Behe challenges Miller
by MikeGeneAccording to Michael Behe's blog, Ken Miller has written a second review of Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution. That Miller went to the trouble of writing a second review suggests Behe struck a nerve. Behe notes, "much of the second review turns on the theological implications of the book." Apparently, Miller raises the argument from evil, thinking that evolution somehow absolves God of any responsibility for malaria.
Behe writes:
So there you have it. Miller (and Ayala) won't tolerate life on earth being designed because that would impugn God's reputation. Too many bad things inhabit the earth. They embrace Darwinism, at least in large part, for theological reasons.
Wow, and they say ID proponents get their conclusions from religious motives!
So, how to respond to such a position? The first thing to say is that it's very hard to see how the Miller/Ayala position gets God off the hook. The "byproducts of a fruitful and creative [Darwinian] natural world" that Miller alludes to are not simply byproducts "” they are deadly, dangerous, vicious byproducts. No matter if malaria were designed directly by God or indirectly by a sloppy process He put in motion, many children of mothers in malarious regions of Africa are going to be just as dead. There is going to be as much suffering in the world one way as the other.
Why couldn't a grieving mother justifiably demand of an infinitely powerful God that He explain why He chose such a sloppy process to make life, instead of a more efficient process that would not produce natural evils such as parasites and tsunamis? One that wouldn't cause such enormous pain? It seems to me that designing a poor Darwinian process that inevitably spins off natural evils leaves One as vulnerable to being sued for incompetence as directly designing them as finished products.
Since Miller raised the theological objections, I'd say that Behe has put the ball right back in Miller's court. The question that remains is this - will Miller ignore this argument and question? Or will he deal with it in his third review?
October 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Behe nailed Miller on this. A theological objection must be based on responsibility but as Behe correctly points out the responsibility ends up in God's court be the process direct or indirect. It is odd that a professing Christian like Miller would get hung up on a thelogical objection grounded in suffering since Christianity addresses this issue clearly. Yet IDists are the ones using science to advance theological claims right?
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 5:28 am
A very, very interesting development.
Comment by stunney — October 28, 2007 @ 5:28 am
October 28th, 2007 at 5:42 am
I haven't read Behe's books yet, and I'm not terribly persuaded by the gist I've heard of his arguments. But he's always come across in what I've read as being polite, having a cool head, and capable of some insightful commentary. And what he's pointing out here is.. well, paraphrasing stunney, damn interesting.
Comment by nullasalus — October 28, 2007 @ 5:42 am
October 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Mike wrote:
No, it suggests that the target audience of the first review (the readership of Nature) is quite different from the audience of the second review (subscribers to Commonweal, a Catholic magazine focusing on religion, politics, and culture).
As would be expected of a review published in a magazine focused on religion.
I agree that Miller is on thin ice here. It shows how serious the problem of evil is for theists (at least those who believing in an all-powerful, loving God). As far as I can see, their only recourse is to argue, as Behe does, that any apparent evil is all for the best in the end - a position that he holds not on evidential grounds, as he admits, but because he wants to believe that God is good.
Miller makes essentially the same error.
Although I think Miller is wrong, his view is certainly less viscerally abhorrent than Behe's. A God who deliberately designs flesh-eating bacteria is much less appealing than one who merely sets a process in motion which, after 14 billion years, happens to produce them.
Look at Behe's contortions in trying to justify a God who deliberately and directly designs malarial parasites:
So if I leave a loaded gun in the middle of an elementary school playground, I haven't done anything wrong. After all, I didn't decree that Ethan would pick it up, aim it at Celeste, and pull the trigger.
Comment by keiths — October 28, 2007 @ 7:27 am
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Of course that is not the only recourse. Allowing free will entails all options including evil intent. There is a difference between suffering induced by a neighbor's jealously, rage etc. and suffering and death inherent to the fragility of life. The former is pointless and the latter intended to mold the character of God's creation.
Comment by Bradford — October 28, 2007 @ 11:38 am
October 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
But of course God, in allowing free will, would have known that it would result in evil. It would therefore be immoral for God to create us with free will unless it was all for the best in the end. The argument you usually hear is that free will is intrinsically good, and that God was therefore willing to pay a certain price to get it.
My own opinion is that an ominipotent, perfectly good God could create perfectly good creatures without depriving them of free will. After all, God himself does no evil, but you don't hear theists arguing that he lacks free will.
And then there is evil that is part of nature itself, independent of humans. When animals burn to death in a lightning-sparked wildfire, what greater purpose is being served?
Finally, regarding the idea of God "molding" his creation via the use of suffering: why do that, when he (as an omnipotent God) could achieve the same end result without any suffering?
Comment by keiths — October 28, 2007 @ 11:58 am
October 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Both Behe and Miller are doing what thinking believers have done for millennia. They have this belief (for whatever reasons) and when confronted with new knowledge about how reality unfolds they see if there is a way to reconcile their beliefs with the best scientific understanding available. The question is how to do that and by what standards. The approach with the most integrity, in my view, is to strive for consistency, systematic coherence and follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it means changing one's concept of God. Another way is to create contrivances. I think Behe adheres to the first approach to a much greater extent than Miller. Miller rejects ongoing divine involvement in biological emergence but believes in the virgin birth. As Behe suggests Miller lets his theological inclinations taint his reasoning and this leads him to strange conflations of theology and scientific interpretation.
If Behe's position has faults it is with what I would call his extended Deism. In his view the fine tuning extends deep into time and evolution. This smacks of a Calvinistic predestination and it is hard to see how this would be coherent in Catholic theology. The problem I see in both their approaches is the clinging to a classic theism that drives a wedge between God and the universe. Once that is abandoned new ontologies present themselves that are not simplistic and much more subtle but offer, in my view, valid ways to honor belief in a benign God and still be consistent with scientific findings.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 28, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Keiths:
Free will is the difference between individuality and pre-programmed bots.
He could have created robots but in doing so would have destroyed a distinguishing feature of humanity.
Comment by Bradford — October 28, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hi keiths,
This notion of omnipotence has permeated much of grass roots theology but for many professional theologians it is a remnant of the failed ontologies of the past. Here's a quote from Paul Tillich:
I think the take home message is that if concepts lead to logical contradictions they should be abandoned. One can try to see the metaphorical underpinnings of such concepts but that subtlety is lost on most people.
keiths:
The same is true of this statement. If people are perfectly good creatures how can they be said to be free? Freedom implies the real possibility to error.
In the final analysis I think we must accept the limitations of language when talking about God. Tillich also said that the only non-metaphorical statement that can be made about God is that God is Being Itself.
In my view all arguments that try to shield God from evil inevitably fail. What one should ask instead is if life, as it is, is worth the potential for evil? I've asked atheists why they hate life so much. Almost invariably thet say that to the contrary for the most part they love life. If that is so then why be so critical of the concept of a creator of such a life. Of course the standard answer is that it could have been created better (no tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.) But what would you be willing to give up? The very same foundations of reality that create such "evils" are also responsible for art, music, love, compassion, intellect, meaning, etc.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 28, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Keiths
Freewill is only one possible greater good that requires the presence of evil in the world. My personal favorite is the glory of God's grace. With out real evil in the world it is imposable for God to express his Grace in it's fullest degree. IOW if creatures never sinned it would be impossible for the creator to show Amazing Grace to them. As the recipient of such Amazing Grace I can tell you the presence of evil in the world is definitely worth it. At least to me and God and in this case that is all that matters
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 28, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Hi Keiths,
Yep, that is the only point that really matters here. Miller thus has an obligation to respond to this criticism.
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
There's plenty of evidential ground for believing that some evil definitely is required for certain good. The evidential problem is related to totalities - is EVERY evil necessary? If so, to what end? If not, which isn't, and by what fault? That's where the jousting and arguments lie.
I'm not sure what to think of the free will versus predestination debate, but I will say one thing: Whenever someone talks about how God could create a universe where there are nothing but perfectly good creatures in perfectly good nature for all time, I have to grin. Because the argument becomes "A perfectly good, omnipotent God would have never let me be born."
It's going to be interesting to see how Miller responds to Behe. And here I thought it was only atheists who were so aggressively married to evolutionary concepts and language for religious reasons.
Comment by nullasalus — October 28, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
nullasalus:
keiths has a visceral fear of death or he wouldn't claim nature is "evil" for facilitating death. By the time a person recognizes the constant presence and inevitability of death, it's too late. The truth is that sure as you're born, you will die. If you know that, you're already alive, thus must eventually die. Catch-22.
He's not really trying to blame a god he doesn't believe in for the nature of nature, he's just wanting religious people to be as full of angst about the inevitability of death as he is. "Misery Loves Company" got to be a universal adage because it's universally true to the psychology of human beings.
It's not the glorious Truth and freedom of mind that motivates most of these angry atheists to rail against religious believers. It's a strong desire for everyone to believe as they do. Angry religious believers suffer the same desire and express it in the same ways. They're all trying to defeat death (root motivation), even though death (and/or the god who created death) isn't the enemy. So they project their anger onto people who believe differently than they do.
It has always been thus.
Comment by Joy — October 28, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
If God controls the wills of morally autonomous creatures so that nothing bad ever happens, then that's just tantamount to God abolishing the autonomy of creaturely wills. With even just one human will allowed to operate without being controlled, it's quite possible for something bad to happen. A free-willed person could stick a baby in a roaring furnace, or shoot dead 2000 people a day, or say something hurtful, etc. If God always made us do whatever God wants us to do, we would not be autonomous creatures.
When the atheist says, I refuse to bend my will to some supernatural being, what is the atheist saying? That he doesn't want to be an automaton, and is proud of the fact that he possesses an autonomous will? Ok, and if he happily possesses an autonomous will, then he can't consistently hold that if God existed, God would be morally required to abolish the autonomy of his will. And there is a Kantian argument that if one wills one's own autonomy, then morally one ought to will the autonomy of all rational beings—since morality on Kant's view consists in consistently willing for others what one wills for oneself.
So, first, if you will your own existence, then you will the conditions of your existence, and hence you will the laws of physics of your universe. Second, if you will the autonomy of your own will, then morally you ought to will the autonomy of other rational agents' wills. And all the natural and moral evil of the world flows from the laws of physics plus the autonomy of moral agency. It's not clear that not having the laws of physics or not having the autonomy of moral agency would produce a better world, all things considered.
Omnipotence consists in being able to do whatever it is logically possible to do. Upon analysis, it turns out that 'unburnable human baby' and 'autonomous rational being who is always compelled to do the right thing by an external agent' are logically incoherent notions. So it is not logically possible to instantiate them. But that is compatible with something being omnipotent, since the omnipotent thing only has to be able to do whatever is logically possible to do.
It is easy to imagine that there might be an alternative physics and biochemistry that would produce much happier form of rational animal life than ours, or at least with systematically and significantly less innocent suffering. Specifying that physics and biochemistry in any detail is practically impossible, however. Which would explain why no-one has done so, of course.
If God is free and perfectly good, why can't God make perfectly good free creatures? Well, God can make a free creature who turns out to be sinless—-that is a creature who chooses to be sinless. All humans, in fact, logically could have chosen to be sinless . But such sinlessness, if it were to occur, must be the result of the creature's own free willing, just as God's sinlessness is due to the divine free willing.
But there is a difference between the two cases. Aquinas would say that God's existence is identical with God's nature (and both are identical with God), and also say that 'nature' predicated of God is not univocal but analogous in sense with 'nature' predicated of creatures. Apart from anything else, God's nature is timeless, so it's hardly surprising only analogical predication would apply. The same goes for the predicate 'is free', and at least for the same reason (divine timelessness). With this paragraph in mind, the following propositions seem perfectly consistent to me:
1. In every possible world in which God exists, God sins not.
2. In every possible world in which God exists, God is free.
Is 1 possibly true if 2 is true? We might not think so, because we think that to be free means we might have done something differently. And one reason we think that is that at a given time, we might do either A or not-A. But if so, at some later time, this option is no longer availble to us. And so possible worlds branch out over time. In one world, we have done A. In another world, we have done not-A. So if we're thinking of divine freedom as being just exactly like human freedom, and if we think there's at least one possible world in which human beings sin (the actual world), we may be misled. Divine freedom is different. Yes, it's timeless. But that means not merely that it's unchanging, but also that it's perfect, in the sense of complete. Perfect freedom is not a work-in-progress, but rather the entire act of the agent by which the agent chooses that personal character which the agent freely but definitively wills itself to be. It's not forever 'under construction'. In God's case it is never other than completely realized.
But also, to sin requires going from a state of not being in sin to a state of having committed sin. This is logically incompatible with being timeless. So, in fact 1 and 2 could both be true. There's no demonstrable contradiction between them.
Now let's substitute 'stunney' for 'God'. 1 would be false if we did, because in the actual world (which belongs to the relevant set of possible worlds), stunney is a sinner. But if stunney is by nature free then 2 is true. But then, if 1 is false and 2 is true (substituting with 'stunney'), then they cannot be consistent. Whereas retaining 'God', we saw no demonstrable inconsistency.
Conclusion: it is possible for God to be free and without sin in every possible world in which God exists; but it is not possible for stunney to be free and without sin in every possible world in which stunney exists.
Comment by stunney — October 28, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
An omnibus reply to my interlocutors:
Steve Petermann wrote:
Yes, which is unfortunate. If truth is paramount, the right approach is to select the set of beliefs which best explain the evidence, whether or not they bear any resemblance to the beliefs you held before.
Why do you consider Behe a deist? A God who specifically designs malarial parasites is pretty interventionist, don't you think? Miller is more of a deist than Behe.
Indeed. I often wonder why so many theists insist that God must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent when there are so many problems with the concept. What is wrong with the idea of a God who is good, but not perfect; strong, but not omnipotent; or wise, but not omniscient? It is certainly easier to reconcile such a God with the reality we inhabit.
Bradford wrote:
Who said anything about robots? Why not create humans with free will, but with natures that cause them, in our world, to freely choose the good over the bad? If God is free, yet never chooses to do evil, why could he not create humans to do the same?
5mm:
Imagine that you place a toddler on a frozen lake so that when she falls through the ice, you can be the hero by whisking her to safety. Should you be proud of yourself? Should she be grateful?
Mike wrote:
Nope. Behe needs to respond as well. And he especially needs to defend the inane argument that by not specifying individual victims, God is somehow absolved for the consequences of designing the malarial parasite. See my argument above about the loaded gun and the playground.
nullasalus wrote:
Except that there are thousands of evils that we see no compensating reason for. The traditional theist asks us to accept — on faith, and in the total absence of evidence — that every single one of these evils is somehow necessary for the greater good.
nullasalus wrote:
So? That's hardly a refutation. In any case, why not create 'me' without the sinfulness?
Joy wrote:
Joy, you miss the point that it's not just death, but suffering of all kinds that casts doubt on the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Comment by keiths — October 28, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
October 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am
keiths,
I don't think Behe thinks he is a deist but the approach to evolution he has sounds a lot like one. I haven't heard him talk about other aspects of his theology like Miller has so I don't know if he believes in things like the virgin birth. However, if you read his latest book, the model of intelligent design that he seems to promote is one of deep fine tuning. In one place he seems to equate it to the "fine tuning" of the asteroid hitting the earth and creating the moon which gave us stable orbits. As far as malaria I don't remember him actually saying that God designed it. Behe really hasn't said enough about the details of his model to understand it fully.
Well there is a lot wrong with your statements, theologically, but the point I was trying to make is that use of the "omni" terms is a non-starter and really should be abandoned. They just don't make any logical sense.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 29, 2007 @ 9:26 am
October 29th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Keiths - again, you focus so heavily on this issue but you pay no attention to the Bible's explanation for it: We live in a fallen world.
If one were to read the Bible, and had never visited the earth or this universe before it (suffering) would almost be expected (if they accepted the validity of the Bible).
There are consequences for any action - is a parent not loving or benevolent if they opt to let their child 'suffer through' something?
Is there not potential to grow and learn in suffering?
Again, stunning argument against the existence of a God that you created in your head (nice guy, just wants to make sure everyone's having a grand ol' time)…. but it's irrelevent when directed at the God in the Bible.
Comment by Doug — October 29, 2007 @ 9:42 am
October 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Doug:
Doug brings up a good point. You can't have a meaningful conversation about theology until you establish whose theology or what theology you are talking about. Since both Behe and Miller are Catholic (and therefore Christian) we need to take a careful look at the root of their theology in the opening chapter of Genesis. Whether you interpret these chapters literally or allegorically many theologians consider them to be among the most insightful in all of scripture. For me personally the opening passages contain, what Carl Jung referred to as, meaningful archetypes. I think if one isn't smug about his (or her) modernity one can still make some interesting discoveries in these passages. Here is a brief list of some of the things that I see:
(1)God's original intent for mankind was good and remains good. God created a physical/spiritual being who was made in his image and who was meant to relate to Him personally.
(2) God gave man real responsibility. He created an adult world of adult choices for adults. He gave man (both male and female) (a) dominion over nature and (b) moral responsibility. It was never God's intent to micromanage man's behavior.
(3) When man fell it was man's responsibility. God did not, and will and cannot coerce mankind to do his will. In other words, God did not cause him to fall. Furthermore, God will not, and indeed cannot cause man to love and obey him. Man's choices in this matter were originally very simple: Don't eat this specific fruit from this tree. Or, maybe in a more historically tangible sense, don't bash this rock into your neighbor's head. It is modern society and technology that have made those choices complicated and difficult. Once again it is man who is morally responsible for those problems.
(4)Man is redeemable. God continues to offer man his love and forgiveness. God still desires to walk with redeemed individuals in the "cool of the evening." God offers all men an opportunity to regain "paradise lost."
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
October 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
A few thoughts on this:
1. It's kind of funny that we refer to writings like Miller's here as "reviews" isn't it? I mean, when you write a second "review" because you're not sure your first "review" really took well enough, isn't it pretty clear that what you're doing is not really reviewing at all, but simply writing articles to argue against the other person's position?
2. If, following Miller's logic, Darwinian evolution absolves God of responsibility for the existence of malaria, then by that same token it also robs Him of credit for the existence of humans. Miller can't use this argument while also claiming that evolution was the process God chose to make humans, as he sometimes does. He cannot claim that God used evolution to do anything, as the malaria argument, on pain of consistency, commits him to the position that evolution was not put in motion to any ends. Of course, if he is consistent, this means that Miller must also reject such tenets of Christian orthodoxy as God choosing to make man in His own image.
3. It is contradictory to say, on the one hand, that Darwinism is a purely scientific theory, and not a metaphysical or theological statement, but, on the other hand, to promote it as the solution to the Problem Of Evil.
Comment by Deuce — October 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
October 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Keiths
Saving a toddler from freezing is not Amazing Grace. Amazing grace is closer to but not exactly like adopting the person who killed your only son.
Since you have neither given nor received Amazing Grace you are in no position to evaluate it's worth
As a recipient of such Grace I can affirm evil in the world is well worth it. God as the giver agrees and in this case that's all that matters.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
October 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Steve Petermann wrote:
The Edge of Evolution, p. 237:
Comment by keiths — October 29, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
October 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
5mm wrote:
As you well know, my point was not that saving the toddler would amount to "amazing grace". My point was that a God who sets up evil in the world just so he can "fully express" his "amazing grace" is grandstanding in the same way as a person who purposefully puts the toddler in danger so that he can play the hero.
Comment by keiths — October 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Doug wrote:
I'm aware of the doctrine of the Fall, but I reject it because it doesn't make sense. Among its faults:
1. The idea of original sin — that we're born guilty because of the sin of Adam and Eve — is unworthy of a supposedly just God.
2. Why should the rest of nature have been affected by the fall of man? Why, for example, should the suffering of animals under predation be a consequence of man's sin?
3. It gets used as a crutch by Christians to avoid dealing with the problem of evil. If something is good, it gets credited to God. If something is evil, it gets blamed on the Fall, and God gets off scot free.
Of course the Bible is full of suffering. I never said that Christianity was consistent, did I?
But an omnipotent God can impart the learning without the suffering. Why doesn't he?
Comment by keiths — October 30, 2007 @ 12:21 am
October 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
keiths,
The Edge of Evolution, p. 237:
I'd forgotten he said this. Wow, one has to really admire Behe's intellectual honesty. He doesn't side step the tough issues. Of course, as I mentioned in my previous post I don't have problem attributing bad stuff to God. However, I do feel there is a weakness in Behe's uberfrontloading that shows up in his malaria analysis. I wish Behe had said more about his design evolution model. He only gives hints about the deep fine tuning. Seems to me, however, that not only is he trying to define the edge of evolution but also the edge of design. If the malaria virus was intentionally designed then why did the design stall out? Since according to this analysis the malaria virus has stalled out in its evolution, he is essentially saying that God intentionally designed it (predestined it) only to a certain point and then quit. This seems like a contrivance to me. To me it makes a lot more sense to view "design" as ubiquitous but that it is also unbiasedly faithful to certain constraints. The malaria virus is there because of the the underlying teleological process. That it stalled out is not part of some on the spot plan to limit its effectiveness. It did because it is part of a holistic teleology.
Personally I don't like the term "design". I would prefer something like "purposeful evolution" or "intelligent evolution". Using the word design implies a designer outside of what is designed.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 30, 2007 @ 9:27 am
October 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Keiths:
Ah yes, the old faith is a crutch cliché.
So Keith's what do you do when your walking down the street? Kick the crutches out from under little old ladies? Did you like that scene in "Patton" where General Patton slapped around the shell shocked soldier? I know a number of people that have to use their faith as a crutch. For example I have a friend who has spent over a decade caring for his invalid wife. She should honestly be in a nursing home, but he has heroically stood by her, working past retirement so he can pay for home health aids. When I have asked him why, he has talked about his faith and love. So what does an atheist tell this man and woman? How would you encourage them? Or, would you try to discourage them?
Another person I think about is one of the associate pastors where I attend church. First of all, Todd is one of the finest human beings that I have ever met. Over ten years ago he left a promising position as a lawyer at a successful law firm to serve people as a minister. His role has been mainly to work behind the scenes to organize charity and relief efforts. A few years ago his young three year old son was diagnosed with a very malignant form of cancer. For me there is nothing more heart rending than knowing that a child is suffering and then dying at such a young and innocent age. You don't think Christians don't ask why when something like this happens? I do. Indeed it usually it makes me angry. But cynicism is not the answer. Quitting is not the answer. Lashing out at God and others is not the answer.
Times of suffering is when one needs to embrace faith not abandon it. Keiths, I don't think you have ever under stood Christianity. The cross, after all, is a symbol of suffering. Faith is the way one confronts real suffering which a real part of the real world. Jesus himself summarized faith beautifully when he told his disciples, "in this world you will have trouble, but fear not I have overcome the world."
So General Patton Keith's be honest. Take a few minutes and tell me how you would slap these people around and slap some sense into them. What's atheism's answer here?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 30, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Or because you can't make sense of it.
By your arbitrary assume of how you assume a just God to act. God created Adam and Eve, they went against His will and corrupted creation. Doesn't seem hard to understand.
Why not? You didn't set the ground rules. And by your protestation you seem to assume that there should be at least SOME ground rules (evident by your disgust of predation and the suffering of animals). But still, it isn't that Adam and Eve corrupted themselves…. they corrupted creation. This is noted in the Bible - the part of the Fall that you believe doesn't count as an explanation.
Hmmmm. You do know it is in the Old Testament? Crutch or not it predates the assumption that Christians are doing to use it as an excuse to vindicate God. And if the Bible is a valid source, then your objection really doesn't matter either way. God informs them of what not to do… they do it.. consequences befall. So it's God's fault that He implemented consequences for certain actions? I should have used that one on my parents. Damnit!
I don't get your point.
Is it inconceivable that God values learning? Seems to be the case. We seem to value learning - working your way through a problem and apprehending the solution opposed to peeking in the back for a quick answer appears to be more valuable on numerous levels.
Comment by Doug — October 30, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Keiths wrote, concerning the fall:
This is a gross mischaracterization of the fall. The fall does not mean we are guilty of Adam's sin, as if we committed it. That would indeed make God unjust. The situation is actually much worse: we are born (because of the fall) with a moral inability to choose God"”or indeed to make any choice that is not sinful. But the sins with which we stand convicted are our own, not Adam's. The fall implies that atheists are not atheists because they cleverly chose atheism, but because that do not, apart from regeneration, have the ability to choose otherwise. That is much worse than having Adam's sin in our debit column.
I have not read EoE. However, if this quote is accurate and in context:
Then Behe is on shaky theological ground. It would be far more defensible to say it was, as are all things, ordained by God, and that God in his permissive will allows it. Such biblically sound reasoning says nothing about the mechanism that brought about Malaria, and does not preclude secondary means (evolution.) The bible is quite silent about how Malaria got here. All we can be certain of is that God could eradicate it if he wants"”but for some reason he does not.
Comment by David Heddle — October 30, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I haven't read EoE either (I really should - everyone is talking about it), but I'd ask: Is Behe saying that malaria was intentionally designed by God? If so, I'd love to see that quote as well.
Comment by nullasalus — October 30, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
nullasalus,
I don't have EoE in front of me but I think keiths' quote is correct. It appears that Behe is saying exactly that malaria was designed by God. If my take on his hypothesis is correct, malaria was designed at the beginning of the universe where the events leading up to the first malaria virus were preordained by God. (I wish someone else who has read the book would tell me if they think by inference on his position is wrong) Apparently to Behe it is highly improbable that the malaria virus could have evolved through Darwinian means. Therefore God set things up in the beginning (deep fine tuning) so that eventually the "designed" purposeful arrangements of malarial parts would come together. This would mean that God had to at least know all the (nonintentional) events prior to the appearance of the virus and set things up to end up with the virus or God would have had to intentionally determine all the events themselves, including quantum indeterminate events. Sound pretty bizzare to me.
Now from a traditional theological standpoint this would have to mean that the virus was necessary for God's purpose. What would that purpose be? Could be that deadly viruses are needed so that life can be robust. Viruses weed out the weak and therefore facilitate evolution in creating robust life. Seems to me if I remember correctly Behe doesn't speculate on this.
I hope Behe will make clear what he actually driving at because it doesn't sound like the thoughtful arguments he normally makes.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 30, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
keith's argument for the non-existence of God:
Comment by Brian Killian — October 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Why should we not think of God as having limited power, or limited knowledge, or limited goodness?
Because then God would not be that-which-nothing-greater-could-be-thought.
Comment by Brian Killian — October 30, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Steve Petermann Says:
No, I don't think he is. God appears nowhere in that quote from Behe. It isn't good theology or bad theology, because it isn't theology at all. You and keiths and David H are missing the point. From Behe later in that same section:
The science is what the science is. Your particular theological take on it stands apart from that.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 30, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
That settles it. I'm getting the book - even the critics can't put it down.
I found an expanded quote from Behe, and the argument he seems to be making is beyond 'God designed malaria'. Still not enough context though, but I'll report back in a few days if this is still being discussed. Gotta wait for Amazon to ship.
Comment by nullasalus — October 30, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Why is it that God could never choose to do evil? It is not just that Gods nature is good but that it is eternally and immutably good.I would contend that immutability and eternality are attributes that cannot be communicated to finite ,contingent beings ie creatures.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — October 30, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Grace is like sex you cant understand it until you've experienced it and since you don't understand it you are unqualified to call it grandstanding.
This is an important point and completely defeats forever the so called problem of evil.
Romans 9:22What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction,9:23and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,
I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about but me and God and the other vessels of mercy do and as I said before that's all that matters in this case.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 30, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Hi RogerRabbit,
Behe:
I don't follow your reasoning. If not God who do you think Behe is talking about? If you read the whole section it is clear that Behe is talking about God.
Since I got home I reread the section again. What I find really refreshing is Behe's unabased recognition of the problem of evil.
He askes:
I think since Behe is a Catholic it should be obvious that Behe chooses the former.
He also says:
Now THAT'S someone who doesn't fall into the sentimentality that is so rampant when dealing with the problem of evil.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 30, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 5:32 am
Steve Petermann Says:
He is NOT talking about "who" or "what". He is talking about a conclusion of design from the evidence.
No, just the opposite:
ID is design-centric, not designer-centric.
That may be a reasonable conclusion of part of his theological leanings based on knowledge of his theism, it isn't what he is talking about in that section of the book.
One can see the difficulty for Behe and other IDers in attempting to persuade the critics that "design does not equal God" , when a lot of folks more friendly to ID seem to be confused as well.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 31, 2007 @ 5:32 am
October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
I think maybe Steve, keiths and David H (although David admits to not having read EofE) and myself will have to agree to disagree about what Behe is saying in that section. But let's imagine a little experiment. Cut out that section of the book, and give it to some HS seniors who are unfamiliar with Behe and aren't hard partisans on the issue, and ask them to describe what the author of the piece is trying to say.
I don't think you will get "God did it" (i.e. designed malaria), but rather that Behe is saying don't allow your prior theological / philosophical (t/p) preconceptions interfere with your ability to honestly look at and evaluate the evidence and reach conclusions that may challenge your t/p beliefs.
So nullasalus, do buy the book. IMHO, nobody in this debate is more worth the money and intellectual capital invested than Michael Behe. Few on either side seem to appreciate what his arguments actually entail. Be he right or wrong in the long run.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 31, 2007 @ 6:49 am
October 31st, 2007 at 7:04 am
I think it's important to realize that Behe is simply doing science here unlike the Darwinist whether theist or atheist. His candor is refreshing. He calls them like he sees them. If his version of ID is true perhaps some of us will need to do a little adjusting of our theology. It wont be the first time.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 31, 2007 @ 7:04 am
October 31st, 2007 at 7:11 am
Very good Roger. That effectively takes ID out of the theology business.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2007 @ 7:11 am
October 31st, 2007 at 7:25 am
RogerRabbitt wrote:
Roger,
You're being ridiculous. That whole section is about "who":
Comment by keiths — October 31, 2007 @ 7:25 am
October 31st, 2007 at 7:55 am
I wrote:
David Heddle replied:
David,
The Bible is notoriously ambiguous, so it's not surprising that your interpretation of the Fall is different from those of other Christians.
For example, I was raised as a Lutheran. Here is what Luther taught regarding original sin (from the Augsburg Confession, article II):
Like Luther, St. Augustine believed that infants dying in original sin (i.e. without baptism) were condemned.
Comment by keiths — October 31, 2007 @ 7:55 am
October 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
David Heddle wrote:
The teaching of the Fall is about God's original intent. God's original intent was good. Man in his rebellion has corrupted that world. Was God's original intent in creating Malaria evil? It's logically possible that man in his unfallen state was immune to the malarial parasite. Indeed no one working in disease control thinks that it is impossible that we could develop a vaccine for malaria. How can we accuse God of malicious intent if we don't know what His original intent was? All we can say from a Biblical viewpoint is that God's original intent for His creation was good. Therefore, we need to take His intent in creating Malaria, by faith, to be good and consistent with his eternal goodness.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 31, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Hi Keiths,
You're right, in this area there is some ambiguity. I disagree with you that the Bible is notoriously ambiguous - but, I don't doubt that your concerns are genuine.
Here is the Catholic position on it:
Here is some of the rational:
Again, this doesn't say that Limbo is accepted doctrine - but it state the 2 points of contention that Limbo was trying to address. Points of contention that lead to the ambiguity you rightfully (to some extent) mentioned.
Comment by Doug — October 31, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
John A. Designer wrote:
Several doctors have told me that illness in general, or at least in numerous common cases, has a profound psychological component in its aetiology, so the idea that all or a great deal of illness is due to the general psychological impact of sin strikes me as quite plausible.
In addition, there are many studies linking illnesses to various behavioral and social factors. Here's a couple of examples from 2004:
And certainly a great deal of illness is directly related to the maldistribution of resources, itself a symptom of sin.
But to focus on the specific example of malaria, presumably it has a physical explanation, and it is generally thought that all physical explanations ultimately depend on the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. So, if malaria did not exist, some other set of laws and/or constants and/or initial conditions would have had to obtain. If you were the designer and if you wouldn't have chosen the actual set of laws/constants/initial conditions because that set causes malaria, which alternative set would you recommend?
Comment by stunney — October 31, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I earlier wrote:
And here's one from today:
Comment by stunney — October 31, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
stunney:
How panglossian. Are you now a deist? Couldn't God at any time intervene to disarm the nasty bugs? I have to admit, it's quite amusing to me (is that sinful?) to see the theists' twisting and turning to rescue their sadly misguided views.
Comment by Raevmo — October 31, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Raevmo:
I agree, at least in part, with Raevmo. I have not read all the comments so I'll not endorse the "twisting and turning" description. However, for me, it is not problematic that God has not created a utopia within which his creations could dwell. That requirement seems to flow from a childish comprehension of the nature of human beings and our universe. So why not dismiss utopian objections rather than afford them unmerited attention?
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
For my part, I stand by my original statement: A God who only created perfection is a God who would not create me. Or, likely, anyone I know.
It doesn't strike me as very benevolent either. I rather like the idea of a God that allows and loves - and through time, infinitely improves - imperfect creation, and imperfect people. The "benevolent God that could be" that some are describing here would be anything but either, only allowing the most perfect specimens to come into being and dooming the rest to non-existence.
As for stunney's examples.. I do find it heartening and "convenient" that the classic theistic staples, from charity to prayer to temperance to modesty - turn out to be so damn favorable to health and well-being. A modest point, but it's still one I enjoy.
Comment by nullasalus — October 31, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I don't care what metaphysical position someone takes, they have very difficult issues to deal with. Theists have the problem of evil and divine action but atheists also have their problems and contrivances. What about the multiverse theory to counter fine tuning? Or the manyworld theory to account for the orign of life? Then there are the long standing problems of no free will, moral relativism, explaining phenomenal consciousness, the problem of meaning, etc. From either position no solutions to the issues are fully satisfying.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 31, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
November 1st, 2007 at 12:45 am
Raevmo wrote:
Not at all, as I've pointed out before.
Not at all. I've explained my views about deism before too.
Or perhaps he could create beings intelligent enough to make mosquito nets and invent antimalarial drugs and use them in a morally admirable way. But why would God, a perfectly rational creator, create things whose nature then had to be frequently interfered with or suspended by Him anyway?
I have freely admitted that I don't know what the logical space of possibilities is when it comes to designing a biological order. I said the following:
And in this thread I asked this question:
If you were the designer and if you wouldn't have chosen the actual set of laws/constants/initial conditions because that set causes malaria, which alternative set would you recommend?
Which I notice you've chosen not to answer. Yet again.
I don't have to admit it, but it is amusing to me that it is amusing to you that theists reject pisspoor arguments like the Argument From The Fact That If I Was The Designer I Wouldn't Have Done It That Way Even Though I Have, Er, No Idea How I Would Have Done It, And Also Have, Um, Well, Actually No Idea If A Better Design Of Physical Life Is Even Possible. But this is old ground.
So it's not twisting and turning. (That's just your imagination—one of the twistiest and turniest I've ever encountered.) No, Raevmo, it's simply theists noticing that it's, well, a lousy argument; and then noticing how easily self-styled champions of reason are impressed by lousy arguments.
Oh, and the misguided views are yours. Though what it is for a materialist to 'have misguided views' is very hard to say if materialism is true. So allow us theists to think about evil while you get on with working on your explanation of how certain purely material objects can 'have misguided views', or indeed any views at all.:smile:
There's a good chap.
Comment by stunney — November 1, 2007 @ 12:45 am
November 1st, 2007 at 7:21 am
Bradford
Ironically this line of reasoning from atheists is for me some of the most profound evidence of the truth of Christianity and the Genesis account. It is exactly the argument that the serpent made to Eve and rebels are still buying it hook line and sinker even today.
On the other hand IMHO non monotheistic religions (Hinduism for example) have a hard time accounting for the level of dissatisfaction that unregenerate rebels have for the created order. And as far as I can tell Atheism has no explanation at all for this phenomenon.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 1, 2007 @ 7:21 am
November 1st, 2007 at 7:49 am
Fifth monarchy man, that quote did not come from me.
Comment by Bradford — November 1, 2007 @ 7:49 am
November 1st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Bradford says
oops it was Stunney. First I confused you with Frostman now this. Sorry I seem to be having a brain block when it comes to you. Is it possible to have a selective stroke?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 1, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
November 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Stunney,
Your argument, in condensed form:
1. Reality contains a lot of apparently needless suffering.
2. We cannot prove that if there was a creator, he could have done better.
3. Therefore, we must assume that he could not have done better.
If you don't see the logical flaw here, just ask, and I'll be happy to spell it out for you.
Comment by keiths — November 1, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
November 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
stunney:
Thank you for this beautiful example of twisted logic that theists have to engage in to justify their childish fantasies. Malaria was created so intelligent beings could waste their time trying to find ways to battle it, in the mean time millions of innocent children succumbing to the "test". Your God is one sick puppy. And then you claim that there's actually no need for the perfect creator to interfere because, um, he wouldn't have created his creatures in the first place if there were a need to interfere later on. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound to someone who hasn't been brainwashed for decades?
Comment by Raevmo — November 1, 2007 @ 8:12 pm