“I remember a certain classmate. Only, during those days, he was just Nat (Nathan O. Hatch),” joked C. Stephen Evans, professor of philosophy and humanities at Baylor University, as he began his talk in the Philosophy library Feb 28. Evans engaged a room filled with students and faculty as he discussed the implications of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his child in the Bible for the modern believer.
Di Chung/Old Gold & Black
Evans is a distinguished Søren Kierkegaard scholar and has authored numerous books relating to Kierkegaard, faith, religion and the human sciences. He introduced the philosophical puzzle by citing Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. In the book, Johannes de silentio examined Abraham’s story. The book argued that it is either right to murder a child when God tells us to do so or we are forced to accept that Abraham was a murderer when he was willing to sacrifice Isaac under God’s commands. Thus, we are left to reject one of the premises if we want consistency.
However, Evans argued that we do not have to reject either. He outlined that we can both accept Abraham’s act as admirable and second, that God would not ask anyone to sacrifice their child today like he did during Abraham’s time.
“Once we understand the difference between Abraham’s situation and our own, we can certainly understand that we cannot duplicate Abraham,” Evans said. He argued that the historical context of Abraham’s action was rather to teach that child sacrifice was not something God required and that in Abraham’s times, child sacrifice was common and easier to accept.
Just because we cannot necessarily do what Abraham did does not mean Abraham’s case does not apply to us today. “The essential features of Abraham’s dilemma are still relevant,” Evans said.
While Abraham placed his morality on faith, our moral knowledge is grounded in the overlapping consensus in society. “There is a tension between the demands of the ethical and the demands of faith,” Evans said.
We must also be aware of our faith. “Not every message from God is directly from God,” Evans said. “The message from God may well be what society thinks to be absurd.”
In closing, Evans noted that Abraham can still be a role model for us today. He provided three modern cases in which an individual is analogous to Abraham, as someone who hears something from God that asks us to reject what is accepted in society. In Abraham’s case and in ours, Evans said, “Standing up as an individual against society’s dominance is never easy.”
Some students were critical of some of Evans’s arguments. “I don’t buy his premises. I don’t understand why it’s okay to assume that God spoke to Abraham and yet, it doesn’t matter how individuals today receive their actions just because they could be punished,” senior Steven Glendon said. “However, he’s a great speaker. I just don’t agree with him.”
Some students were intrigued by the issues Evans raised. “It was thought-provoking, in terms of morality and Christianity and how it applies to modern situations,” sophomore Rachel Ferguson said.
After his lecture, Evans welcomed and entertained several questions from students. His talk sparked a long conversation about various related issues which included religion as ideology, living both religiously and ethically, the mystery of God’s will and individuals against society. In some ways, Abraham’s story and our contemporary understanding about faith and what is right and wrong show that faith remains a difficulty. Evans earlier remarked, “Faith has never existed because faith has always existed.”