Craig on the Islamic God

[Adonael]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqevkr9bms

Is Craig correct when he says that the Islamic God's love is conditional?

[Toto]

I'm not going to click on that youtube link - but I'll assume it says what you say it does.

There is a discussion here (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/gods_love.htm) on answering-islam.com.

It appears that Muslims do not agree that Allah's love is conditional, but this may be a matter of how the term is defined. Muslims stress that Allah is compassionate, all forgiving and all loving, while Christians find verses that say that Allah loves those who are good and do good works.

This is from a dead web page (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:WT_OmMR2YcUJ:www.barclaypress.com/cafe/reviews/viewreview.php%3FreviewID%3D35+Craig+Islamic+God+love+conditional&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us): Conditional Love

The Muslim believes Allah loves a person conditionally, based on the person’s righteous acts. Thus, acts of righteousness are the basis for God’s approval. A Muslim friend of mine once declared to me that, likewise, love is a poor basis for human relationships or ethics. Only the unchanging law of Allah aided by the traditions about the life of Mohammed (the Hadith) is sufficient. My friend told me specifically, “I can love and forgive my enemy only when he changes his behavior toward me and not before.” It is in this spirit that the Islamic fundamentalists stress law and rigidity to such a degree that they seem to return to the retribution and retaliation of an earlier era.

This sounds like the conflict between grace and works that is never quite resolved in Christian theology. After all, Jesus/God loves sinners (he made so many of them) but, as George Carlin points out, if you don't return the love he will torture you in hell for all eternity. This sounds like conditional love to me. The conditions are just slightly different from Allah's.

[Adonael]

This sounds like conditional love to me. The conditions are just slightly different from Allah's.

How is it conditional love?

[xaxxat]

This sounds like conditional love to me. The conditions are just slightly different from Allah's.

How is it conditional love?

How is it not?

[Autonemesis]

This sounds like conditional love to me. The conditions are just slightly different from Allah's.

How is it conditional love?

Better question: how is it love?

[Adonael]

How is it conditional love?

How is it not?

I don't see this as my burden.

[Toto]

This is getting a little off the area of BCH -- but unconditional love is unconditional. It's some basic human yearning, to be loved without conditions, whatever one's acts or failings or sins. That's what Christianity tries to sell, when it isn't trying to scare kids with hell.

There is a romantic notion of the healing power of unconditional love. But how can love be unconditional if you are tortured if you don't believe in it? And should unconditional love be left to mothers and saints - can it be the basis of a society? Can you live in a society without rules and without some negative feedback for bad behavior?

I don't see much difference between the Christian and Islamic ideas of god - both are somewhat incoherent, subject to change depending on the needs of the moment.

[Amaleq13]

How is it conditional love?

There is a condition that must be met before the love will be given.

[Dante Alighieri]

And yet he believes that God eternally tortures physically/psychologically non-believers for all eternity.

Go figure?

[Steven Carr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqevkr9bms

Is Craig correct when he says that the Islamic God's love is conditional?

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This is usually explained as God hating whole nations, rather than individual people ?!?

[Adonael]

This is getting a little off the area of BCH -- but unconditional love is unconditional. "P is P." Wow. No way!


There is a romantic notion of the healing power of unconditional love. But how can love be unconditional if you are tortured if you don't believe in it? Asking a rhetorical question does not substitute an explanation as to why it is conditional love.

I don't see much difference between the Christian and Islamic ideas of god - both are somewhat incoherent, subject to change depending on the needs of the moment.You have yet to answer the question. Please answer the question: why is it conditional love?

[Adonael]

How is it conditional love?

There is a condition that must be met before the love will be given.
You are begging the question. You cannot explain why it is conditional love with stating in different words that there is a condition of love. It's like stating: P is P because it's P.

[ryanm]

You have yet to answer the question. Please answer the question: why is it conditional love?

You seem to be purposely neglecting the obvious here:

as George Carlin points out, if you don't return the love he will torture you in hell for all eternity

1. God does not love some people. Most people would agree that God does not love individuals being tortured in hell (I'm accepting its existence for the sake of argument). Hell is supposed to be complete separation from God, a place where God's love does not reside. Even if you want to argue that there are people in Hell who God does love (really, an incoherent idea), there are plenty of other biblical verses (e.g. Romans 9:13 mentioned above) that definitely support the idea that God is not lovin' on all people at all times.

2. Unconditional love entails that neither the object of such love nor anyone else can do absolutely anything at any time or place to change the properties of the love expressed towards the object. In other words it never changes. Conditional love is love that can come or go, wax or wane, based upon any number of variables.

3. Since God seemingly (and here the burden is placed on the person who believes otherwise to show that I am mistaken) does not love all people at all times, his love better fits the definition of conditional love. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but I would need to see good reason to accept that God loves all people equally at all times and places (even Hell). On the surface at least, the Bible clearly does not teach this. One verse that comes to mind which seems to argue for unconditional love is Romans 8:38ff. It's a very nice, poetic verse, but it really only applies to Christians and is therefore not unconditional. Any other opinions?

[Amaleq13]

There is a condition that must be met before the love will be given.
You are begging the question. You cannot explain why it is conditional love with stating in different words that there is a condition of love. It's like stating: P is P because it's P.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were asking why would God make God's love conditional. What I offered was why the love described is called "conditional love".

I would assume that God's love is conditional because it is more about control than love. Same as for humans. :)

[Doug Shaver]

Is Craig correct when he says that the Islamic God's love is conditional?
Sure. The same way the Christian God's love is conditional.

The Quran's message is about the same as the New Testament's. If you are obedient to God, then you will be eternally happy. If you are not obedient, then you will eternally wish you had been.

[kged]

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

If that's unconditional, I'm Otto von Bismarck.

Edited to add: I'm not, by the way.

[xaxxat]

How is it not?

I don't see this as my burden.


Yeah, it would be a burden for you to try to polish that turd...

[Toto]

Adonael - I see from your profile that you identify yourself as Catholic.

Do you think that the Christian God offers unconditional love? Is this a matter of doctrine? or Biblical interpretation?

Do you think that all Christians have the same view of God? Does your view of God differ from that Protestant heretic William Lane Craig's?

[Ben C Smith]

Does your view of God differ from that Protestant heretic William Lane Craig's?

:D

Ben.

[Adonael]

You seem to be purposely neglecting the obvious here:

as George Carlin points out, if you don't return the love he will torture you in hell for all eternity

That statement does not tell me why.

1. God does not love some people. Most people would agree that God does not love individuals being tortured in hell (I'm accepting its existence for the sake of argument). Hell is supposed to be complete separation from God, a place where God's love does not reside. Even if you want to argue that there are people in Hell who God does love (really, an incoherent idea), there are plenty of other biblical verses (e.g. Romans 9:13 mentioned above) that definitely support the idea that God is not lovin' on all people at all times.

I don't see why a punishment is grounds for claiming that the punisher does not love the punished. You have certainly failed to argue that point. Furthermore, even if I grant you your point, you would not necessarily have that God's love is conditional. What you'd have is that god's love is inconsistent with hell. Now you should be able to note that this does not mean that God's love is not unconditional; it could be the case that hell does not exist.

but, I think you should tell me your interpretation of the context and meaning of Romans 9:13?

2. Unconditional love entails that neither the object of such love nor anyone else can do absolutely anything at any time or place to change the properties of the love expressed towards the object. In other words it never changes. Conditional love is love that can come or go, wax or wane, based upon any number of variables.


I have no disagreement here.



3. Since God seemingly (and here the burden is placed on the person who believes otherwise to show that I am mistaken) does not love all people at all times, his love better fits the definition of conditional love.

Where have you argued that god has not loved all people at all times? The best you gave is a quote taken out of context and with no argued meaning.

I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but I would need to see good reason to accept that God loves all people equally at all times and places (even Hell). On the surface at least, the Bible clearly does not teach this. One verse that comes to mind which seems to argue for unconditional love is Romans 8:38ff. It's a very nice, poetic verse, but it really only applies to Christians and is therefore not unconditional. Any other opinions?

Please argue for your interpretation.

[ryanm]

That statement does not tell me why.

I apologize if I was not clear, but the reason I reposted the Carlin quote is because I think the answer is implicit in his statement, and, for the common man with reasonable sensibilities, doesn't need to be spelled out. However, I'll try to be more explicit about that below.

I don't see why a punishment is grounds for claiming that the punisher does not love the punished. You have certainly failed to argue that point. Furthermore, even if I grant you your point, you would not necessarily have that God's love is conditional. You'd have that god's love is inconsistent with hell and from there we can determine which is true or if some other affair is true.

Simply calling Hell "punishment" is letting God off a little too easy. Certainly, punishment is not inconsistent with love. I may punish my child out of love, hoping that the punishment will have a corrective effect and deter any future misbehavior. Few people would disagree with this approach. However, if I put my child in a furnace, crank up the heat, take away his ability to die, and never give him opportunity to repent, then I would be considered a MONSTER. If you would like to argue that God's love is mysterious, or manifested in unexplainable ways, or different from our conception of love, then you've simply redefined love and we're no longer talking about the same thing. If you would like to do so, then feel free to give your comprehensive definition of love, and we can argue whether we agree on it, and whether it actually says something meaningful and important about God. I suppose that you could try to salvage the idea of unconditional love by saying "Well, God still loves you in his heart, but he can do really horrible things to you nonetheless. Torturing a person forever may be a terrible act, but it says nothing about the amount of "love" He feels." Again, love here is rendered meaningless, as we recognize love by its behavior towards its objects.

So, yes, I would agree with your statement that Hell as it is traditionally understood (and here, once more, feel free to give a different definition of Hell as we might not be working with the same understanding) is not compatible with the idea of an unconditionally loving God. That said, I still think an unconditionally loving God is improbable given the amount of unexplainable suffering going on in this earthly world alone. Hellish conditions can be found all around us if we care to look for them. Ignoring the plight of man by saying that all things eventually work for good is begging the question by assuming that there must ultimately be a grand design of good and love behind each event. Since these plans are "hidden" from us, then we can't reasonably consider them when arguing whether love is present in this or that situation. And I admit that in the end we are dealing only with probabilities, not certainties, concerning the love of God. But at the moment, because of the reasons outlined above, I don't find unconditional love a convincing attribute of the Christian God.

Tell me: what's the context and meaning of Romans 9:13?

This verse is embedded in a very interesting chapter on God's sovereignty and plan for humankind, but I'd rather not open up that can of worms unless there is a specific aspect of it that you would prefer to talk about. I don't want this to seem like a dodge, so I'll gladly retract my earlier use of it and not accept it as an argument for my position. I don't have very strong opinions about it relative to our current conversation, so I'll leave it to someone else if they would like to touch on it.

Where have you argued that god has not loved all people at all times? The best you gave is a quote taken out of context and with no argued meaning.

Please see above that I have chosen to retract the verse, and hopefully I've more explicitly stated my reasons for being skeptical of divine unconditional love. I apologize for not being clearer the first time, and as always, I'm here to learn, so I'm open to changing my mind if you can tip my scales in the opposite direction.

[Clivedurdle]

Actually, maybe God's love is unconditional - God so loved the world he sent his son that whosoever believed on him would receive the gift of everlasting life.

Nah, there's a condition there - people have to respond to the love.:devil1:

[Clivedurdle]

What must I do to be saved? Give up everything and follow me - another condition.

And does not God's holiness impose a condition - that the only way to circumvent it is by a perfect sacrifice?

Very deep stuff this!

[Adonael]

I apologize if I was not clear, but the reason I reposted the Carlin quote is because I think the answer is implicit in his statement, and, for the common man with reasonable sensibilities, doesn't need to be spelled out. However, I'll try to be more explicit about that below.What you have are unargued assumptions that are being passed on as if they were truisms. the problem with this is that your particular assumption is not a truism. the problem of hell is a controversial area among both theologicans and philosophers.

Simply calling Hell "punishment" is letting God off a little too easy. Certainly, punishment is not inconsistent with love. I may punish my child out of love, hoping that the punishment will have a corrective effect and deter any future misbehavior. Few people would disagree with this approach. However, if I put my child in a furnace, crank up the heat, take away his ability to die, and never give him opportunity to repent, then I would be considered a MONSTER. Since this particular talk of hell concerns Craig's comparision,then we'd should probably stick to Craig's idea of hell and hence there is no fire and a man with a pitch fork. for Craig, this language is metaphorical and hell is something of a seperation from God.

As for the rest of the pertinent talk, I think it heads too far into philosophy for this forum's purpose and so i will not venture there. However, I encourage you to observe my upcoming debate with a user named "wiploc" in regards to the problem of evil.

[Autonemesis]

The state of another being's mind affects me not at all, until that being takes action as a result of that mental state. So talk about how much love is in God's heart may as well be talk about angels on the head of a pin.

Put another way: if this world is the best that God's unconditional love can do, who needs it?

[Minimalist]

You seem to be purposely neglecting the obvious here:

as George Carlin points out, if you don't return the love he will torture you in hell for all eternity

That statement does not tell me why.



Then you need to see George Carlin so we can all get on the same page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[Szkeptik]

Since this particular talk of hell concerns Craig's comparision,then we'd should probably stick to Craig's idea of hell and hence there is no fire and a man with a pitch fork. for Craig, this language is metaphorical and hell is something of a seperation from God.

So according to Craig I'm already in hell?

[ryanm]

Since this particular talk of hell concerns Craig's comparision,then we'd should probably stick to Craig's idea of hell and hence there is no fire and a man with a pitch fork. for Craig, this language is metaphorical and hell is something of a seperation from God.


My argument is hardly weakened by taking away the fire and certainly not the pitch fork. Put your kid in an isolated cage, don't ever talk to him, take away his ability to die or escape, and you're still a monster. The point is that torture no matter what its form is immoral when there's no chance of death or reform, especially when there are other logical alternatives available.

[Adonael]

Since this particular talk of hell concerns Craig's comparision,then we'd should probably stick to Craig's idea of hell and hence there is no fire and a man with a pitch fork. for Craig, this language is metaphorical and hell is something of a seperation from God.


My argument is hardly weakened by taking away the fire and certainly not the pitch fork. Put your kid in an isolated cage, don't ever talk to him, take away his ability to die or escape, and you're still a monster. The point is that torture no matter what its form is immoral when there's no chance of death or reform, especially when there are other logical alternatives available.

I still don't see why this is conditional and you have yet to argue that. I have pointed out that even if it is true, it does not necessarily show that God's love is conditional. it shows an inconsistency.

One of the more glaring problems is with your analogy of me doing such and such to my kid and God. You should understand that analogies, like yours, only work because of their similarites. God is said to be the source of obligation and goodness, but I'm just its commanded actor. So, where is the similarity?

[ryanm]

I still don't see why this is conditional and you have yet to argue that. I have pointed out that even if it is true, it does not necessarily show that God's love is conditional. it shows an inconsistency.

I've tried to be sufficiently clear, and yes I have argued why I consider God's love to be conditional if he is indeed sending people to hell, but I'll try again.

As I see it, there are two options (unless you want to further argue for a different conception of hell), neither of which result in an unconditionally loving God:

1. Hell exists, and God doesn't love the people He sends to hell, therefore his love for them must be conditional. This is true because in order for God to love unconditionally He must love regardless of person, place (earth, heaven, hell), or time. I already outlined why I believe sending people to hell is immoral, but you attempted the following criticism:

One of the more glaring problems is with your analogy of me doing such and such to my kid and God. You should understand that analogies, like yours, only work because of their similarites. God is said to be the source of obligation and goodness, but I'm just its commanded actor. So, where is the similarity?

Of course I understand that analogies only work because of their similarities. That's what an analogy is, a similarity. The important question is whether the similarities exist at the critical points of comparison, and for the purposes of my argument I believe they do. The reason the analogy makes sense is because the bible makes explicitly clear that God is good, and unless you want to render that a meaningless tautology that says nothing significant about God's character, there must be a point of similarity between a good God and a good man. Otherwise we can't make any sense of the statement "God is good." The bible also makes clear (I John 4:7-8 for instance) that God is love. It even takes pains to explain to us what love is in I Corinthians 13:4-8. I do not think these characteristics are consistent with sending someone to hell, fire or not. When you love someone, you want what's best for them, and when in your power, do what's best for them. God, on the other hand, seems to defy Kant and use people as a means to prove his power rather than as ends in themselves. That's fine, God can do what He wants, but He doesn't love in any sense of the word that we would recognize.

2. As you have pointed out, the other option is admitting that there is an inconsistency with unconditional love and sending people to hell, and therefore denying hell's existence. I mentioned reasons in an earlier post why I would still not regard God's love as unconditional in this case, and you said they introduced philosophical issues that shouldn't be argued here. So perhaps you'll bring them up in your debate with wiploc (which I look forward to) and we can mention them there.

In the end, I feel that the differences in discussions like these arise from how much leeway or excuses one is willing to grant to a supposedly unconditionally loving God. Having left Christianity and looking back on it from the outside, I can't help but see the Christian's unconditional reverence for God as something similar to battered wife syndrome. "I know he beats me horribly, but I've come to realize that I deserve it." It's hard to reason that we really do deserve it. I think many people receive unjustifiable punishment in this life alone, regardless of whether there's a hell or not. Perhaps you (or other religious folk) believe otherwise, and that may be the irreconcilable difference.

[Adonael]

1. Hell exists, and God doesn't love the people He sends to hell, therefore his love for them must be conditional. This is true because in order for God to love unconditionally He must love regardless of person, place (earth, heaven, hell), or time. I already outlined why I believe sending people to hell is immoral, but you attempted the following criticism:
I'm not interested in anything else but the keystone bolded commentary.

The reason the analogy makes sense is because the bible makes explicitly clear that God is good, and unless you want to render that a meaningless tautology that says nothing significant about God's character, there must be a point of similarity between a good God and a good man. Otherwise we can't make any sense of the statement "God is good." The bible also makes clear (I John 4:7-8 for instance) that God is love. It even takes pains to explain to us what love is in I Corinthians 13:4-8. I do not think these characteristics are consistent with sending someone to hell, fire or not.


The responses I can take are vast. I can qualify "God is good" to speak of moral virtues of God or prudentially rather than with normativity. Also, God's Law and Morality (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2218700), Stephen R. L. Clark The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 129. (Oct., 1982), pp. 339-347 deals with this objection too.

When you love someone, you want what's best for them, and when in your power, do what's best for them. God, on the other hand, seems to defy Kant and use people as a means to prove his power rather than as ends in themselves. That's fine, God can do what He wants, but He doesn't love in any sense of the word that we would recognize.

Who's "we"? Author OLIVER D. CRISP in his DIVINE RETRIBUTION: A DEFENCE,Sophia, Vol. 42, No. 2, October 2003 argues that youre wrong. So, who is "we"?

[Toto]

So far, I don't see much discussion of Biblical Criticism or History.

MFP or GRD?

[ryanm]

I'm not interested in anything else but the keystone bolded commentary.

I think that a lot rests on this issue as well.

The responses I can take are vast. I can qualify "God is good" to speak of moral virtues of God or prudentially rather than with normativity. Also, God's Law and Morality, Stephen R. L. Clark The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 129. (Oct., 1982), pp. 339-347 deals with this objection too.

Who's "we"? Author OLIVER D. CRISP in his DIVINE RETRIBUTION: A DEFENCE,Sophia, Vol. 42, No. 2, October 2003 argues that youre wrong. So, who is "we"?

By using we, I was referring to how I think most people with a conventional understanding of love (who haven't already been conditioned to or made a commitment to the bible) would initially respond to the idea that this everyday thing called love is consistent with sending someone to hell. I admit that I could be wrong on this and maybe my gut feelings are actually oddball and not the norm. I also am allowing the possibility that the inconsistency could be resolved through a more complex or nuanced argument (in contrast to what people may simply feel is moral), but that's precisely the thing I would need to examine one step at a time. I am very interested in the articles you referenced, but unfortunately I won't have access to those until I return to work on Monday, and "qualifying God is good...prudentially rather than with normativity" doesn't give me much to respond to, so I'm going to go enjoy our nice weekend weather while it lasts.

I'd enjoy knowing the arguments you'd use to support what I (at least personally) see as the more surprising claim, that unconditional love is consistent with sending people to hell. Unless my memory fails me, I don't think that's been discussed.