Richard Dawkins sure thinks so. In The God Delusion he wrote:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.)
First, God has the right to take life however and whenever He desires. Since God is the author of life, He can take life and give life at His whim. Life is a gift from God. Every moment we exist is a gift from our Creator (Acts 17:24-28). God is under no obligation to sustain the universe or our individual lives. Since God created the world (and everything in it) He can do with it as He desires. Humans cannot take another life because they did not create it. Since we did not give life, we have no right to take it. But since God is the giver of life, He can take it in whatever manner He chooses. It’s His prerogative.
Second, God shows tremendous longsuffering and compassion before executing judgment. When God first told Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the Promised Land, God instructed him that the fulfillment would be significantly delayed until the sin of the Amorites (the people of Canaan) was complete (Genesis 15:16). Why the wait? God was allowing sufficient time for the Canaanites to repent of their evil ways. 430 years was more than enough time for the Amorites to turn to God. Moreover, God promises to spare any nation that turns to God in repentance and abandons its evil ways (Jeremiah 18:7-8). God gave them considerable time to repent, but eventually justice must prevail.
Third, God's commands must be understoon in light of His covenant with Israel. God chose Abraham to be the father of a nation through whom "all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:1-3). Israel was to be a holy nation, set apart from the evil and corruption of surrounding nations (Lev 18:30). God was preparing a nation as a vehicle for the coming Messiah, the universal Savior (Eph 2:11-22). In direct contrast, the Canaanites were involved in witchcraft, divination, child sacrifice, and sexual perversion (Deut 18:9-11; Lev 18:1-24). Thus they were the most serious threat to God's divine plan for Israel. Dr. Paul Copan rightly observes: "Although the biblical commands are themselves considered harsh, not carrying them out would have undermined the very theocracy and plan of salvation God had established" (That's Just Your Interpretation, Baker Books, 2005, p. 165).
When difficult challenges like this arise, it’s important to remember what we know to be true about God: He is good, patient, loving, and worthy of our trust. We may not understand entirely why he called for the destruction of the Canaanites, but we can rest assured that He has a good reason. Philosopher Paul Copan has an entire book on this subject coming out soon: Is God A Moral Monster?
I’ve often found it curious that atheists such as Dawkins raise this objection, because if we live in a Darwinian world, then what is wrong with this? After all, we see killing and other forms of pillaging all the time in nature. Just watch the recent “Life” program on the Discovery Channel (which, by the way, is incredible). The Israelites were merely weeding out the weak.
The fact that we object so loudly to the slaughter of the Canaanites attests to our deep-seated commitment to objective morality. And yet if there is no God, where does objective morality come from? Dawkins certainly hasn’t offered a convincing explanation. So, ironically, Dawkins has to use God to negate God.
In you enjoyed this article, check out this article by Kenneth Samples on the same topic.