A. C. Grayling Has a Funny Logic That God Makes Humans Commit Sins

Knowing how to respond to people

In religious discussion or even debate, we need to understand what the other group of people believes in. For example, if you talk to Hindus and you are a Christian, you do not convince Hindu people that Christianity is right. Instead, you prove to them that Hinduism is bad or evil because people do not move or change if their current position is right. If a Christian says that Christianity is right, well, Hindus may think like this: "Okay. You believe that what you believe is right. So do we." Nobody is wrong. But if a Christian says that Hinduism is evil to women because its teachings tell them to burn a woman alive when her husband dies, the kind and smart people who claim to be Hindu will start feeling uncomfortable. They believe that Hinduism is good. But it turns out that Hinduism kills innocent women just because their husbands are dead.

Understanding Grayling's logic

Now, I do not know the religion of A. C. Grayling. But I assume that he is an atheist.

I do not know him at all. I never met him. I just found his book in a public library several days ago. It is The History of Philosophy. The book is very thick. "This guy must be smart," I thought.

I randomly opened a page and found the following:

For contrary to Augustine's claims, this latter makes God the cause of the evils that people commit.

Chapter Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, The History of Philosophy, by A. C. Grayling

I had taken a picture of the page, and I could not write everything here because of copyright. I did not want to get this website taken down because of copyright violation. But I can summarize what he wrote in my own words.

He wrote about what Augustine said about sin. He said that Augustine believed that people commit sin because of their free will. Adam and Eve sinned because of their own free will. That is what he said about Augustine's view. But he tried to refute Augustine's view by claiming that Augustine's logic is inconsistent because the serpent was the cause of Adam and Eve committing sin. Then, because he argued that everything happened because of God's permission, he concluded that God is the one who started making humans commit sins.

Taking a clear stance

Now, Augustine is a saint. For sure, I believe he was a really wonderful Christian. But I am a follower of Christ. Nobody is perfect except Jesus Christ. I am not following any men, for every human is a sinner. Additionally, I do not know exactly what Saint Augustine wrote. But I am going to prove to you that A. C. Grayling is stupid for claiming that God is the starting point for humans to commit sin with his own logic.

Refuting Grayling

First of all, free will exists. Otherwise, God would not have needed to tell Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit. If God created Adam and Eve and understood that humans had no free will, God would not have needed to tell people any rules because God would simply control every human's action. But because free will exists, God tested Adam and Eve to see whether they would obey him or not. This means Grayling fails to understand the Bible.

Next, God did not want Adam and Eve to commit sin. Thus, God told Adam that he could eat everything except the forbidden fruit. Very simple! Otherwise, God could play a game with Adam without telling him that there was a fruit that could cause him to get kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This means Grayling's accusation starts crumbling because God did not want Adam to commit sin.

Furthermore, if free will does not exist and God controls everything, including making people commit sins, why does God punish sinners? Isn't that God causing them to commit sins? This is why, in Christianity, we do not believe in destiny. We are not stupid.

After that, the serpent did not force Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The serpent did not force Eve to put that forbidden fruit in her mouth. She had complete control over whether she ate it or rejected the serpent's temptation. In fact, in Grayling's own words, he wrote the following:

But this view is inconsistent with what Augustine has otherwise to accept: that the serpent persuaded Eve and Eve persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit – which means the cause of their sin lay outside them.

He clearly wrote the word "persuaded." But he claimed that the cause of their sin was the serpent. He contradicted himself in one sentence. It looks like Grayling has a different definition of the word "persuade" because he may come from a different galaxy. He did not write "force" or "intimidate." He did not use the word "threaten." No. He wrote the word "persuade," and as far as I know, "persuade" means to influence through suggestion or advice.

This means the serpent tempted Eve, but it did not force Eve at all. Eve decided to eat the forbidden fruit willingly despite being told by Adam. Adam, in addition to that, did not eat that fruit because the serpent or Eve tied Adam up and made him eat the fruit against his will. He chose to eat it despite knowing God's command directly and despite knowing the consequences. Again, Grayling blamed everything bad that happened on God when God had told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit.

How about this way? If a police officer told you that you should not cross a red light and you got tempted to do it anyway because you were late, for example, do you have the power to choose? If you say you do not have the power of choice because of the penalty, you are an idiot. You are an idiot because you can cross a red light regardless of the rules. In fact, the rules are made because people can do that, and many people still do that even with the penalty. Without rules and penalties, the street would be in chaos because everybody could drive however they wanted. If you say you have the power to choose, that is free will. You decide to either obey or disobey the law.

More importantly, you do not blame the authority for making a rule not to cross a red light. Have you ever heard someone blame the authority for making rules to protect people? According to the stupid logic of Grayling, the authority is the source of crimes because they are the ones who make the rules and decide the punishments. Do people blame the authority for punishing pedophiles? Should the lawmakers allow pedophiles to rape kids? According to Grayling, the one who makes the rule is the one who makes people commit crimes. There would not be any criminals if there were no rules. This is simply stupidity from Grayling.

The same goes for the Adam and Eve story. God told Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit to prevent Adam from committing sin. Then, God kicked them out of the Garden of Eden because God is just. God punished the people who committed sins.

In short, I do not hate Grayling. I am not putting him down. Here I refute his stupid logic in his super thick book. The one who is inconsistent is A. C. Grayling because he thought that the one who is persuaded has no power to choose anything at all. If I persuade him to kill somebody, will Grayling kill that person, and I become the killer? Madness!

Letting Grayling know that he is stupid

If you know him, share this article with him. Let him laugh at his own stupidity.

Christ is Lord!