The Proper View of a Teleologist
by BilboThe recent topic on the rabbit's digestive system, and whether or not it is an example of dysteleology, and whether or not dysteleology can be used as an argument against Intelligent Design Theory, reminded me of Michael Denton's comment, when he discussed the inverted vertebrate retina here:
Vision is such an important adaptation in higher vertebrates that if the retina is indeed "wired wrongly" or "badly designed" it would certainly pose, as Dawkins implies, a considerable challenge to any teleological interpretation of nature.
I think that if Intelligent Design Theory is to have any use in science, its utility should come from its proponents expecting that living organisms are, by a large, optimally designed. It should come as a surprise to teleologists to find examples of apparent dysteleology, and it should motivate them to rigorously investigate and make sure that such examples really do qualify as such. If, when confronted with such examples, they simply "give up" as their Darwinian counterparts do, and fail to try to understand why an intelligent designer would have done it that way, of what use are they to the scientific community? Teleologists should assume a design perspective for all of biology, and only when it is absolutely hopeless should they be willing to admit that a real case of dysteleogy exists. In this way they will mirror the admirable efforts of the ateleologists, who go on looking for a way that abiogenesis could have happened; or how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved (as Nick so valiantly tries to do).
Until supposed "teleologists" are willing to take teleology seriously, why should they expect the rest of the scientific community to do so?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I should make a distinction between sub-optimal design and evil design. Teleologists should never accept the former until forced to by overwhelming evidence. The latter — evil design — may be a different question. But it is still a question that teleologists need to try to give an answer to.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thanks Krauze and Bradford for the editing lesson.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Now could you teach me how to put the link into a word form, or whatever you call it.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Mark the word you want turned into a link and press Alt+A (click on the quicktag called "link") and put your link into the box. Press OK, and you should have something that looks like this:
Check out this <
a href="http://telicthoughts.com/">awesome blog</a>!Comment by Krauze — February 22, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Remember, with your newly-gained moderator powers, you can always click on "Edit This" to see how any nifty effect is created.
But remember the lesson from Peter's uncle: With great power comes great responsibility, and after copying whatever code you need, you should go back, leaving the comment or post exactly as it was.
Comment by Krauze — February 22, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I've been wiping out our "remedial questions and lessons in how to use a computer" because they aren't really "comments." They are "meta-comments."
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
It's isn't working. What am I doing wrong?
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Hi Bilbo,
"I've been wiping out our "remedial questions and lessons in how to use a computer" because they aren't really "comments.""
Oh yeah? Well, I went in and edited your comment to make the quote tag work. Take that!
Comment by Krauze — February 22, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Now you've really confused me.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Click "Edit This" to see how the coding in your post looks like. Basically, a quote should be surrounded by a [blockquote] at the front and a [/blockquote] at the end. Only in angle brackets, of course.
Comment by Krauze — February 22, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
But I wasn't worried about the block quote thingy, I was worried about the link thingy. I wanted to get this:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm
magically changed into the word "here" just before it.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
BTW, to all those who were wondering, the answer is, "No. I am NOT the Intelligent Designer.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
So Krauze, did I piss you off?
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I disagree. Take for instance the example of the Model T ford.
Clearly, the T is not optimally designed; I has been superceded by later s which are better designed. Nevertheless, the T is not only the product of intelligent design, but a person who did not know what aT was would be reasonable in inferring from the construction of the T that it had been designed.
Comment by BenK — February 22, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
BenK:
You're right. (And thanks for a non-meta-comment to my topic). However, I guess I wasn't clear. What I am wondering about is what role teleologists can have in science. Other than saying, "This is so irreducibly complex, that it must have been designed," what else does a teleologist have to do? I am trying to suggest that the teleologist could have a very important role. By assuming that all biological entities are optimally designed, the teleological scientist would be forced to look for answers, where the non-teleological scientist would stop looking.
Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
It is good to raise the legitimate question of how a teleological perspective would affect how one approaches sciencific research. That said, there are a couple problems with supposing this means one should assume "optimal" design.
1. There is no single design that is "optimal" — it is an ill defined concept. Optimal in which direction? And why that direction vs. optimizng in a different direction? Weighing and balancing tradeoffs is a fundamental aspect of all engineering.
2. It supposes that the original design has remained static, without change. But in reality change does take place. In fact, many of the best examples of evolution are cases where former functionality has been lost through natural changes over time.
I would suggest that a better direction to explore would be the role of defining and clarifying the boundary around what unguided natural processes are capable of. It is fundamental to the teleological position to discern the difference between what could and what could not be produced by unguided natural processes. Where is that boundary? How can we improve our ability to distinguish those aspects of design that could be due to change by natural processes (e.g. information loss, or information reshuffling such as through horizontal gene transfer).
Comment by eric — February 22, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
The insincerity of ID critics is revealed by their optimal design approach coupled with an insistence that inferences be made about the designer based on scientific evidence. The optimal design critique is based not on scientific data but rather on unsupported assumptions about the designer usually derived from a partial understanding of religious doctrine; most specifically that of Christianity. If inferences are to be made about a designer they must proceed bottom up style IOW based on biological data. The optimal design tactic is based on a desire to discredit rather than draw legitimate inferences from data. It should be treated accordingly.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Good point Eric. Defining a boundary line is important and I would suggest the boundary will be found based on the capacity to predict from data. Where predictions falter, boundaries of knowledge or a limited predictive utility caused by the inability of natural forces to effect the observed outcome, are approached. Distinguishing between which is the likely culprit is a good theme for a future blog.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 am
I fully disagree with this.
As I stated in a previous thread, I write software for a living. There is probably no software of which it could be said "this is optimally designed". And yet, I do view myself and other practitioners of the craft as intelligent.
There is a contingency and ad-hoc, evolutionary reality to software systems which are of no doubt intelligently designed that looks very much like the contengent, ad-hoc, and evolutionary nature of biological design.
This does say something about the evidence for certain theological interpretations, but sheds no disproof on the idea of intelligent design whatsoever.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 23, 2007 @ 1:13 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 am
Hi Bilbo,
No, I just went to bed. These European time zones mean that I'm out of sync with the rest of you.
In the "awesome blog" post above, I tried to make it so that the coding was visible, but the software added a few spaces to the code, which probably explains why you can't get it to work. Instead, try doing what I recommended earlier: Highlight the word you want made clickable with the cursor, press Alt+A (or hit "link" in the quicktags above the comment box), and paste your link into the box that should appear. Or just click "Edit This" to see how I did this:
Check out this awesome blog!
Comment by Krauze — February 23, 2007 @ 2:52 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 am
eric wrote:
Optimality is meaningful, as long as the criteria of optimality are specified. Suppose I have a certain length of fencing, and my goal is to enclose the largest possible area within the fence. In that case there is an optimal design for my enclosure, which is to form the fence into a circle. Period.
Optimality remains a viable concept even when there are tradeoffs, as long as the costs and benefits of the parameters being traded off are defined.
Bradford wrote:
ID critics raise the question of optimum design only because ID proponents refuse to rule out the possibility that the designer is an omnipotent God.
If every ID proponent agreed that the designer of life was a finite, fallible alien, then there would still be plenty of critics, of course, but they would not be raising the optimality issue.
It's simple, folks. If you want to leave open the possibility that the designer is God, you have to be willing to examine the evidence to see if it is compatible with the God you have in mind. Trying to shut down the discussion out of fear will not get you very far with the scientific community.
And why shouldn't inferences be made about the designer? In archaeology, inferences are made about the designers. In criminal forensics, inferences are made about the designers. If SETI ever succeeds, everyone will be trying to make inferences about the designers. It is the natural and obvious thing to do — the scientific thing to do.
The problem, of course, is that most people who support ID do so because they like the idea of having their religious beliefs validated scientifically. Most of those people will lose interest very quickly if the evidence does not support their particular conception of the Designer. Thus the frantic attempts of ID proponents to keep the Big Tent unruptured by proscribing any discussion of the designer's nature.
Comment by keiths — February 23, 2007 @ 3:48 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 am
Aahhhh…keiths just said exactly what I have been trying to say for a few days now.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 23, 2007 @ 4:34 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Which makes no sense at all. Why would God have to design everything perfectly? He could have reasons for designing something less than perfect. This goes to intent, not capability. BTW, the fact that we die indicates imperfect design.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2007 @ 9:21 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
I think among ID proponents who claim iterative, contingent, "fallible" design you will find most of them place the intelligence within evolution (and within our own selves) as an aspect of the unfolding of the universe, not objectivied into a "finite, fallible alien".
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 23, 2007 @ 11:36 am
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Good point Bradford. I've been thinking alot about baseball lately (I can't wait! I can't wait!) Excuse me I'm an avid fan. Think about trying to play baseball in a world that isn't suboptimal– where every pitcher pitches a perfect game and ever batter hits a home run. Obviously that is an impossible situation. For any game to be possible it needs to be played in a sub optimal world. In fact, if you extend this line of thinking to some of the more serious pursuits in life I think you will find that we find the challenges of life challenging because we live in the kind of world that we do. IOW our whole concept of purpose and meaning is based on the fact that we exist in a suboptimal world. God in his wisdom and love has hardwired us to live in a world full of challenge; this is that kind of world. I honestly think we would find any other kind of world boring.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER, you hit the bullseye. How can one show courage if there is no reason to fear, perseverence if everything falls naturally into place, patience when all is instant and effortless gratification and resourcefullness when there are no problems. In short, difficulties are the stuff upon which character is built.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Bilbo in his blog:
In my view, teleology is implicit in the 'Prime Directive' – survive and reproduce. This applies to all life we know about, and to semi-life forms like viruses as well. It comes with the 'living' territory, apparently.
And biology, in both its theistic and its atheistic modes, has always viewed life in terms of its 'Prime Directive'. Even (or perhaps especially) evolutionary theory. It's the primary 'given'. Every development is viewed from the perspective of what survival and reproductive advantages they offer to the organism. Life is a telic process.
Dysteleology is life's universal failure to accomplish its ultimate goal on the individual level. It is loss from competition, it's physical weakness, it's disease, it's plain bad luck, it's… mortality.
I don't 'scientifically' assign final cause to gods/God because science isn't designed to deal with metaphysical issues. For me the evidence seems to point toward certain faculties and facilities of life as design-supervenient upon its own forms and functions. Because this can be applied per the 'Prime Directive' across the entire range of life forms, I do not associate the design with the kind of frontal-lobe "intelligence" that is an aspect of conscious awareness in the finest sense. It's an "intelligence" innate to the phenomenon of life in all its forms.
Whether the expression of this "intelligence" in the designs of life originates exterior to the organism or interior to its most intimate sub-cellular processes is not the beginning of the investigation. The beginning of the investigation is the recognition of design.
Comment by Joy — February 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
To Joy:
The paradigm shifting discovery that points toward the "conscious awareness" type of intelligent design was the discovery that life depends upon complex information encoded in a symbolic language. Unthinking, mindless matter cannot create the language and complex information needed for life. That was the foundation for the intelligent design scientific movement (e.g. The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1984).
To JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
I mostly agree except that I'm not sure its quite right to say that is "suboptimal". It is only suboptimal from one chosen specification of optimality. It may be optimal if one's goal is to provide the kinds of challenges you describe. That's the trouble. Apart from specifying the optimization criteria, "optimal" is meaningless (or subject to many alternate meanings and possibly conflicting meanings).
To keiths:
Of course "optimal" could be made well defined if one could have access to the criteria for optimization. But we don't have access to that for an unknown designer.
It's not wrong to try to make inferences about a designer. Rather, it is simply quite difficult to do so if one only has the designed artifacts as clues.
Regarding optimal space enclosed by a fence, I suspect you are not a mathematician (or at least have not heard the joke). The mathematicians answer is build the circular fence around him/herself and then define him/herself to be standing on the outside.
Comment by eric — February 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Let me briefly talk about a view of ID that does not touch on traditional theology. If I wasn't a theist I think I would be attracted to the idea of "directed panspermia" similar to what Francis Crick outlined in his book, Life Itself. One criticsm of Crick hypothesis is that it doesn't solve the OOL problem but just moves it somplace else. Furthermore, since the Universe appears to be temporally finite you still have to explain how life got started. However, if you make a few more assumptions, (1) infinite other universes exist, (2)super intelligent beings can travel between universes, and (3) life and intelligence are eternal, then I think you have addressed the major issues with Crick's hypothesis. Is such an idea logically possible? I can't see where it isn't. (Of course, I can hear Ockham's razor being sharpened as I am typing this.) Now, just as a thought experiment, where does the suboptimality of living things hinder this hypothesis? I don't see that it does any place. Natural evolution with all it's sloppines would still be in effect, but intelligence would be necessary fo the eternal propogation of life. The beuty of this theory is that you don't have to deal with all those prohibitively low probabilities when you try to explain life as some chance cosmic accident. But then, how do you ever prove such an idea scientifically. I have no idea.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
eric:
Inanimate matter can't process complex information, but the lowliest life forms can. The recognition of this situation in frontal lobe conscious awareness is a matter of frontal lobe conscious awareness – intelligibility of the designs to life forms capable of the exercise.
Or to word it differently, of course the presence of design is intelligible to us. We are a product of the design, which on all operative levels (including volition) expresses itself as intelligible. Not all life forms display volition in response to processed information. All life forms display fallibility in their responses to processed information.
Comment by Joy — February 23, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Yea, I think Bilbo and Krauze are playing mind games.
That whole exercise in "editing" (or whatever it is you were trying to do) was just an exercise in optimization: The application of (limited) knowledge to the (idealized) solution of a (real) problem. Notice that the designer accepts the approximate solution as both feasible and workable: "BTW, to all those who were wondering, the answer is, "No. I am NOT the Intelligent Designer." Sorry, Bilbo buddy, but you are an intelligent designer. You're just not God! LOL
"ID critics raise the question of optimum design only because ID proponents refuse to rule out the possibility that the designer is an omnipotent God.""”keiths
So the questions ID critics raise are about theology. Not science. So there is a strange mixing of categories here. Theology [is not] science and optimization is science. I almost never see ID critics do this: "Optimality is meaningful, as long as the criteria of optimality are specified." The criteria you specified is the existence of an omnipotent God! LOL That's supposed to be meaningful to science? To optimization?
When I write up my IQ-theory paper I will be sure to acknowledge the contributions of keiths and Nick Matzke. Your positive input to my theory has been invaluable. I can't thank you guys enough!
"There is no single design that is "optimal" "” it is an ill defined concept"¦ Of course "optimal" could be made well defined if one could have access to the criteria for optimization. But we don't have access to that for an unknown designer."”eric
No. Optimization problems can be well-defined. And as exactly solvable as any problem we solve can be said to be "exactly" solvable. And No. This is not true anymore than knowledge of the gravitational constant requires knowledge of an unknown scientist. Optimization theory is a scientific theory and according to common belief such theories, if true, should be discoverable by an sufficiently advanced intelligence. Because all engineering involves optimization all reverse engineering (such as biology) relies upon our ability to identify optimization problems-solutions quite independently of any knowledge of any designer.
The basic principle of optimization in design engineering is grounded in physics. And basic physical knowledge is something we expect (and is certainly required) of any designer. Any designer. (There I go again, getting all "designer-centric" on ya.)
Does the application of optimization theory require God-like knowledge and powers? GMAFB! That's just plain stupid.
Optimization is not perfection, it is the scientific application of the principle of perfectability. Biologists quite commonly invoke optimization principles in their investigations. As they should, because it's a basic principle of evolutionary theory. (Which I assume, maybe wrongly, says nothing about the existence of an "omnipotent God" or "aliens." (LOL)) Biologists talk about things like adaptability, evolvability, even designability, and not perfectability.
This idea of perfectability has always intrigued me. To be perfect means to be measured against some standard that one deems perfect. Physics provides the standard, and it is objectifiable, I believe.
The small set of dynamical laws that determine the evolution of the universe describe a perfectly optimal solution. Indeed, these are all reducible to a single overarching principle: This is an instantaneous stationary solution to a path-integration problem, determined only by the end points of the interval of integration.
The universe is perfect!
But life forms aren't! They don't integrate! Life forms are not materially perfectible because to be a life form means to exist in dissonance, to exist in what someone once called (in reference to something different but not unrelated) an "essential tension."
What explains that?!
I'll tell you what doesn't explain it"”Any theory extant in science today.
Comment by Rock — February 23, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Hi Bilbo, I agree with your post to an extent, but disagree to an extent as well.
Where I disagree is this: take any creature, no matter how optimal, and it's always possible to imagine some way that the creature could be more optimal in its environment, at least by the standards Darwinists count (reproduction and survival). And if you were to give the creature that advantage, it could still be yet more perfect in some way, and so on ad infinatum. Essentially, if you take the "argument from everything ain't perfect" argument seriously, a designer isn't "allowed" to design anything less than God.
Also, if you have any two creatures that are different in any way whatsoever, then one of them is going to be more "optimal" than the other, at least from some ways of looking at it. That's a large part of why I find the recently elucidated "argument from bunny digestion causes me aesthetic displeasure" so silly. It's not as if their digestive systems aren't serving them just fine. The argument would require that every single creature be the same.
And, as I pointed out in a previous post, the "argument from imperfect design" actually assumes what it's supposed to argue against, since it can only be used against things that appear designed in the first place. Teased out, it goes something like "This thing is designed, but it's not designed as well as it would be if it were perfect. Therefore, it's not designed".
I do think that the gist of what you say is right though: When the teleologist sees something that seems counterintuitive, or doesn't appear to make sense at first glance, it ought to be their primary goal to see if there is more to it than immediately meets the eye, and to try and discover a rationale for it.
Comment by Deuce — February 23, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
IDers need to bear in mind two points. The first is the one just made by Deuce. The ateleological argument against design must concede design in order to establish a critique centered around the quality of the design. Second, those advancing imperfect design arguments are driven by insincere motives. Their anti-ID stance is driven by non-scientific concerns. If they were honest they would acknowledge their negative obsession with Christianity. They can't. It runs counter to legal mythology that aids and abets their cause. So they take pot shots while doing their best to conceal weaknesses in their own positions. There is no scientific case excluding purposeful, intelligent causality in natural history.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
To Rock:
When you reply "No" you sound as though you want to disagree with something I've said. But when that is followed by "Optimization problems can be well-defined.", that seems to be a fair restatement of my own point "Of course "optimal" could be made well defined if one could have access to the criteria for optimization."
In engineering, there are always tradeoffs. When engineering information systems, for example, you frequently face the space-time tradeoff. Do you optimize for speed? Or do you optimize for space? Or do you choose some balancing point in between extremes for the sake of some other optimization goal? Reality (e.g. physics and chemistry) applies constraints, but within those constraints there are always choices having to do with the priorities of the designer.
Even in just two dimensions, between any two points there are an infinite number of possible lines, and each has its own qualities for maxima and minima. An engineer is solving a design task with many dimensions to consider.
Consequently, "optimize it" by itself is meaningless — until one can specify the weighted priorities (i.e. the multi-dimensional function) to optimize.
To Deuce:
Regarding your point about what to do when you see "something that seems counterintuitive, or doesn't appear to make sense at first glance", I think it would make sense for any scientist to want to make sense out of it. The question that comes to my mind is about when is it appropriate to ascribe a teleological / designed explanation.
Even if one recognizes that some things may be designed, it would be a mistake to try to ascribe design without justification. A responsible scientist with a teleological perspective should still be restrained in ascribing design. That's why Dembski's design filter requires first ruling out explanations by law or chance, i.e. various unguided natural process explanations. Once those have been considered and found wanting, then it would make sense to try to understand the matter from a design perspective as you describe.
Evaluate first whether unguided nature alone could explain it (or some aspect of it), and then, if not, consider it from the design perspective. Its important not to forget that even cases of actual design can be subsequently changed by natural processes.
To Joy:
You're on the mark that "Inanimate matter can't process complex information, but the lowliest life forms can.". Its also true that we are able to recognize this distinction. The ground breaking consequence for science is not just our ability to recognize this difference, but the fact that inanimate matter could not create language based life.
Life had to come from a designer who could comprehend and use language!
Comment by eric — February 23, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Bradford wrote:
He doesn't have to design everything perfectly, unless you propose, as Christians do, that he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Again, if he's perfect and omnibenevolent, then the world we find ourselves in must be the best of all possible worlds. That means that anything which when considered on its own appears to be imperfect must in fact be perfect, when considered within the larger scheme of things. Ebola? Perfect. That toddler burning to death in a house fire? Perfect. The Holocaust? Perfect.
Only if the designer tried to make us immortal but failed.
Comment by keiths — February 24, 2007 @ 6:00 am
February 24th, 2007 at 7:53 am
eric wrote:
I'm glad you feel that way. Most of your fellow IDers disagree.
Bradford wrote:
Not at all. That's like saying that the square root of 2 is rational, simply because you assume its rationality as a first step when proving, by contradiction, that it is in fact irrational.
As I've said before, it's the ID folks who bring theology to the table when they refuse to rule out the possibility that the designer might be God. If they did rule it out then we critics wouldn't raise the dysteleology argument, because it has no force against a finite, fallible designer.
Comment by keiths — February 24, 2007 @ 7:53 am
February 24th, 2007 at 9:03 am
This is why Plato wrote that the apparent forms and seeming separate entities are like shadows dancing on the walls of a cave. . . Which is not what we actually are.
Comment by MatthewCromer — February 24, 2007 @ 9:03 am
February 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I'm glad you wrote this Keiths because it gets to the heart of why people oppose ID. It is really not about whether purpose can be legitimately inferred from biological data. That's the side show. The real source of angst comes from secondary implications that impact theological concerns. Such concerns are real but not resolvable by referencing matters like cells and DNA.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2007 @ 11:51 am
February 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
eric:
…and intelligible to designs who can comprehend and use language. We could expect nothing less, given that we are asking questions about it all. Flying squirrels don't ask what gravity *is*. They just use it, because they can.
keiths on God:
Good grief! This logical fallacy is so glaring it's incandescent! The supposition that "omnipotence" necessarily entails perfection is completely unsupportable. And the supposition that "omnibenevolence" necessarily entails zero harm is completely unsupportable too.
"Orthodox" Christian theology does not construct fallacious necessities from supposed deific attributes, probably because to do so involves fallacious logic. Absolutes – 'Absolute' anything – in a relative universe are conceptual, not actual. Darkness is never absolute even when deep in a cave. Photons are continually generated and reflected (by rocks and life forms), and human eyesight is sensitive enough to detect single photons. Scientists talk about 'absolute' lack of heat, but they can't get there by mechanical means. So how close they can get is measured against the concept of 'absolute' absence.
Conceptual counterfactuals are used by science to 'flesh-out' theories. Sometimes the theory is based on experimental evidence and the extrapolations of differential equations, sometimes it's based on observation of regularities. What is *real* in a relative universe is not absolute. But some aspects of its nature can be described by comparison to conceptual absolutes that exist nowhere outside our own minds.
Anyway, you – as a believing Biblical literalist/religious absolutist – would need to establish your absolutes as necessary to a causal train or physical model before the simple act of asserting them will be taken seriously. Asserting them for purely counterfactual effect means nothing at all.
Comment by Joy — February 24, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
keiths, there are several errors in your line of argument. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
1. Your earlier comments suggest that it is not merely one kind of god that you wish to exclude but actually any type of god. It seems that only non-supernatural aliens are acceptable to you as candidates. Your arguments can't get you there. Even if some conceptions of god were incompatible, others would not be. You seem to want an anti-supernatural argument, when what you have at best is only an anti-God-who-wouldn't-let-anyone-suffer argument.
2. Straw god argument. If your aim is to show the God described in the Bible is inconsistent with the world as it is, you have created a straw man argument, or straw god in this case. The same Bible describes suffering and evil in the world. There is no claim that this is currently the best of all possible worlds or that present design is perfect or optimal. In fact, quite the reverse. It is claimed that the world is in a fallen state and that creation is suffering. The Bible does not portray a God who would prevent that from happening. Even though your argument legitimately knocks down the God-who-wouldn't-let-anyone-suffer, you are knocking down a straw god, not the God actually described in the Bible. So your argument misses that particular target, as one example.
3. Your arguments confuse categories by trying to address scientific questions with theological arguments, as Bradford and others have accurately recognized. The question of whether or not unguided, natural processes could create language, information, and specified complexity without the help of intelligence or mind is a scientific question. If every creationist disappeared from the face of the earth today, the scientific question would remain, and blind, mindless, natural processes would be just as inadequate. The suggestion that the scientific discussion should also address the theological question about which kinds of deities might be compatible with this is out of place. To fault ID proponents for not saying "its not such-and-such kind of god" is without merit, since that is outside the reach of scientific inference.
You seem to expect ID to avoid theology by addressing theological questions. It seems to be a self-defeating, self-contradictory position. Would you think it appropriate for science classes to be discussing which conceptions of god are compatible with the evidence?
Comment by eric — February 24, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Joy wrote:
I agree. Both suppositions are insupportable. Omnipotence by itself doesn't entail moral perfection, because an omnipotent God could always choose to use his power for evil. Omnibenevolence by itself doesn't entail "zero harm", as you say. An omnibenevolent God would be well-intentioned, but not necessarily powerful enough to bring those intentions to fruition and to minimize evil and suffering.
What I'm saying differs from both of those insupportable claims. I'm claiming that if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then this world must be the best of all possible worlds. If it were not, then God would want to change it; being omnipotent, he could change it; therefore, he would change it.
I don't know what you regard as "orthodox Christian theology", but most Christians do believe that God actualizes absolute power and absolute goodness. If Christians didn't believe that, then the problem of evil wouldn't exist, and theologians and philosophers wouldn't have agonized over it for hundreds of years, up to and including the present.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 8:34 am
February 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am
eric wrote:
Hi Eric,
What I'm saying is that by insisting that God cannot be excluded as a possible designer, ID proponents are bringing theology into the discussion. If the designer might be God, then it is legitimate to ask what sort of a God would be compatible with the designs we observe in nature, just as it would be legitimate to ask what sort of human culture could have produced a particular archaeological artifact we have dug up.
On the other hand, if ID proponents limit their claims to non-supernatural designers, then there is obviously no need to ask theological questions about the non-divine designer(s). In that case ID proponents can legitimately argue that theology should be excluded from the discussion.
What isn't legitimate is for ID proponents to insist that the designer might be God, thus sneaking theology into the equation, but then objecting when critics raise theological concerns.
Note that I'm not arguing that ID proponents should or shouldn't include God as a possible designer. I'm just saying that if they do include God, they should recognize that it is they, not the critics, who are bringing theology into the mix. They should therefore be willing to entertain theological questions.
Christians hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If so, then he knew when he created the world that it would fall. Given that God is omnibenevolent, a fallen world must be somehow be better than one which was designed not to fall in the first place. Otherwise he would have designed it not to fall.
Plantinga and others argue that free will is the key. For them, a world in which free will exists is better than one without it. They claim that the only way for God to have guaranteed that the world would not fall would have been to eliminate free will, turning everyone into automatons who always chose good over evil.
If you buy their argument, then it still holds true that this must be the best of all possible worlds. It's just that a fallen world containing free will is better than an unfallen world without it.
On the other hand, if you accept that our world is not the best possible world that God could have made, then you are effectively accusing God of not being perfectly good, since he had the power to make a better world but chose not to.
If ID ever became a science, and if it actually led to the conclusion that a supernatural designer existed, then sure, I think such a discussion would be appropriate in science class.
We are, of course, a long way from that state of affairs.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 9:35 am
February 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
keiths:
I don't buy it, and you've once again offered a blatant fallacy to 'support' a total pretense that you know what God *must* do with his/her/its/their deific powers. Your extremely limited intelligence, knowledge and abilities are not the measure of gods/God, and you will never convince anyone who does believe in gods/God that their deity is limited by your personal limitations.
Something you might want to get used to, even if you continue to reject the premise. Others really don't care what you believe, and most won't care to argue about your silly claims to omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
keiths:
No, God/gods can always be included in speculations of final cause. The pertinent issue is that final cause is *not* within the job description of science to establish or falsify. Thus what any individual believes about final cause is completely irrelevant to science.
If your primary concern is that other people have theistic beliefs, and your motivation is to fight with them about it, you can always go back to Infidels or try your luck at any of the hundreds of religious websites out there with forums for that purpose.
It's just distraction here.
Comment by Joy — February 25, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Jou wrote:
This is the issue for me. We are all arm-chair metaphysicians by nature. Science is a humanely-derived discipline which seeks knowledge about the natural world. It is constantly being infected with metaphysics. We can't seem to stop from doing this.
Comment by bj — February 25, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Keiths:
There is something fundimentally correct in your statement. We must therefore conclude that either God is not both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or any perception that whe have of a way of improving on the world is an illusion.
Alas, we get back to the reality that as we explore the designs of a designer, we actually do discover something about the character and nature of the designer.
Comment by bFast — February 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
What fallacy?
I certainly don't pretend to know what God must do with his powers. I only claim that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then the world he has created must be the best of all possible worlds. This is a logical deduction, and God is subject to logic (e.g. not being able to make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it). You're free to disagree, of course, but most theologians and philosophers do not. This is not an idiosyncratic position.
If you don't care, you're welcome to find other threads that are more congenial to your singular temperament. Others can think for themselves and decide whether to participate.
Some conceptions of God are falsifiable, others are not. The YEC God is an example of the former. An utterly inscrutable God whose morals, motives and methods are completely beyond human comprehension is an example of the latter.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
A fallen world is not the best of all possible worlds but a place where the free will can be tested against various challenges. i.e. fallen world is the best place for souls who need to go through this contest until they reach a certain level of maturity.
Comment by Farshad — February 25, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Keiths:
The logical flaw would reveal itself at a point where God would create beings with free will. Unless those beings have all those qualities you enumerated, they would inevitably corrupt perfection and God could not stop it without also stopping free will.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
bFast wrote:
Exactly.
And the best that philosophers have been able to do in addressing the second choice is to say that the existence of free will in the world compensates for all of the apparent evil.
I've always had a problem with that argument, because
a) it's not clear to me why a world without free will, where everyone always chose good over evil and everyone believed that they had free will, would be such a bad thing; and
b) I don't see why free will is incompatible with always choosing the good. After all, an omnibenevolent God always chooses the good, yet few would argue that he does not possess a free will.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Keiths:
Keiths, in a world without free will noone could choose good over evil. They could only be programmed.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
keiths:
The fallacy that asserts an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God *must* display both qualities in any or all of its created artifacts – for YOUR benefit, according to what YOU demand for yourself. That's not even true for you, so I sure don't know how you'd apply it to a deity you don't believe exists in the first place. The exercise is darned silly, IMO. It's fallacious scientifically, logically, and theologically.
I am an artist. I conceive of a project, I know what I want to express through it, what media I want to use in creating it. I *am* the creator, and the creation – if it gets past my own scrutiny (I don't destroy it for its imperfections) into the public eye – is what I want it to be, for the reasons I want it to be, as expressive of what I want to express.
Others may view my art and complain about the brush strokes or the material. They may not like the size, they may fault the workmanship. They may even think it's ugly. Does that make my work of art anything less than it was when I conceived it and constructed it and pronounced it 'good'? …of course not. I *am* the artist. The art serves *me*.
Now, if I could conceive and construct a work of art that had its own construction components at war with each other – within the artwork – about the meaning and purpose and message and relative 'goodness' of the project, it would be the Most Spectacular Work of Art ever conceived and created in this world. Even those who think it's ugly would have to admire its concept and execution – appreciate it for "saying" so much, even if they disagree with the little created art-elements' arguments or conclusions.
Do let us know when you've finished your world, so we can examine its parameters and events to see if you've expressed your omnipotence and omnibenevolence adequately for our tastes. Why, we might sign up to inhabit the place if you do well enough! There's always good money to be made in religion.
Meanwhile, I'll deal with reality because that's where I live. In the reality I inhabit, you are not God.
Comment by Joy — February 25, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I wrote:
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
I think this is just a semantic disagreement over whether the word "choose" implies free will. Rather than get caught up in a semantic debate, let me rephrase my statement for you:
It's not clear to me why a world without free will, where everyone always did good instead of evil and everyone believed that they had free will, would be such a bad thing.
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
keiths:
What ID proponents actually have insisted repeatedly is that scientific inferences can go only as far as scientific evidence supports. That is why the inference is only to "intelligent" design, not to whether it is "supernatural" design. The science of biological ID does not insist anything about God, whether included or excluded, because that requires considerations outside the reach of the observable biological data.
For example, how is science supposed to assess the various meanings for "omnibenevolent" or evaluate which definitions are or are not applicable to the God of the Bible? The word does not even appear in the Bible.
The idea that the science of ID ought to render a theological verdict is a confusion of categories. I'm quite surprised that you seem to think theology study would belong in a public school science class.
That said, even if we knowingly step beyond the proper scope of science to discuss theology, your argument still fails to apply to the God of the Bible, your apparent intended target. You might find it informative to reflect on the fact that just about every general kind of evil or suffering found in the world is also recognized as such in the Bible.
Consequently, no one should expect that any revelation of "There is suffering and evil in this world!" should create even the least ripple of surprise to students of the Bible. Imagine approaching the disciples of Jesus who had seen the torture and execution of an innocent man, and notifying them "There is suffering and evil in this world!" Would that be news to them? Would they reply, "Oh, I never noticed before. I guess there really is no God."
Any version of the god-who-would-not-allow-any-suffering is simply playing with a different notion of deity than the one found in the Bible. You can legitimately knock that down all you want (and I have no objections — that "god" clearly does not exist), but it is an exercise in striking at an artificially manufactured target.
It also has no bearing whatsoever on whether mindless matter could have designed living cells and protein machines.
Comment by eric — February 25, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
keiths:
Are you serious? In that case you would be the first one to complain how God is dishonest.
Comment by inunison — February 25, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
keith,
In such a world, genuine love would not, could not, exist. It would be an illusion.
Comment by Douglas — February 25, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Joy wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "display", but an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God certainly must act omnibenevolently.
It's possible to reason about entities who may or may not exist. Think about it. We humans do it all the time.
So you say, without demonstrating why it's "silly" for Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, Plantinga, Inwagen, Swinburne, Bilbo, eric, Bradford, Farshad, bFast, and I to ponder this issue.
Yes. And since you are not omnipotent, and certainly not omnibenevolent, that's fine. An omnibenevolent God, on the other hand, will not want to create anything that causes unnecessary evil and suffering, because that is what it means to be omnibenevolent. And if he is also omnipotent, he will be able to pull this off.
If the little "art-elements" within your project were sentient beings who suffered within your artwork, then you would be purchasing an aesthetic thrill at their expense. An omnibenevolent creator would never do this. See Susan Blackmore's summary of Stanislaw Lem's story The Seventh Sally below.
I have no idea what goes on in your "reality," but in the reality the rest of us inhabit, I never claimed to be God.
Now, Susan Blackmore's synopsys of The Seventh Sally, by Stanislaw Lem:
Comment by keiths — February 25, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
keiths:
Why? Your scarecrow godling is not a formal construct anybody I've ever known worships. In fact, the god I was introduced to as a child "hates" evil, and constructed an entire extraterrestrial firepit where the souls of evil people get destroyed so they don't pollute the omnibenevolent 'other' place – that isn't here, now.
But as I mentioned, there's always good money in religion. I imagine there's lots of people in the crowded modern world who would donate to an omnibenevolent deity. Go for it!
Comment by Joy — February 25, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
keiths,
I agree with this. However, the question that arises is, if to have life entails the potential for suffering and evil, is it worth it? I'm often amazed when I ask atheists why they hate life so much? Most claim that they actually love life. I ask then how they could feel such an antipathy to the idea of a God who created such a world? Well most then hedge that God could have created less evil and suffering than there is. But the structure of life is exactly such that the very things we love so much are founded on the exact same foundations that make great evil possible. I challenge anyone to describe the foundations of a life they would want where there is no potential for suffering or evil. Would it be a world where one always won at cards? Or one where learning came without effort? The reason we love the things we love about life is because of the very challenges and risks that are overcome.
Perhaps to be omnibenevolent means the giving of life where there can be a potential for suffering and evil. No potential for evil, no life. Now this does not minimize the actual suffering of individuals but perhaps it can mitigate it when life is viewed as communal experience grounded in something infinitely deep.
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Keiths,
Where did you get the term omnibenevolent from? It certainly isn't a biblical term. Second of all, what do you mean by it? I think you are creating a strawman kind of theology that nobody really believes in; not even you! If you mean by omnibenevolent that God cannot even allow evil and suffering to exist then I totally reject your definition. Any fair reading of the Bible reveals a God that allows evil and suffering but desires that human beings freely and willfully reject selfish things and desires that are the cause of evil and suffering. You can ask why but the sovereign creator of this world doesn't need to answer. Indeed, the Bible itself asks "does the created thing ask the Creator why?" He can create any kind of world that he pleases. I mean afterall, isn't that what it means to be GOD?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 26, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
keiths,
Several of us have pointed out in one way or another that you are knocking down a straw god. If you're serious about wanting to engage the question of whether the God of the Bible is compatible as a designer, a reality check is needed.
Before you declare victory over a dispatched god concept, just ask yourself if you can identify any believers in God mentioned in the Bible who would clearly hold the view of God that you have constructed for scrutiny.
For example, if you are intent on knocking down the "omnibenevolent" god, see if you can find any record of actual believers who clearly thought God was the omnibenevolent god as you picture that to be.
If not, is it really worth the bother? Or is it an exercise more like setting up and knocking down toy action figures representing fictional characters?
Whether doing science or theology, it is best to build starting from observations of the source data.
Comment by eric — February 27, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 10:51 am
The idea of an omnipotent God who must do such and such is of course illogical. By definition an omnipotent God can jolly well do whatever he pleases to do.
This idea of "omnibenevolence" rang a bell though: "It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity"¦" Critics said Darwin simply substituted the expression "natural selection" for "God." Darwin's response to this criticism is nonsense: Natural selection is a "metaphorical expression" (a "false term" and "literally false"). But in the context he explains (in so many words) exactly what he means by natural and selection, and by the conjunction of the two terms and there is nothing "metaphorical" about it! It is perfectly understandable why some people might get the impression that Darwin spoke of natural selection as if it was God and that's because he did exactly that.
E.g., many people probably thought God is "omnibenevolent." Exactly the way Darwin repeatedly emphasizes of natural selection that it only does "good" and only "benefits," in a perfectly "atruistic" way, ""¦ natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being"¦" Exactly the way keiths describes his conception of God!
I don't believe in God. I'm a euhemerist and think that "God" is a metaphor for man. This is plain to see in ancient Western religions where the deities were quite diverse, and subject to every known human limitation and failing (especially all the character flaws, moral failings) that humans are subject too. (Indeed, some gods were so morally corrupted we would call them a "menace to society," sociopaths and psychopaths, and if subject to human laws and conventions a just society would quickly and judicially dispatch them to their graves.) This changed somewhat when Western society became "Christianized" and presented a type of morally superior being, a man idealized in terms other than raw powers and abilities, but in terms of a moral capacity. (Although these people are not "Biblical literalists," which is a relatively modern (and peculiarly American) development, Biblical literalists do not, cannot, deny that God is capable of evil, because their own Bible has God confessing that he created evil!)
Obviously this Christian conception of God has informed Darwin's conception of the powers of nature (natural selection).
But how did Darwin then reconcile the fact that natural selection is "omnibenevolent" with the necessary requisite of his theory of natural selection, unprincipled competition, and its necessary corollary, extinction, death? We'll never really know, but I suppose it was something like, "The ends justify the means"¦"
Theological issues are perfectly reasonable subject to discuss in this ("scientific") context, because Darwin himself raises those issues and hardly treats them in a very satisfactory way. The True Defenders of Science Against the Dark Forces of Religion cannot brooch the issue and then deny you the right to contest the matter in their own terms ("science"?!). And if they choose to address the matter in your terms ("omnipotent,""omnibenevolent") then more power to ya, and more nonsense from them. (And more proof of my theory!)
(Although Darwin didn't think of natural selection as being "omnipotent," but only "omnibenevolent," it is plain that Darwin thought "nature" is omnipotent by just about anyone's estimation of what that's supposed to mean in the material realm. "Nature" has done everything and anything that can be done and has been done.)
Comment by Rock — February 28, 2007 @ 10:51 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 am
Joy wrote:
Then you need to get out and meet more Christians. Ask them whether God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and whether he ever does evil.
Joy, does it make you feel better about yourself to pretend that others disagree with you for purely mercenary reasons?
Steve Petermann wrote:
It's not a question of antipathy. It's just that the idea of an omnipotent God who wants to minimize suffering and evil is hard to reconcile with the actual state of the world we live in. The fact that most atheists love life doesn't mean it couldn't be better.
There's nothing odious about the idea of a non-omnipotent God who tried, but failed, to make this an optimal world. It is easy to feel sympathy for such a God, and to wish to align yourself with him in pursuit of his goal. But if he's all-powerful, then you have to ask yourself why he's allowing babies to burn to death in house fires, or political prisoners to die in torture chambers.
You're correct that humans, as they are constituted in this world, crave challenges and take risks, thus exposing themselves to the possibility of suffering.
Your error is in assuming that human nature would have to be exactly the same in a world without suffering. But why would it? God is omnipotent, so he could create us to be perfectly happy in such a world.
JOHN_A_DESIGNER asks:
It's used in the philosophical literature, as a parallel construction to 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent'. It's intended to convey the idea of a God who will not bring about any unnecessary suffering or evil.
God allows plenty of suffering that has nothing to do with human shortcomings. The natural world is filled with it.
Are you saying that might makes right? Most people don't think that something is moral simply because God does it. They think God does it because it is moral.
eric wrote:
If ID proponents insist that a supernatural designer is a possible explanation for natural complexity, then they have pushed the discussion into theological territory. Theological considerations then become germane.
You failed to mention the conditions I specified:
eric again:
Sure, and the Bible even blames much of it on God.
Anyone who lives in this world knows there is evil and suffering, whether or not she has read the Bible. What does surprise most Christians, when they think about it, is how hard it is to reconcile that fact with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity.
You can easily find such believers for yourself, if you ask Christians the three questions I suggested to Joy above.
The Bible certainly affirms God's absolute goodness in Matthew 15:16-17:
(That's also an interesting passage because Jesus clearly separates himself from God).
Rock wrote:
Not at all.
The key phrase is "whatever he pleases". An omnibenevolent God will never choose to do something that causes gratuitous suffering or evil.
He didn't see natural selection as omnibenevolent. In fact, he saw its cruelty as evidence against an omnibenevolent God:
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 5:14 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
keiths,
Thank you for these very provocative thoughts. I will just comment on one.
I don't see how will this solve the problem of evil. These are the consequences of our fallen state and that is the root of evil that Christian God wants to eliminate.
Comment by inunison — March 2, 2007 @ 8:05 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Keiths wrote:
Though not an atheist, I have to agree with keiths here. I don't see how the nature of this world can be reconciled with the idea of a benovelent deity who is all-powerful. The problem with evil is not it's presence, but it's depths and it's distribution.
For me, this truth or observation negates the Gods of the world's revealed religions that claim benovolence for their deity. As Rock has said, they are human constructions. We made them up.
And yes, science has not helped the cause of this kind of belief in demonstrating that death and the struggle for survival have been a part of life's history from the beginning, rather than the result of some Fall. In the latter you can "blame" it on man, but the former places the responsibility squarely where it belongs-on the shoulders of the creator.
So, goodbye to a belief in the Benevolent One.
Yet, the idea of an intelligence (ID) does not die with the demise of the Benevolent One. I have never understand those who think that having demonstrated that God is not wholly and purely good, think they have proved that he does not exist. Maybe he just doesn't give a damn. Or he's limited. Or an intelligence of unknown nature resides within the universe. Or, as is more likely, we really aren't equipped to find the truth in this matter.
Comment by bj — March 2, 2007 @ 9:46 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
keiths:
Why? All-powerful and all-knowing does not equal all-kindly. The deity described in the Bible created evil and often used evil in service of 'The Plan'. Even is reported to have killed everything off except for a single family when it was clear the creation was turned to evil. Thus the all-kindly godling you've invented does not resemble the deity described in the Bible (or in any other religious literature I'm familiar with).
No, I merely suggested there's probably good money to be made in a religion with an all-kindly godling. Of course, you'd have to explain why this godling doesn't appear to have any actual power in the world, but belief-in doesn't have to be rational.
I sympathize with your objections to the nature of nature. Life isn't fair. But it doesn't make any sense to me to blame nature on a deity you don't believe exists. I don't believe your straw godling exists any more than you do. But that's not the response you're looking for, is it?
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2007 @ 10:06 am
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Our culture encourages whining. If the evil comes from you, change yourself. If another is victimized and you can do something about it- do it. And if you just do not want to believe in God- that's fine too.
Comment by Bradford — March 2, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
There is a simple answer to that.
The world is not what it appears to be on the surface.
The eastern religions called the surface appearances "Maya", "Samsara" and the like. In other words, a dream, an illusion, something not fully real.
Shakespeare described this way:
Einstein described it this way:
Here is a paraphrase of Plato's description of reality:
Sooner or later, the inherent contradictions within the surface view of life allows what is really going on to be glimpsed at first and then seen steadily. And in that clear seeing, there are no separate entities suffering unjustly. That was only the appearance.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Keiths:
I apply the "might makes right" fallacy to people who presume to make "God like" moral choices.
The Biblical text quoted here:
"ISA 45:9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker,
to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
'What are you making?' "
Is actully a criticsm of that kind of presumptive thinking. As the ultimate lawgiver God is indeed the source. You seem to have found a source of morality that is superior to God. I recognise these are some very difficult questions, but you haven't proven to me that it isn't logically consistent to believe in a God put us in a challenging world that requires moral responsibilty and allows to discover the full potential of our freedom and love. You seem to be saying that God doesn't have the right to be God. I am not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I wrote:
inunison wrote:
Hi inunison,
I don't see how the doctrine of the Fall helps in this case. Even if you argue that God is not ultimately responsible for the Fall, there is still the problem of natural evil. How are fallen humans responsible for tsunamis or animal predation?
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
bj wrote:
Indeed, which is why most ID supporters are not so keen to take the obvious next step of using designs to learn about the putative designer.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Joy wrote:
I'm not making that claim. I'm saying that those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God have some explaining to do. As far as I can see, they can either a) ignore the contradiction, b) assert, as JOHN_A_DESIGNER seems to do, that whatever God does is moral by definition, or c) argue that any evil or suffering in this world was put there deliberately by God as a necessary concession in the service of a higher good.
I'm not arguing that the Bible paints a consistent picture of an omnibenevolent God. In contrast to the verse from Matthew I quoted above, the Bible is full of examples of God doing evil, as you say. That doesn't stop Christians (as well as people of other religions) from asserting that God is perfectly good. If they didn't make that assertion, I wouldn't raise this objection.
My point isn't to blame a non-existent God. It's rather to argue that the God in question almost certainly does not exist. If he did, the world would be quite different.
Keep in mind that what you call my "straw godling" is the God that many, if not most, Christians believe in. And no, I'm glad that you don't believe in him. I wish more people would make that choice.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Bradford wrote:
True enough, and good advice — but it doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether this God exists.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
MatthewCromer wrote:
If separateness is illusory, isn't it funny that some of us choose to imagine ourselves as separate beings, living in comfort, while others choose to see themselves as homeless refugees in Darfur?
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Investigate into what "keiths" really is, and the answer to whether or not "God" exists will become clear.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
I think you'll find that most people would agree that morality is not defined by what God does, but rather that God shapes his choices according to morality.
For example, suppose that we got a message from God, that we all were convinced was absolutely authentic, telling us to go and torture every baby we could find. Most of us would consider that command to be immoral, despite believing that it came from God himself.
If God's purpose in creating a "challenging" world is to teach us lessons about freedom and love, then
1. Why not create us with this knowledge ahead of time?
2. Why don't all people die with equal wisdom about freedom and love?
3. Why is it that sometimes those who need the lessons the most don't face any significant challenges in their lives at all?
4. Conversely, why are those who don't need the lessons sometimes deluged with misfortune?
If he's omnipotent, God can, of course, do anything he wants without seeking our approval. The question is: if he exists at all, is he perfectly good?
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Have you had both good dreams and nightmares?
In any event, what you actually are in reality is consciousness (capitalize it if you like), in one place dreaming a dream of being "keiths" and over here consciousness is dreaming of being "Matthew". But all that is actually happening is an unfolding within consciousness. Just as, when you dream, all the apparently separate characters are actually *you*, which is seen once you wake up.
In reality, all the people you meet, all the animals, plants, mountains, clouds, stars, galaxies — they are all unfolding within what you REALLY are, which is pure witnessing consciousness, the same witnessing consciousness that is the underlying essence of every other apparently separate creature.
This can be seen by looking deep for the true "center" of "keiths". There is no center of gravity or "self". Just thoughts, emotions, sensations arising coalescing around a name: "keiths". And all of these objects, thoughts, ideas, and sensations are constantly changing, none of them can be pinned down. So none of them can be what you really are. The only thing that does not change, is what you are — the pure witnessing of all objects, thoughts, emotions, and sensations.
And so that is the explanation for how God could allow the suffering of an innocent child. Because everything is God (Consciousness) and everything is experienced by God. The belief in a separate person is a dream and an illusion, an "optical delusion of consciousness" as Einstein put it.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Hi Keiths,
How do we determine whether someone needs lessons or not? I didn't think I needed lessons when I was faced with some of the most difficult times of my life. It wasn't until after the fact that I was able to grow from the situation and become a better person that I could look back and say "wow, something very good did come from that situation."
But that's not to say that it was completely set that I was going to learn from those situations, because I still had the freedom of choice regarding decisions I was going to make. Some of the decisions I could have made would have put me down a terrible path. It was because of what I know of God and what he requests of me that I didn't make those decisions; so I wasn't completely in the dark as to what to do.
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Keiths,
You are correct..the problem of evil is a very difficult problem for those who believe as I do in an all powerfull, all knowing, and perfectly good God.
It is apparrent that you are really really obssesed with this issue as you bring it up as often as you can in as many threads that you can.
I would only say that the problem of evil also causes problems for atheists as well.
I disagree with joy in that God creted evil. God could not create evil because evil is not a thing evil is an abscence of good…a aparasite if you will.
Now there is either an absolute good or there can be no such thing as real evil…just things that happen that we find personally distatefull. To complain about evilassumes an absolute good without which there is no evil so what is everyone complaining about that which has no objective existence.
Problems all the way around. For the theist and non theist alike.
Having said all this I do not want to minimize the power of this objection.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 2, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
To elaborate on my own point here, look at a six month old infant.
Clearly there is awareness there, an experiencing, a consciousness. What is not there is a conceptual identity, a "me", an idea of an entity separate from everyone else and the rest of the universe.
It is a firm belief in this idea which is the cause of mental suffering (as the Buddha noted). Once the idea of the separate entity / identity of "me" is seen to be simply an idea, and not reality, life unfolds much more peacefully.
An infant does not have mental suffering because the idea of "me" has not yet arisen. Mental suffering disappears again once the idea of "me" is seen to be incoherent and ultimately a fiction, a tiny slice of what is actually real.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Matthew,
There are two senses in which the self can be seen as illusory, which I'll label the 'strong' and the 'weak'.
The strong sense is the one you espouse, wherein separateness itself is illusory, and we are all part of the same consciousness.
The weak sense, which I subscribe to, is the idea that in a very real sense, the Matthew of today is not the same individual as the Matthew of 10 years ago. You can never dip your toe in the same river twice.
The strong sense doesn't cohere for reasons I alluded to in my previous reply. My experience of my own pain is different from my experience of yours. Argue all you want about how separateness is illusory, but those experiences continue to be different. Since the experience of pain has moral significance, the distinction between my experience and your experience also remains significant, even if you believe it is ultimately illusory.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Just a word of advice to the theists on on the board who believe in an all-knowing, powerful and good God.
You can give all the partial answers you want when trying to explain how a good God can allow the kind of suffering Keiths mentions. Your not going to satisfy the heart or mind with these answers. The most honest answer is simply this:
"I do not understand how the God I believe in could allow some of the horrors that we see on this planet. Horrors that cannot be demonstrated to build character but rather destroys it. Horrors that could in no way be a result of the sin of the person suffering. But, in faith, I believe that He is good, anyway."
Though he slay me, yet I will trust Him.
It's simply a matter of personal choice.
Comment by bj — March 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Doug asks:
Hi Doug,
You're right that it's not always obvious. But what lesson is being taught to a three-year-old who dies a painful death from cancer? Or take a child who grows up in an inhumane orphanage and never learns to trust or love. What lesson has been taught there?
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Vividbleau wrote:
Hi Vivid,
Alan Rhoda made a similar claim on his blog.
My reply:
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Keiths,
Let me tell you about a few people who inspire me. First there is a man named Steve whose father was murdered bya stone age tribe when he was five years old. Yet, Steve when he was grown up sold his business and went to work with this tribe. In his work he not only learned who his fathers killers were but forgave them. He became so close with one of the men that his children adopted him as a surrogate grandfather. Another is a woman named Joni who became a quadrpalegic as a 17 year old girl yet has learned to live a productive life. She is an artist who draws and paints with her mouth. She also leads a minisrty that helps thousands of handicapped people around. (Presently she is also serving on presidential commission) I could go on and on with stories of people I know like this who have triumphed over some very challenging circumstances. These kind of people impress me. They exhibit the faith hope and love the God talks about in the Bible. They don't let the "why" be an excuse they just exhibit faith and love. So you you can keep on going and going with your ivory tower arguments but they just don't convince me. The morality that I have just described is God's morality. That is it there is no other one. Do you think that faith, courage and love are moral things? Good things? You seem to have a lot of comtempt and resentment. Do you think that is going to convert people to your point of view? Why would I want to follow someone like you?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
John,
I never said that nobody ever learned anything useful from adversity, just that there's an awful lot of apparently non-didactic adversity.
And no convincing reason for lessons to be learned the hard way, when the teacher is omnipotent.
That's a perfect illustration of what bj was talking about:
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Hi Keiths,
This is a good point. Some problems are the results of our own doings. In regards to a child dying from cancer (which is terrible and I'm not trying to minimize the pain/significance) there are so many factors to consider; responsibility may lie on the behalf of decisions and actions of the parent (not with the intention of the their child developing cancer).
It doesn't mean that God doesn't deeply care for that child.
With the child who grows up in an inhumane shelter; again, a very terrible thing (I worked with children that had autism that were being reared in similar environments). But I don't know how this shows that God doesn't care very deeply for all involved (whether the child or the mal-attendant staff). But we both recognize that this is a terrible thing, a terrible situation. I believe that God is quite explicit with how we should handle these situations; we should take an active role to ensure that that which we have great distaste/disgust for is ended.
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
John,
I see you added some things to the bottom of your comment.
I'm not asking you to follow me or to be like me. I've simply presented an argument which you can take or leave. Judge the argument on its own merits, not on any real or imagined faults you see in me.
The fact that this is upsetting to you suggests that the argument may have hit home. Take some time to think about it later when you're feeling less emotional.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
keiths:
Wow. I really dislike the whole "lesson" thing, for what someone said to me the day after my son died – "It's a lesson for you to learn." As if his 21 years of life on this planet was all about teaching ME something! Parenting 101? Holy Moley!!! If that's what life is really all about, I'd just as soon skip it.
So on this one, I'll agree readily with you. The three-year old is a very good example, and for this I'll go ahead and indulge another tale of reality. Our son was an unhappy youngster when he hit pre-puberty, angry at a change in circumstances when he was 9 that left us suddenly quite poor. My husband became a clown, based on a character he'd played in a theatrical production. We'd had to move to a city (we prefer the country), and you might be surprised at the sheer number of kid's birthday parties that take place every Saturday in a city of a million or more. For which parents are happy to pay $100 bucks for an hour of kid-'taining.
Anyway, we were just starting out. In that line of work there's a big "freebie" requirement, when you volunteer at events, fund-raisers, etc. just to get the free advertising. One of the freebies was a semi-regular tour of the regional children's hospital. Not just the show in the day room, but door-to-door to the kids too sick to get out of bed. Not an easy gig, to be sure.
Since our son was an excellent juggler by the age of 12, we ordered him to help with the hospital gig one day, quite frustrated with his attitude about the "whole clown thing." It embarrassed him no end. Later that day as I was preparing dinner, I found him sitting on the back steps, crying like a baby. Of course I sat right down and put my arm around him, didn't say anything.
"That's the unfairest thing in the world!" he said, and I knew it. Most of the kids were injured (car accidents), but he'd had to deal with the cancer kids too – it leveled him emotionally.
A sigh, a pause, then "So. How'd it go? Did they like you?" He was so darned cute in the outfit I'd sewn, the puppy-dog face we'd designed (he called himself "SkyPup"). It dawned on him that for those few minutes when he was there twisting balloons and juggling balls and joking in the silliest, most impish of manners, the kids were smiling and laughing, and so were their way overtaxed parents. And he suddenly realized he couldn't cry so brokenheartedly at their plight if he didn't love them – if he didn't KNOW it's the unfairest thing in the world.
From the time he was 12 until the day he died, he was totally devoted to those kids. He not only did the hospital gig regularly without being asked, he volunteered at a support organization for the families, took the kids camping and horseback riding and to the beach… And through the years he'd get calls all hours of the day and night, from parents. He'd go – because they asked him to go – and sit with a dying child, hold their hands and tell them not to be afraid. Smile, and get a smile back. Then he'd come home exhausted and cry his eyes out. Every once in awhile he'd get a miracle and a desperately ill child would go into remission. Mostly he didn't.
When SkyPup died, there were several pages of the newspaper devoted to his passing, many pictures. In lieu of flowers (and thousands of cards and letters – by that time he'd been in movies, commercials and a television show), we requested in the paper that donations be made in his name to his charity. They endowed a 'scholarship' to Paul Newman's Hole In The Wall camp in his name, and we were invited to New York to receive an award from Newman. Didn't really make us feel any better, though.
…because it really IS the unfairest thing in the world that children die. I wrote some ditty of thanks for the newspaper, saying something trite like how now he would be able to welcome his children from the other side of that great divide. But what I really expect, if what we believed about meaning in life is true, is that he went straight to the top with his pointed questions about injustice and suffering. Demanding – not just expecting – an answer. I hope and trust he got it, and that it was satisfactory.
Cancer and other diseases, terrible accidents, "Acts of God"… these are what they call "natural evil." You have a problem with it too, obviously. I get by with convincing myself that it's not really evil, it's just the circumstances of life and death on planet earth. Heartbreaking, but not fit for blame. I reserve blame for people, who can choose to be evil. Like the ones who murdered my brother, for instance. There is only so much any of us can do here in time to mitigate evil. If I were a doctor, I'd be working to mitigate one kind of evil, if I were a lawyer I'd be attending to the other. Those of us who are neither doctors nor lawyers (or even Indian Chiefs) just do what we can.
Playing blame games with gods you don't believe in doesn't help anybody. It doesn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, wipe a single tear from the face of the broken-hearted. And it sure as heck doesn't generate a single smile on the face of a dying child. Choose what you will believe, upon what you disbelieve. Nobody cares. What have you done lately to address reality in this sadly imperfect world?
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Hi Joy,
I can only imagine how hard that must be. I've lost people I have loved but never a child of my own.
I know how hard it is to lose a mom at a young age, and friends, but no clue about what it must be like to lose a child. Because I know how hard it is to lose a mom (after she finally sobered up from alcoholism, which was brought on from being taken advantage of by a distant cousin who threatened her into not talking by telling her that she would never see my sister and I again *my sister and I completely oblivious to all of this – we were only kids*) it actually makes me apprehensive regarding having children.
Because the loss of a child can happen to anyone; there is not one family out there that is immune.
You would probably tell me (and rightfully so) "not ever having my child would have been a far worse crime".
I'm in no stretch of the word a theologian, but I do trust God's promise. I believe that I will be seeing my mom again…. I believe that you will be seeing your son again.
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
John, you wrote,
You state it very well. Each of us just has to look at the evidence which supports the most plausible and knowable view of reality. Each of us has a different take on just how cogent we find lines of argumentation based on the "facts" of our reality. I am pleased when people are able to believe in a benevolent God looking out after them and working everything out in the long run. More power to you. I don't find enough evidence to believe this though my background is strongly theistic. It's not just to each his own. It's to each his or her own journey.
One of my "issues" is that we all understand that the chances of any of our views being correct when dealing with these big picture issues is probably not very high. When thinking about these kinds of things, I come to my beliefs, but then remind myself that I might or probably am wrong. It seems to me that this kind of attitude leads to humility. Then, maybe in this very fine land of ours we can learn to respect each other more and live together in greater harmony.
Comment by bj — March 2, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Your sense of humility is really quite refreshing, bj. Good show.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 2, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Doug:
First, thanks. It's been 15 years this summer, so I'm certainly accustomed to living without him by now. But you're absolutely right that I'm immensely glad – and proud! – to have loved a guy who did more in 21 years than many others do in 100. One of the shining lights of my lifetime, and we've a whole passel of semi-grandkids now from his many old friends who he'd enlisted to his causes and inspired so greatly (still going strong). All married with children too now, and I am privileged to get a ringside seat to how these young men and women have taken what they learned as teenagers from my son's commitment to some really great heights.
We've the actual grands and adopteds as well (the adopteds are now producing yet more grands!). Some people throw their children away, and some are karmic kid-magnets. Go figure – any 2-year old in the grocery store can spot an undercover clown no problem. They just know.
I am sorry to hear of your struggles as well. Looks like you're gaining a modicum of understanding in your maturity, and that's a good thing. Is your sister still around?
And yes, I expect to see him again. If I'm wrong (and I could be) while the 'New Atheists' are right, I'll never know about it and my life won't matter at all. No skin off anybody's teeth.
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Joy wrote:
Your son's life still matters to those who knew and loved him, whether we atheists are right or not. Why shouldn't the same be true of your life?
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
keiths:
My mother-in-law gave us a book years ago for some occasion or other, e.e. cummings, Tread Lightly on the Earth. Because we're the black-sheep strays who preach that ethic and live it too. If my remaining kids and grands recall me fondly all their lives – tread lightly themselves upon the earth – my life will have had meaning for someone besides me and my lover. But in a hundred years no one on earth will remember I ever lived, or anything I ever did.
That's okay – it will be thus regardless of whether or not my spiritual beliefs turn out to be somewhat approximate to truth. And if so, I won't be hanging around here moon-dogging about nobody remembering me (I'll be off to Andromeda to check out the local scene). I've already named my rose bed, into which my ashes are to be mixed with the acidic clay to nourish some Peace and JFKs. If the kids keep the place when we're gone.
I just sometimes wonder about people like Dawkins and PZ who spend their entire lives hating everyone who isn't them (or doesn't worship them), as if such abject hatred serves anyone but them. I wonder what they've done lately to address reality in this sadly imperfect world. Which is why I asked you that question. Have you an answer?
What's the point? Their hatred of me gives meaning to their life, and they speak to millions. I speak for no one but me, and I am no one. Tragic contradiction, and utterly pointless if all that I believe in must be demeaned and/or persecuted in the name of almighty 'science'. Which won't ever save my life or yours or anyone else's, and surely won't comfort our dying.
Comment by Joy — March 2, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
And I sometimes wonder about people like you who spend their lives caricaturing and demonizing those who disagree with them. For instance, your claim that Dawkins and Myers hate those who don't worship them. Where do you get this stuff?
Evidently more than you're expecting, given your challenging tone.
Who have your voluminous posts and comments been feeding and clothing? Think glass houses, Joy.
Comment by keiths — March 2, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Joy, thanks for sharing some your personal story. I lost my brother, also when he was 21, and it was much harder on my parents than it was for me (and I was devastated for years). I also know exactly what you mean about the two year olds in the grocery store. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
The adjective "my" and "your" does not add anything here.
There is only experience, and in reality it belongs to no one. The thought "I" that claims ownership of an experience and a life — in truth there is no such entity. In fact, the "me", "my", "I" thoughts, believed in completely, are the root of all mental suffering.
Of course, those thoughts continue to exist even after it becomes clear that they are not absolutely real. But they are no longer mistaken for the truth, so the suffering they entail dissapates and indeed those thoughts lose their momentum and tend to slowly dampen and dissipate.
The real truth is consciousness itself (often misidentified by thought as "my" consciousness). No, it is pure consciousness in which one particular story is playing itself out and being illuminated by.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 2, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Why state the obvious?
Yes and no. That the existence of evil is a problem for theism has been readily admitted by any theist who has spent ay time thinking about these things.
As to the atheist of course it is not a problem for atheists because if they are intellectually consistent there is no such thing as evil. Matter does what it does.
But that is the problem most atheists demonstrate by their actions that they believe that evil exists.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 2, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Dawkins once said, "I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
Comment by MikeGene — March 2, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 am
If they are to mirror the tactics of their opponents then when it looks hopeless they would then chide dysteleologists for inserting purposelessness into the gaps of our knowledge.
Comment by Bradford — March 3, 2007 @ 12:08 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Vivid wrote:
That can't be true! Joy says nobody worships an omnibenevolent God!
Matter does what it does whether or not atheism is correct. So if your argument were valid, evil would not exist for either the theist or the atheist.
Comment by keiths — March 3, 2007 @ 12:36 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Ach. But the soul- our mind and our emotions- have an independent existence.
Comment by Bradford — March 3, 2007 @ 12:48 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 am
Modern neuroscience shows quite the opposite: that mind and emotions are utterly dependent upon the brain.
Comment by keiths — March 3, 2007 @ 12:57 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
I don't want to get into a big debate on this, Keith, but functional dependency does not entail ontological equivalence. Dualism is very much alive and well in philosophy of mind.
Comment by Crandaddy — March 3, 2007 @ 1:14 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 am
It would only make my argument invalid if all there is is matter. Theists do not take this position.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 3, 2007 @ 1:17 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 am
The interesting thing about the morality issue is that atheists are now converging with theistic thought as to it's universality, and that it is innate.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2007 @ 1:24 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 am
Crandaddy wrote:
Hi Crandaddy,
Bradford claimed that our mind and emotions have an existence independent from matter. Your use of the phrase "functional dependency" concedes my point, which is that mind and emotions are not independent of matter, even if you believe that there is an immaterial element involved.
Actually, dualists are few and far between these days among professional philosophers of mind. Chalmers is perhaps the most famous, and his dualism will be of little comfort to Bradford, who is looking for a soul with an independent existence from matter. As Christof Koch put it, "Chalmers's dualism is a very mild one and does not invoke any spooky soul-stuff."
Comment by keiths — March 3, 2007 @ 2:13 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 am
Guts wrote:
Yes, isn't that interesting? The main difference, of course, is that atheists see it as the product of natural selection, and theists think it comes from God.
Comment by keiths — March 3, 2007 @ 2:16 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 am
Or from God through natural selection (and other mechanisms).
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2007 @ 3:02 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
keiths wrote:
Hi keiths,
Christian Doctrine of the Fall clearly includes natural disasters and animal predation as a consequence of human fall (Genesis 3 and Romans 8). Christians also believe, as I am sure you are well aware, that God will end evil, just not on your or my timetable. One also has to take implications in eternity. This life (in a Christian worldview) makes sense only in light of eternity. So this "problem" of evil should be looked at in this context. I put inverted commas because in Christian Theology existence of evil is not a problem. It becomes one when we are affected by it in our everyday lives. Sometimes pain and suffering becomes too much for us to understand reasons for it. But just maybe there is no comprehensible reason for evil on this planet.
Comment by inunison — March 3, 2007 @ 8:06 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
Functional dependency does not preclude the independent existence of mind and matter. It indicates that for a given system a relationship between the two exists. It does not even preclude a mutual cause and effect relationship between the two which would indicate independence. For example, if intelligence is merely an "emergent property" of matter then intellectual effects would always follow material dynamics. If the opposite is also observed then a functional relationship exists but it is not one that supports a materialist/atheist model.
Comment by Bradford — March 3, 2007 @ 9:52 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
keiths:
The exaggerated emotion (as exemplified in hate speech disguised as 'science') that comes across as the curious macho posturing of monkeys in the zoo. Now, neither Dawkins nor Myers are really the stooges they portray for the purpose of rallying the acolytes, and Myers even admits quite honestly that it's just a "strategy" for keeping the army emotionally engaged… as if their very lives depended on it.
Meanwhile, you display an odd obsession with someone who finds this ridiculous display semi-interesting, if only for the agenda it reveals. Not brave enough to take on the whole of established human society in the name of scientism and its current thrust toward an imposed oligarchy, you get to take on the really dangerous job… grandmothers!
Donated a little cash for tsunami relief, did you?
More than enough, though I sure can't see what this has to do with NDS or ID. Care to enlighten us?
To Vivid:
The omnibenevolent godling is your own counterfactual construction, invented for the purpose of informing us it doesn't exist. I agreed that it doesn't exist, given entirely evident reality on planet earth. God-concepts can be believed 'all-good' as a matter of faith that there's an ultimately 'good' reason for so much evil, known only to that God who allows evil to exist. That's not the same thing as your counterfactual construction, and you can't make it so just by rhetorical foot-stomping.
But you are the materialist. You are the one who needs to justify the claim that it's all just matter doing matter things. Simply projecting your beliefs onto others clarifies nothing at all.
Comment by Joy — March 3, 2007 @ 11:17 am
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
Never underestimate the power of grandmothers. If most of us thought back and remembered the shaping power of our grandmothers, we would see that they are a pretty significant force in the life of our society.
For me, the issue with Dawkins and Myers and their like on the other end of the spectrum is something beyond the content of their metaphysics. I suppose I would it describe as deficiencies in the basic attitudes needed for the creation of a civil society. I don't see a basic respect for the humanity of others. Or a tolerance for everyone's right to believe as the wish. There's an arrogance which if left unchecked and associated with power could eventually rob others of basic human rights. I see the same potential in the Religious Right.
Comment by bj — March 3, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Joy writes (to keiths):
Watch out, keiths, beware the Toxic Granny!
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/toxicgranny.htm
Comment by KC — March 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Joy,
I am confused why are you addressing me? I am not a materialist nor did I make the comment regarding an omnibenevolent God
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 3, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
No, I was addressing keiths, tried to indicate where it was a different post, to you. Should'a probably added "keiths to Vivid." Sorry for confusion!
Comment by Joy — March 3, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Thanks..there are two people I do not want to get on the wrong side of …you and Mturner:mrgreen:
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 3, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
That's just a lock-step statement of faith.
Given the utter lack of any progress on the materialist "explanation" of consciousness, a rather empty one to boot.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 3, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Actually I am in periodic communication with Chalmers, and he is very agnostic about the exact nature of consciousness. The one thing he is pretty sure about, is that the standard reductionistic "explanations" of consciousness are leaving out something very important.
He is quite open-minded about the possibilities. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 3, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Thanks Joy….
). But she found ways around that. Listerine has a high alcohol content as does some Regis hairspray products (or at least they did). Anyway, I would take the bottle, pour out half of it, and dilute the rest with water…. hoping that maybe she wouldn't get too drunk off of it.
Yeah, she's still around – but we handled her alcoholism differently. She got very angry at my mom and seemed to try to make her feel guilty. I felt bad for my mom. Even as a kid I knew that she didn't want to be that way. But at that time, we were both completely in the dark regarding why she even started drinking.
I remember as a kid lying on my bed and feeling something between the mattress and the box spring. It was usually a bottle of Listerine (mouth wash). My dad had called the neighborhood liquor stores and asked them to not sell to my mom (my city isn't a huge city
Again though, she did eventually go completely sober. It was 1993 (died in 2003…. so I had 10 good years with her; failing health, but it was nice having her there… conscious). She attributed it to a religious experience (she said that she started praying for help). Didn't mean anything to me at the time, I was just glad she wasn't drunk.
Comment by Doug — March 3, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
March 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Keiths,
Becasue I was away for the weekend I couldn't immediiately respond.
You wrote:
It wasn't an emotional response on my part and your arguments haven't shaken my faith. Immanual Kant saw moral and ehtical issues as practical vs theoretical. I was trying to get you to think how all your theorizing applies practically in the world in which we both live. Theorizing on ethical, moral or other practical issues is ok to a certain point, but then one starts asking what is the point? For example, suppose you and I are having an argument whether or not bumble bees can really fly. You argue that according to the best laws of aero dynamics that they can't. I concede that it's very complicated but am unwilling to agree that Bumblebees can't fly because obviously they do. That seems to be where we're at with this argument. You are arguing that God cannot possibly have a good moral prupose in creating this world but what I see (though I concede the theoretical problems are challenging) is that there are real people in this world who believe in the God you are doubting who live exceptionally heroic, humane and noble lives. So, because I don't have an easy answer for your theoretical arguments my belief is somehow irrational?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 5, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
March 5th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Hi John,
The comparison with bumblebees isn't really apt, because we can look at a bumblebee and see it fly. We can't see God. (By the way, the idea that science says bumblebees can't fly is an urban legend — see this).
No, I'm arguing that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then this world must be the best of all possible worlds. That means that all of the evil and suffering we find in the world must somehow be essential in order to bring about a greater good, if God possesses the three omni-characters. The obvious problem is that nobody can explain why evil and suffering are somehow essential to the greater good of the world. The leading explanatory candidate is the free will defense, which I find questionable. And even if you accept the free will defense, natural evil is still a problem.
There are heroic, noble and humane people who believe in gods whom you doubt, also. Does that mean that those gods exist alongside your God?
Comment by keiths — March 5, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Keiths, Thanks for your responses, but I am surprised to find you supporting rather than refuting my position.
You have tried to propose that there is some incompatibility between the observation that design is required by the natural world and the possibility that the God described in the Bible could be such a designer or in some way responsible for the required input of specified complexity.
Yet, you have repeatedly acknowledged that the Bible describes a world of suffering and evil. You even make the claim that the Bible itself makes God responsible for this.
How then do you plan to show an inherent incompatibility with the God described in the Bible? Suffering and evil (in the Bible) is not compatible with suffering and evil (in the world)? As I understand it, you have made two kinds of arguments in response.
1. Many Christians believe… I'm not persuaded that you have an accurate understanding of what most Christians actually believe (as distinct from what you believe their position should entail). But that is beside the point. Your argument fails because it is irrelevant. The question was and is whether there is incompatibility with the God described in the Bible. If some people believe something else, that is irrelevant to the question.
2. You point out that the Bible says that God alone is "good". That argument collapses as well, under its own weight.
a) In trying to make a case, you are not free to substitute your own idea of what "good" should mean. That is irrelevant. If you want to make a case for inconsistency, you have to use the intended meanings. See your own point about sunsets.
b) Have you noticed that the very same claim implies that others are not good? Clearly the intended meaning of "good" in this claim cannot be "prevents all evil from happening".
Thus, you have not shown any incompatibility between the God described in the Bible and the world as we see it now. Consequently, you also do not show any incompatibility in the idea that such a God could be a source for the specified complexity that is required.
If anything, you have undermined your own case by agreeing that the Bible does portray suffering and evil, just as you wish to point out about the world.
Sounds like you are making points for compatibility rather than incompatibility.
Comment by eric — March 8, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
March 9th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
eric wrote:
I don't claim to have done a scientific study of the matter, but I have discussed God with lots of Christians in my life, from many different denominations, and I've found few who don't believe in God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness.
That's why I suggested, earlier in the thread, that Joy get out and ask a sampling of Christians if they thought God was all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever did evil.
It's true that many Christians haven't thought things through and don't recognize the problem of evil. It's also true that the Bible, while proclaiming God's goodness, also contains examples of God actively doing evil and allowing evil and suffering to occur.
But I have never claimed that either the Bible or typical Christian belief systems are internally consistent.
I'm certainly not trying to slip some idiosyncratic concept of "good" into the discussion. My argument rests on nothing more than the idea that being good means not making others suffer gratuitously. Few Christians would hesitate to apply that standard to people; why should it not also apply to God?
Yes, which is why it is clear that Jesus is referring to perfect goodness. He obviously does not mean that humans are incapable of doing anything good.
Why not?
I agree that the God of Job, to name one egregious example, is compatible with the world as we see it now, but other parts of the Bible paint a different picture. Look again at the verses I quoted earlier in the thread:
There are a few other things about those verses that deserve comment, since we're here:
1. Note that Jesus distinguishes himself from God.
2. Note that Jesus does not claim to be good in the same way that God is good.
3. Note that he suggests following the commandments as essential for salvation, while elsewhere in the Bible faith alone is sufficient.
Comment by keiths — March 9, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
March 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I dont see it.
Jesus dont see that either.
Following the commandments are essential and faith alone is sufficient. We must keep Gods commands and all those who pt their faith in Christ in Gods eyes have kept them.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 9, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
March 10th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Vividbleau wrote:
If you called someone stupid, and she replied "Why are you calling me stupid? There's only one stupid person around here," would you think she was referring to herself? Now look at the verse again and ponder the similarity.
Jesus don't see what?
If that were the case then Jesus would simply have told the man to have faith. Instead he tells him to follow the commandments and even lists them for him in the following verses.
Comment by keiths — March 10, 2007 @ 5:16 am
March 10th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I want to say that the Matthew passage was brought up before by someone else on here (MatthewCromer, maybe? I forget), and it was stated then that it was almost a secret handshake. Jesus associates goodness with God but does not explicitly say "I am not good" or "I am not God", thereby leaving the listeners to fill in the blank – he's saying that he's both good and God (because the two are inexorably linked). To say that Jesus is denying His goodness here is question-begging.
I also think this:
is problematic, but that's a whole different subject on the (d)evolution of moral language.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 10, 2007 @ 9:47 am
March 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Keith
I see Jesus saying that if indeed I am good then I am God.
So Jesus doesnt do what you think he should have done and you object. Look Jesus totally redefined ( as it relates to the Jewish community) what it meant to keep the law when He gave his sermon on the mount. And as Paul states the purpose of the law was to drive us to faith so of couse Jesus emphasised law keeping as a way to show that no one could keep it.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — March 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
[Side topic: About the question of Jesus "Why do you call me good?", Vividbleau and thechristiancynic are correct that it need not imply that Jesus is saying "I am not good". The other logically possible option is "I am God". Given that he nowhere claims sin, that he elsewhere makes claims that equate himself with God, and that on another occaision Jesus challenges his accusers "Which one of you convicts me of sin?", the latter option is a consistent interpretation.]
The challenge to show incompatibility between the God of the Bible and the idea of a designer remains unmet.
Whether a particular definition of good is considered idiosyncratic or not is immaterial. The relevant question is about what the Bible means when it says that God is good. (NOTE: not "omnibenevolent" or "perfectly good" — whatever meaning someone may give to those.) Remember your own point about sunsets and consistency.
If you acknowledge that the Bible depicts a world in which there is evil and suffering which conceivably could have been otherwise, then your argument fails, rather than succeeds. You miss the point of the difficulty, i.e. the Bible is not using your definition of good in depicting God.
I said "Clearly the intended meaning of "good" in this claim cannot be "prevents all evil from happening"." and you asked "Why not?" Because God has not prevented all evil from happening, as the statement itself indicates. Nor is there any indication in the Bible that this is his primary priority. The God of the Bible is not a simplistic, one-dimensional character concerned only with suffering and nothing else.
To make your case, you would need to build it from the claims actually made in the Bible about God (using the intended meanings found there) and from what is reported there about God. But an accurate picture in that regard would cause your design-incompatibility argument to fail. There simply is no incompatibility there.
Also, the idea that a scientific position ever needs to assess and pass judgment on theological questions remains a confusion of categories. Although we may discuss theology as individuals, science is in no position to evaluate theology.
Comment by eric — March 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 6:42 am
I have come across a very interesting post on the relation between religion and science ">here
I feel that it present the question in a slightly different way so feel there is a way out from the creationist evolutionist duality
Comment by me — February 21, 2008 @ 6:42 am
July 18th, 2008 at 5:13 am
cute black babies…
Sorry, don't agree 100% with you on this!…
Trackback by cute black babies — July 18, 2008 @ 5:13 am