in the middle of the street and suddenly a friend on the curb shouts:
"Hey, you better move. I read somewhere that any second now a car is going to come thundering around that corner, and if you're standing there you'll be turned into road-pizza!"
Imagine that you look up ahead and see nothing. You hear nothing, you feel nothing. It's just an empty street. Sure, a car could come along at any time, but at the moment you see no point in scrambling over to the curb like an idiot just because your friend read somewhere that a car would come thundering and blundering along on this very street at any time. After all, your friend has been saying this for years, every day in fact since you and he started to walk down this street together on your way to work. But the car never comes.
"Besides," you point out, "wouldn't the driver have time to see me and put on the brakes? Is he drunk? Or is he just a reckless driver and a menace to the road?"
Your friend says, "No, you don't understand. The driver is extremely powerful, wise and merciful, and in fact loves you very much; but if you don't move out of the way, he'll run you right over. And not only that, you won't die. You'll actually have to experience the pain of being run over by someone who loves you forever and ever, for the simple fact that you played chicken with him and refused to get out of the way."
At this point you look hard at your friend and say, "Well, that doesn't sound very loving and merciful to me. But that's beside the point, because if I really did see a car coming, naturally I would get out of the way. I have no desire to play chicken with reckless drivers, no matter how much they love me. The reason I'm standing here is to let you know that your fear-mongering isn't going to work on me. The more you warn me about the possibility of becoming eternal road-pizza because I pissed off some reckless driver, the more I'm going to stand here, just to let you know that you can't manipulate your fellow men through this kind of psychological intimidation. If the car comes, I'll do the wise thing and get out of the way. But I don't see a car."
"That's just suicidal!" your friend shouts, teetering on the curb, not daring to step foot into the street. "Maybe the car will be coming so fast and furiously you won't have time to move! Isn't it much safer just to stay off the street? Why take chances?"
"Well, for two reasons." you say, "First, as I mentioned, I'm gonna stay here as a constant reminder to you that I will not be motivated by irrational fear. I will not take your word, or the word of someone who wrote something about this mysterious car and driver. Second, if this driver is truly loving and merciful, as you say, then I have nothing to worry about. No wise and merciful person would run down someone they loved. Your story makes no sense."
"It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the nature of the driver. He is very wise and powerful, and he is indeed very loving; but he doesn't demonstrate those attributes in the way that a normal person would. He lets all of us know that he is coming, at any time, without warning, and leaves it up to us whether to stand in the street like suicidal fools or to stay out of the way. If we believe in him and stay off the street, he will recognize our faith and reward us with incomprehensible bliss forever and ever; but if we doubt him and remain standing in the street, he will run us over as surely as the sun shines, because we dared to trust ourselves rather than the word of his messengers."
"And how do we know we can trust these messengers?"
"Because the driver tells us their words are true."
"And where does the driver tell us this?"
"In the words of the messengers!"
"Farewell, friend. Have a nice journey down the safe and comfortable curb of life..."
