The New Atheists and the Age Old Problem of Evil

_{Donald McLaughlin

August 13, 2009

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution, Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

By now, most readers here are familiar with Richard Dawkins’s view of God as expressed in The God Delusion where Dawkins writes that God is “the most unpleasant character in all fiction … a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The last time a literary character was described in such despicable terms was probably Charles Dickens’s description of Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. “Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge!” writes Dickens, “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.” I’ll let you decide which character is worse.

Let’s lay aside for the moment that Dawkins considers God fictional, that is to say (in Dawkins’s words) “almost certainly does not exist.” (even that betrays some slight doubt on Dawkins’s part). The real issue for Dawkins and many of his fellow ‘New Atheists’ (NA’s) such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and the like, is that humans have had a nasty tendancy to commit many acts of evil over the centuries in the name of this fictional God. As the NA’s see it, if we could only rid the world of this fiction called God and its handmaiden, Religion, then the the Golden Age of Atheism will lead the world to a Scientific Utopia, where Science and Reason rule the Mind and all humanity is rid of these childhood fantasies about God, Church, Religion and the like. In short we’ll grow up. At least, that is the upshot of most of the lectures, books, articles and blog posts coming from the NA’s and their ilk.

Unfortunately for the NA’s, there’s a huge hitch in their thinking, and it just isn’t going to go away no matter how much clever rhetoric they toss at it. That hitch is the age old Problem of Evil (PoE). According to the NA’s, if only we could rid humans of the false beliefs in this or that god or gods and/or this or that religion, then all the evils committed by humans in the name of those gods and/or religions would go away, too. Thus, Dawkins, Harris and the other NA’s mince no words in describing their disdain for anything that smacks of the supernatural. What the NA’s don’t seem to realize is that they are admitting that real evil exists, even if the God or gods in whose name(s) the evil is committed does not.

The upshot of taking evil to be real, even if the God(s) behind aren’t, is that evil still needs to be explained. For the NA’s, the only possible explanation for any behavior, evil or otherwise is evolution. Thus, for all their ranting against religion(s) and god(s), they really ought to be ranting against evolution itself. But appealing to evolution doesn’t help their case much.

On the NA’s worldview, all events in time and space are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That’s it. There simply are no other causal forces at work. That means that all human behaviors, good or evil, are also the end result of this same chain of evolution. We might claim we were motivated to do good or evil by our belief in some diety or religion, but the truth of the matter (on the NA’s worldview), is that evolution made us do it.

For all their complaints against religion(s) and dieties, the NA’s have no basis, rooted in evolution, to judge any act as good or evil, simply because evolution has not produced any objective standard by which to measure such things. Sure, humans might do things that NA’s (or others) don’t like, may even hate, but that doesn’t really make them evil (or good…depending on your point of view). Dawkins judgement that if the God of the Old Testament Scripture were real He’d be evil is thus not based on any objective standard, but is itself the result of the same evolutionary processes. For all the caterwauling from the NA’s against religion, they really ought to be complaining about evolution itself!

Comments

---Gaz: "What is “Natural moral law”? Google "Illustrations of the Tao." ----"If this is your standard for morality, then by definition anything contravening them is immoral." Sounds good to me. ---"Presumably, then, you consider that someone of other than the Judeo-Christian faith is immoral because they have other gods, thus breach the First Commandment and hence are immoral." It depends on how much he knows or doesn't know and why he doesn't know it. No one can be held accountable for his ignorance unless it is willful. Objectively speaking, it is immoral not go give God the worship he is due. On the other hand, if someone has been brainwashed since birth to hate God, or has been raised by overly rigid Christians, or has been educated to think that God is mere "energy," or has been persuaded that God is cruel, or has been steeped in atheism, his disposition and capacity to worship or conform to a higher moral authority has been compromised [injured] and it is more difficult for him to give God his due. So, his offense is mitigated, at least until he has had time to realize his problem and face it.StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

----David v. Squatney: "My question is simply: If this moral law is objective, why are there so many disagreements about the content of that law, even among Christians?" It may be more of a disagreement over what get's emphasized. It's human nature to rationalize conveniently selected portions of the natural moral law when one of its tenets falls in the area of our weakness. That's why adulterers think that muggers are far worse than they are, snobbish rich people hate envious poor people, and envious poor people hate snobbish rich people. In general, though, most educated Christians, when they are not rationalizing their own behavior, agree in principle about the binding nature of the Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and the Natural Moral Law. ----"I’m an atheist, but I go to church every week, and I observe these disagreements all the time." Why would an atheist go to Church? What exactly do they disagree about? In any case, atheism provides no rational grounding for morality of any kind. It is illogical for an atheist to be outraged over anything. ---"Even the definition of the word “evil” seems to be difficult to pin down." That is because it is more difficult to define evil than to recognize the natural moral law, which is accessable to everyone. Still, I think my definition of evil is quite reliable, even though I picked it up from someone much smarter than myself [Augustine].StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB (75), "Here is my standard for morality: The Ten Commandments The Beatitudes The Sermon on the Mount The Natural moral law" Two questions: (1) What is "Natural moral law"? (2) If this is your standard for morality, then by definition anything contravening them is immoral. Presumably, then, you consider that someone of other than the Judeo-Christian faith is immoral because they have other gods, thus breach the First Commandment and hence are immoral?Gaz_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

magnan (79), You're right, and I owe you an apology. But I sense a reluctance on the part of some here to use your definition.Gaz_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

NA apologists: Again, let's address a basic issue, court5esy Will Hawthorne -- which BTW easily shows why neither examples nor descriptions nor characterisations of evil will meet your "satisfaction": _________________ >> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We’ve conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we’ve started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from ‘is’. >> _________________ In short, on materialistic or naturalistic premises, there is no ground for ought; so the first problem of modern atheism is to ground the sense of evil and associated judgements. Unless that issue is squarely faced, all te4h above red herrings on the OT etc are just that: distractive tactics leading on to strawman and ad hominem attacks towards atmosphere poisoning. Precisely what the so-called New Atheists specialise in. So, now, what reality do you have that can adequately ground ought? And if you do not, on what grounds do you object to the real or imagined issues with he OT or Christendom or 'fundies" etc etc> (Apart from handy rhetorical tools for manipulation of emotions and perceptions. Which itself would be the biggest warning flag against NA of all.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Theists believe in an objective moral law and Darwinsits do not, thus Darwinists have no basis for morality. What is it about that distinction that you find puzzling?
My question is simply: If this moral law is objective, why are there so many disagreements about the content of that law, even among Christians? I'm an atheist, but I go to church every week, and I observe these disagreements all the time. Even the definition of the word "evil" seems to be difficult to pin down.David v. Squatney_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

DonaldM @ 35
But Dawkins doesn’t take the OT at face value. If he did, he wouldn’t refer to it as “fiction”. And because he thinks none of it is true, he interprets the central character, God, exactly how he wants, with no attempt to really understand. In short, when it comes to understanding who God is, Dawkins is a novice.
As mentioned before, the Old Testament recounts how God slaughtered almost the entire population of the world at one time, save for a chosen few. At face value, had it happened, this would have been genocide on a vast scale, far exceeding the best efforts of any subsequent human tyrant, whether religious or secular. Yet believers are taught that this is a great example of divine justice, mercy and benevolence and accept that interpretation almost without question. If Dawkins is novice for refusing to deceive himself with such an Orwellian doublethink then count me as equally naive.
I don’t recall ever suggesting that the NA’s did suggest that eradicating faith will be quick and easy. But they have made clear that they believe that if we rid the world of religious faith, most, if not all, evil goes with it. They conveniently ignore evils committed by atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) and more conveniently completely ignore much good works inspired by faith (ie, William Wilberforce or Mother Theresa).
The New Atheists no more blind to the evils of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot than they are to the good work done by the likes of Wilberforce, although I will admit that Christopher Hitchens has been less than kind to Mother Theresa. Nor will they deny that there are many who have been inspired to do good works by their faith. What they are also not blind to, however, is the fact that great evil has also been done in the name of religion by those who hold themselves to be devout followers of their chosen faith or that such behavior undermines the claims that believers inevitably hold themselves to higher moral standards than non-believers.
I think Seversky has missed the point. The issue is not the PoE “in theology”, but the problem that Dawkins and his fellow NA’s have in claiming evil exists at all under their worldview. It is both logically inconsistent and incoherent to label acts as good or evil when, under the NA’s worldview, there is no objective standard whatsoever to make the determination. The NA’s dislike of certain behavior is NOT an objective standard, hence the problem for them!
The point being missed is that this is still a strawman because it is attributing to New Atheists a concept of evil that they do not hold. Part of the misunderstanding may arise from the predicate structure of the English language. For example, we can say both 'the rose is red' and 'the rose is beautiful'. In the first case we are identifying an observable and measurable property of the flower. The second case sounds as if we are doing the same, referring to an objective property of the flower when, in fact, we are expressing a personal opinion or judgement of it - beauty exists in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes. The same is true of the concept of evil. For some believers it is a malevolent force or entity that has an objective existence in the outside world; for agnostics and atheists it is a judgement we make about anti-social human acts and they have no more need of an 'objective standard' of evil than they have for an objective standard of beauty. If morality can be said to have any objective existence at all it lies in the common interests all human beings have in survival and security for themselves and those they love. Whatever their origin, moral codes function to regulate human behavior in society so as to protect the well-being of all its members.
No, the theory of evolution does not provide an objective standard by which to measure good and evil because it is a theory in biology not ethics. It tries to describe how the world is not prescribe how it should be. Any attempt to justify any morality by appealing to the natural order of things commits the naturalistic fallacy and founders on the ‘is/ought’ problem. Again, atheists and agnostics seem to understand this better than some believers.
Well, don’t tell that to me — tell it to Dawkins, Harris and the other NA’s, because this precisely what they do. Apparently these atheists and agnostics do NOT undertand the fallacies they commit at all! That is the main point of my OP!
I am not aware of any instances where any of the leading New Atheists have committed the naturalistic fallacy. What we do find is Richard Dawkins saying the following in this interview in Skeptic magazine:
Skeptic: Well, if we don't accept religion as a reasonable guide to "what is" or even a reasonable guide to "what ought to be," does evolution give us such a guide? Can we turn to evolution to answer not what is, but what ought to be? Dawkins: I'd rather not do that. I think Julian Huxley was the last person who attempted to. In my opinion, a society run along "evolutionary" lines would not be a very nice society in which to live. But further, there's no logical reason why we should try to derive our normative standards from evolution. It's perfectly consistent to say this is the way it is--natural selection is out there and it is a very unpleasant process. Nature is red in tooth and claw. But I don't want to live in that kind of a world. I want to change the world in which I live in such a way that natural selection no longer applies.
As I wrote before, agnostics and atheists are well aware that you cannot infer how we should behave from observations of the way the world is. The same would be true of any moral prescriptions from some lesser god. Such a being may have the power to enforce its will on us but that does not make it right. Or do you believe that might makes right?
The whole point is that under the NA worldview, everything, absolutely everything — all events in space and time (no exceptions!) – must be explained as the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That’s it. There can be no appeal to any other forces because there are no other forces to which they can appeal. None. On that worldview, there simply is no way to tell right from wrong, because the very terms are incoherent and all ethics and morals are relative. Each person can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. That is precisely what the NA’s have done. They have decided for themselves that religious belief is wrong.
Not quite. What they have observed is that, in many cases, religions insist that their followers hold views that are false to fact. This can lead to great harm: harm through omission as in the case of devout parents praying for the recovery of their daughter as she dies of untreated diabetes on the living-room floor in front of them or harm through commission such as believing that flying aircraft into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people will earn you a place in paradise and the services of 72 virgins for all eternity. If such beliefs were commercial products there would almost certainly be consumer protection groups demanding that the packaging displays a prominent health warning 'Danger! These products have been found to be harmful and even fatal if misused.'
Let’s suppose the NA’s are right and there is no God or gods, no deities of any sort that play any role whatsoever in the affairs of humans. Then, you’re right we each work out our own morality. But, and here’s the rub, there really is no behavior that can properly be called good or evil, since no one has any basis to make the determination beyond “I don’t like what you’re doing!” That’s the upshot of working out one’s own morality. On that worldview there simply is no way that morality ought to be, because there is no ought at all.
Yes, that's right. What we do have, however, are human beings who, individually, are weak slow and vulnerable but who have also found that they have a much better chance of survival if they co-operate and live in groups. But the coherence and stability of any such social group depends not on doing whatever you please but on balancing that against respecting and protecting the right of your fellows to do the same provided they accord yo the same consideration. From this there emerges probably the most basic and the greatest "ought" of all: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Do you really not know that to be a good rule unless some god tells you it is? Are you really unable to work it out for yourself?Seversky_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

---David v.Squatney: "Doesn’t this undermine quite severely the assertions made in the OP? DonaldM tells us that atheists have no basis on which to judge good and evil, but I’m not sure thiests can do a great deal better." Theists believe in an objective moral law and Darwinsits do not, thus Darwinists have no basis for morality. What is it about that distinction that you find puzzling?" I, for one, am in total agreement with Donald M, and, from what I can tell, everything that have written confirms his thesis. If you think Jerry is coming from a different place, then you should take it up with him.StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

DonaldM (#72)- All I can do is paraphrase my post 51: "...to the NAs and secularists in general innocent is not having brought on the situation (in this case suffering, which is the ultimate evil to NAs and secularists) through deliberate knowing action..... Human beings can be guilty or innocent of causing suffering (the ultimate evil to secularists) – no morality or theology considered. Please engage these explanations without appealing to Christian theology. If the latter is necessary in your judgement, then we have to engage in a religious argument which would be counterproductive.magnan_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Gaz (#73): "The thing that’s missing from this entire discussion is a definition of what you mean by “evil”." You apparently have not read my posts 46 and 51. These defined "evil" in a secular, non-strictly Christian theological way, which is how the NAs inherently define it.magnan_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

jerry:
—-“I could go on and on with different examples and I bet we could not get agreement on anything.
StephenB:
I suspect that you are right, but I comment on your objections because they are more probing than the typical Darwinist talking points.
Doesn't this undermine quite severely the assertions made in the OP? DonaldM tells us that atheists have no basis on which to judge good and evil, but I'm not sure thiests can do a great deal better.David v. Squatney_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Sorry, I forgot. @75 is for seversky.StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

----"And I agree, it is going to be difficult and messy. But who said it would be easy? Just because it is likely to be hard is no reason not to at least try and we may find ourselves surprised by just how much we agree." We cannot ascertain how much we might agree until each of us puts something on the table. Here is my standard for morality: The Ten Commandments The Beatitudes The Sermon on the Mount The Natural moral law What is your standard?StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

----Jerry: “I was taught that there is only one real evil. That is the deprivation of salvation.” If we use that standard, then it would seem inappropriate to allude to earthquakes or other temporal problems as examples of evil, which appears to be your point. Even at that, we already know that, from a Christian perspective, God can turn evil into good even during this life. If we accept that as a given, then obviously evil is a broader concept than the ultimate evil of losing one’s soul. ---- “So if a person is killed by a fallen rock and is saved, then is the killing by the rock evil. If not, then if there were two people killed by an avalanche evil? If not, then how many have to be killed before what happened is evil. If the person gets a severe disabling disease, pick any one, and the person is saved, was the disease evil. There are numerous cases of the “innocent” (whatever that means) suffering but I fail to see what that has to do with evil. That sounds like a classical biblical counsel that those who work hard and play by the rules will get rewarded in this life. And if it turns out otherwise, then is it evil? I grew up with people who were my age who had cerebal palsy, Downs, severe birth defects, etc. I thought what had happened to them as very unfortunate but not evil.” I would argue that “evil” is both something that we do and something that can happen to us, something "delivered" and something “received.” They are not the same thing. The first represents a “perversion of the will,” while the second represents a “privation of the good.” John the Baptist, for example, experienced evil when he lost his head over a silly dance,[privation of the good] even if his soul was saved, and Salome committed an evil act when she asked for his head [perversion of the will]. Does a person experience evil he is killed by a fallen rock and is saved? I think all “natural disasters” can be thought of as manifestations from the first sin, which was evil. In other words, nature, after having been disrupted by original sin, has the potential to harm us. So, if someone saves his soul after some natural disaster, God turned derivative evil into good. ----“It seems what a lot of people call evil is something that makes them feel squeamish and would not want to happen to them or makes them fell uncomfortable when they learn about it. I have brought up several examples before on other discussions of evil which illustrated this point. And then to attribute unpleasantness in this world to God is absurd. If there is no God, then it is meaningless. If there is a God and his plans are salvation, then what happens here to someone is also meaningless. Granted this is a Christian perspective and some others might not agree with this perspective.” Christians do not hold God accountable for original sin. If we understand evil as a “privation of the good,” then the subjective element is largely eliminated. We all know that life, love, beauty, unity, and goodness are good things. Prior to original sin, we had them in abundance. On the other hand, those things that disturb or corrupt live, love, beauty, unity, and goodness are bad things. Evil has no substance in and of itself. Thus, the loss of health, which disturbs life, is a bad or evil thing, but God can turn it into a good thing. Anything can be evil if it militates against the good. Music can be evil if it encourages bad behavior; politics can be evil if it promotes bad behavior and a bad culture. A good culture is one in which it is easy to be good; a bad culture is one in which it is easy to be bad. So, any culture or philosophy that denies that there is any such thing as objectively good or objectively bad behavior is, to the extent that it promotes that error, an evil culture. Or, to use your paradigm, if a culture makes it difficult to save your soul, it is an evil culture. ----“Another conundrum is what is evil in a supposed evil act. For example, if someone shoots someone and kills them for no good reason, is the person evil who did the shooting or is the act itself evil. Are certain acts evil or does evil only apply to the person and his motive? Can a person commit what is an evil act but have good intentions? Is the person then evil? Is the act then evil?” Again, I submit that evil is in the will, not in the intellect. That means that everything turns on motives. It proceeds from loving and choosing the wrong things. Obviously, shooting someone either out of vengeance, a desire for publicity, or for any other reason other than self defense is an evil act. On the other hand, the extent to which a person is good or evil comes in gradations and degrees. We can’t know nor can we judge how good another person is because we don’t know their secret motives, temptations, proclivities, strenghs, weakenesses, or the level of their ignorance, [and all evil acts contain a measure of ignorance] but that doesn’t change the reality that there are some evil people. What we can judge, though, is the evil nature of their acts. ----“Also we have the gold standard in evil, Hitler. What makes Hitler or Nazis more evil than others? Is it the act or the motive. Why not Timur? He makes Hitler look like a piker. There is a huge statue of him in Uzbekistan in his honor. Would it make any difference if the numbers were less?” I don’t understand the difficulty here. Don’t we agree that all mass murderers are guilty of evil acts. Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, but our politically correct culture focuses on Hitler because, for some unknown reason, he is perceived as an extremist conservative while Stalin is perceived as an extremist liberal, yet both men were tyrants and qualified neither as conservatives or liberals. ----“I could go on and on with different examples and I bet we could not get agreement on anything. I suspect that you are right, but I comment on your objections because they are more probing than the typical Darwinist talking points.StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky (#67) Thank you for your post. You and I have sparred previously on the problem of evil, if you recall our exchange of views back in January. I responded to your arguments in this post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-dawkins-still-have-any-connection-to-science/#comment-302477 You composed a thoughtful reply a few days later. Owing to the time lapse, your post unfortunately escaped my notice: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-dawkins-still-have-any-connection-to-science/#comment-302797 Having read your post, I think I can answer Paul Giem's query in #71 regarding the logical consistency of your views:
If God truly gives us freedom to choose to love or not to love, how can this be logically consistent with His making sure that we cannot chose not to love?
In your post back in January, you wrote:
An omniscient God on the other hand would know what the outcome was going to be in advance, by definition... If God creates or designs as we do then He forms a mental model of the intended creation before giving it physical form. An omniscient God would presumably be aware of the complete potential future 'history' of any creation when that 'model' is complete and before it is 'materialized'.
I'd like to make four comments. 1. Your argument implicitly assumes that the only reason why creators or designers sometimes create flawed products is that they have an imperfect understanding of what they are making: in other words, their mental model of their products is incomplete. If they had a perfect understanding of what they were making, then no flaws would occur. An omniscient God, having perfect understanding, cannot make a flawed product. Thus if we accept the additional premise that human beings are flawed in many ways, we must deny that they are the creations of an omniscient God. I think the root of your theological problem is a metaphysical one: you think that a creature's entire history - everything that it does, or that is done to it, during the course of its existence - is either part of its very nature (i.e. what it is), or more plausibly, part of its individuality (i.e. who it is). In other words, if it had a different history, it wouldn't be that creature. It would be some other individual. That is why you wrote in your post at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-dawkins-still-have-any-connection-to-science/#comment-302797 that an omniscient God, who presumably "forms a mental model of the intended creation before giving it physical form," should be "aware of the complete potential future 'history' of any creation when that 'model' is complete and before it is 'materialized'." In Aristotelian terminology, what you're assuming here is that there are no non-essential (i.e. contingent) properties of individuals. But if you accept both a libertarian account of freedom and a traditional theist account of God (as an omniscient, omnibenevolent Being) then you will reject this premise. On a libertarian account, Adam would still have been the same individual had he not sinned. 2. Let's go back to your comment regarding God's decision to make a creature, such as you or me:
An omniscient God on the other hand would know what the outcome was going to be in advance, by definition.
My reply is: it depends what you mean by "in advance." If you mean "before the creature acts" then I agree. God knows everything that has happened, is happening or will happen. But if you mean "before God even decides to make that creature," then I would disagree. The notion of a Creator’s being able to foresee the free choices of one of His creatures, not only temporally prior to the creature's making those choices, but also logically prior to the Creator's act of creating that creature, is a logical absurdity. It sounds possible only because we conceive of the creature as a kind of virtual being, existing in the mind of God, complete and fully fleshed out in every detail (including its entire life history), but lacking one thing: actual existence. God then wills this virtual creature into actual existence, thereby creating it. But this picture cannot be true, for creatures (such as ourselves) who enjoy libertarian freedom. If you accept this version of freedom, then God's decision to create an individual possessing it is fraught with real risk on God's part: for God's knowledge of the creature's free choices is logically (not temporally) posterior to His act of making that individual. Once that creature exists, then God knows (by His very nature) what it will do. But not even an omniscient God could know what a being with libertarian free will would do, before deciding to make it. 3. You might object that if God lacks the knowledge of what choices an individual with libertarian free will would make, until God actually decides to make that creature, then God must be ignorant of that individual's choices until he or she comes into existence - which means that God does not know everything at all times. But this objection confuses logical priority with temporal priority. God's decision to make me was not a decision made at a point in time after the creation of the cosmos, even if I began at a relatively late point in cosmic time (around July 1960, when I was conceived). Certainly, God's decision to create me logically presupposes His decisions to create each one of my ancestors, but that does not mean that God made these decisions at an earlier time in the history of the cosmos. He could have made these decisions outside time (as Boethius proposed) or at the very beginning of time (see below). 4. You don't have to subscribe to Boethius' account of God's timelessness (which has been criticized by some philosophers) in order to recognize the distinction between logical priority with temporal priority. Even if you accept (as some theologians do) that God is omnitemporal and omnispatial (existing at all points in space and time), the distinction still makes perfect sense. It works like this. (For simplicity's sake, I'll leave out the angels and concentrate on human beings. Of course, angels and demons are as real as you and I.) (a) God, at the beginning of the world, decided to create the universe, starting with those entities having determinate properties. (b) God, at the beginning of the world, then decided to create Adam and Eve - i.e. the first individuals to possess libertarian free will. Having created them, God instantly realized what fateful choices they would make, billions of years later. Before making them, God did not know what they would do. He only knew what they might do. (c) God, at the beginning of the world, then decided to create each of Adam and Eve's sons and daughters. When I say "then," I do not mean to imply that there was any time delay on God's part; on the contrary, God (being omniscient) had instant feedback regarding Adam and Eve's choice billions of years later. By "then" I simply mean that God's decision to create Adam and Eve's children was logically consequent upon His decision to create Adam and Eve. (d) I think you can now see how God then decided (at the dawn of time) to create you and me, many many generations down the line from Adam and Eve. (e) I think you can also see that God, foreseeing the possibility that Adam might sin, came up with a magnificent contingency plan: the Incarnation. God sent His Son into the world, to redeem us. All right. Now, what about angels? God may have created them at the dawn of time, and having done so, automatically realized that some of them would rebel against Him and wreak havoc in the world. But God has already thwarted their plans. He did that at Calvary. Creation is still plagued by all manner of natural evils. However, Christians believe that this is a temporary setback, and that one day, there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth. Don't ask me what that means: I have no idea. All I know is that death shall be no more.vjtorley_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

DonaldM (72), The thing that's missing from this entire discussion is a definition of what you mean by "evil". I think most people have a gut feeling that the 9/11 attacks were "evil" without really knowing what "evil" actually means; for example, if the 9/11 attacks are evil, what about the USAF attacks on, say, Hanoi in North Vietnam - were they "evil"? And the imprisonment and torture without any sort of proper judicial process of people in Gitmo etc. who are actually innocent - evil or not? I submit this discussion is absolutely pointless without a definition of "evil".Gaz_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

This is in response to magnan in #51 and Paul in #52. Magnan writes:
You seem to have some private definition of “innocent”. The dictionary definition of innocence (Wiki): “being not guilty of a particular wrongdoing, or being more generally in a state of blissful ignorance (in particular due to young age)”. This is my definition, where following general usage I interpret “wrongdoing” more generally as simply some specified action that resulted in suffering. In other words, innocent is not having brought on the situation (in this case suffering) through deliberate knowing action. Certainly this definition has real meaning. If not, please explain.
And Paul essentially agrees with this:
Thus I would suggest as a suitable starting point that “innocent suffering”, as suggested by magnan (#46), is as good a place as any to start. And I agree that it is hard-wired into us (although insisting that evolution [presumably mechanistic evolution] did it is begging some important questions).
As I see it, the issue here is that the very concept of innocence itself presupposes an "ought". It might be stated this way: "It ought to be the case that the innocent do not suffer." By extension, then, the suffering of the innocent is considered wrong. The problem is, on the NA worldview, (which is what this discussion is about), there's no coherent way to make the claim that the innocent ought not suffer beyond saying "I personally don't like it when innocent people suffer." There's not even a coherent way to define who the innocent are. To re-use the examples I already gave, in Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews, it was certainly the view of the Allies that the Jews were the victims of innocent sufferent, and as such it was morally wrong and evil that that suffering was being inflicted upon them by the Nazi's. But the Nazi's (at least at the leadership level) didn't see the Jews as innocent, but as destroyers of Arayan purity and the like (in very broad terms). On the NA's worldview no one can say which is right or wrong (good or evil) beyond their own preference as to how things ought to have been. In our time, many, if not most, Americans considered the acts of 9-11 to be evil in that innocent fellow citizens suffered. But in other parts of the world, the events of 9-11 were celebrated as heroic. On the NA's worldview, whose to tell us which is good or evil? Sure, our commmunity and culture in the USA thinks it was evil; but communities and cultures elsewhere do not. The challenge for the NA's is to develop a coherent argument to tell us why 9-11 really was evil and that such acts are always evil in all times and places. My contention is that on their worldview it is impossible for them to do so, and nothing said in this entire discussion has indicated otherwise. That's the real point.DonaldM_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Seversky (#67), Most of your post is logically sound. However, when you say,
The only thing beyond His [the Christian God's] power is making the impossible possible or overcoming a logical contradiction such has making a square circle. Since there is nothing obviously impossible or even contradictory about Gc preventing all evil if He chose without compromising free will, the defense can only succeed by postulating a lesser god.
you make a logical mistake. If God truly gives us freedom to choose to love or not to love, how can this be logically consistent with His making sure that we cannot chose not to love? This seems like a logical contradiction, very much like making a square circle. Could you explain how this works? If not, does it not take out a fundamental premise of the rest of your post and make the argument invalid?Paul Giem_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Another footnote: Heaven -- as generally understood -- is not a whole world, it is an eternal state post a world in which free choice has consequences. [I point out a defect in IEP's analysis here.]kairosfocus_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Footnote: While we are at it, S, have a look here too, on evil as evidence for God. Key excerpt: _____________ >> Evil is real . . . That's why people object to it. Therefore, objective moral standards must exist as well [i.e. as that which evil offends and violates] . . . . The first thing we observe about [such] moral rules is that, though they exist, they are not physical because they don't seem to have physical properties. We won't bump into them in the dark. They don't extend into space. They have no weight. They have no chemical characteristics. Instead, they are immaterial things we discover through the process of thought, introspection, and reflection without the aid of our five senses . . . . We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled upon something real. Yet it's something that can't be proven empirically or described in terms of natural laws. This teaches us there's more to the world than just the physical universe. If non-physical things--like moral rules--truly exist, then materialism as a world view is false. There seem to be many other things that populate the world, things like propositions, numbers, and the laws of logic. Values like happiness, friendship, and faithfulness are there, too, along with meanings and language. There may even be persons--souls, angels, and other divine beings. Our discovery also tells us some things really exist that science has no access to, even in principle. Some things are not governed by natural laws. Science, therefore, is not the only discipline giving us true information about the world. It follows, then, that naturalism as a world view is also false. Our discovery of moral rules forces us to expand our understanding of the nature of reality and open our minds to the possibility of a host of new things that populate the world in the invisible realm . . . . [Now, too] The argument against God based on the problem of evil can only be raised if some form of moral objectivism is true. Morals, therefore, exist. I need not give a complete taxonomy of ethical guidelines to make my case. If there is even one moral absolute, it invites the question, "What kind of world view explains the existence of this moral rule?" Atheism can't make any sense of it. Neither can most Eastern religions. If reality is an illusion, as they hold, then the distinction between good and evil is ultimately rendered meaningless. Something like the Judeo-Christian or Muslim idea of God must be true to adequately account for moral laws. Morality grounded in God explains our hunger for justice--our desire for a day of final reckoning when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, when all the guilty are punished and the righteous are rewarded. This also explains our own personal sense of dread. We feel guilty because we are guilty. We know deep down inside that we have offended a morally perfect being who has the legitimate authority to punish us. We also know we will have to answer for our own crimes against God. In the end, we're forced to accept one of two alternatives. Either relativism is true or morality is true. Either we live in a universe in which morality is a meaningless concept and are forever condemned to silence regarding the problem of evil, or moral rules exist and we're beholden to a moral God who holds us accountable to His law. There are no other choices. As Dr. Francis Schaeffer put it, "These are not probability answers; [these] are the only answers. It is this or nothing."[5] If one is certainly false, the other is certainly true. That's the way rationality works. >> ________________ In short, the picture is not at all so one-sided as atheists often make it seem.kairosfocus_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Seversky: You are trying to treat a DEFENSE as a THEODICY, revealing your lack of currency. (Onlookers cf here. IEP also has an interesting account here. [Especially observe Mackie's tellingly revealing response to the logical success of the defense.]) GEM of TKI PS: Reflect on what a logically possible state of affairs is, and how if augmenting a set of claimed contradictory premises A, B, C, D with another, Z, leads to a coherent conclusion E. In such a case the augmentation by Z shows that A, B, C, D MUST be coherent. The onward discussion is on the empirical realities and intuitions of a real world in which evil exists AND real virtues exist. Let us note that the core Christian message -- and this is relevant as it is specifically the Christian conception of God that is being attacked -- is that God solves evil through loving self-sacrifice, taking our pains into himself; and gives "proof of this to all men" by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead with 500+ eyewitnesses; so that we have an opportunity to be part of God's solution. PPS: Propose a world in which real choice exists and is not used with a diversity of outcomes. Then explain the difference between such a world and one in which no real choice exists; i.e one in which omnipotence has been used to subtly program creatures such that there is no actual choice involved in actions that in this world are called virtues, as they are intuited to stem from virtuous choice. After that, provide an account of true virtues that does not imply real choice. PPPS: Then, S, you will need to address the comparative difficulties challenge, first on the evidently inescapable intellectual and moral incoherence of evolutionary materialist atheism, then [cf here too] on the broader problem of the one and the many. (No, you don't have a "right" to make evo mat prevail by default on sniping at other worldviews.)kairosfocus_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 25
You are seriously out of date. Cf summary of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, here. (FYI, this was worked out and published in the 1960’s – 70’s.)
The date has little to do with it. The Free Will Defense argues, in part, that any evil contingent on the human exercise of free will is tolerated by the Christian God (hereinafter known as Gc)because the alternative would be worse or lead to greater evil. Just how it would be worse or what the greater evil might be is unspecified, Gc's will and purpose in these matters being inscrutable. Unfortunately, for this defense to succeed, the concept of Gc as a tri-omni perfect deity must be sacrificed. The argument rests on the proposition that Gc has no viable alternative to allowing some evil in order to prevent some other greater evil. But one of Gc's defining properties is that of omnipotence. The only thing beyond His power is making the impossible possible or overcoming a logical contradiction such has making a square circle. Since there is nothing obviously impossible or even contradictory about Gc preventing all evil if He chose without compromising free will, the defense can only succeed by postulating a lesser god. Now, while there is nothing wrong with postulating a God with more limited powers, it does present a problem for those who cite God as the Supreme Authority on all questions of morality since that claim rests squarely on the Gc concept of unimpeachable perfection. Just as with Arthur C Clarke's Third Law of Prediction which states that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" so we could argue that any sufficiently advanced alien would be indistinguishable form a lesser god. We might respect the knowledge and the power of such a being, some might even worship it out of fear, but it could not claim the moral authority entailed by Gc's state of perfection. In summary, the Free Will Defense only rescues Gc from the contradiction inherent in the concept by downgrading it to that of the sort of advanced alien that Richard Dawkins has been mocked for allowing as a possibility.Seversky_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Seversky,
And I agree, it is going to be difficult and messy. But who said it would be easy? Just because it is likely to be hard is no reason not to at least try and we may find ourselves surprised by just how much we agree.
The first thing that I would say is that I have no moral obligations to even work out my own morality, much less that it should agree with yours if I do. There is no moral obligation or reason to try unless I decide it haphazardly, like a woman shopping for a hat.Clive Hayden_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I was taught that there is only one real evil. That is the deprivation of salvation. So if a person is killed by a fallen rock and is saved, then is the killing by the rock evil. If not, then if there were two people killed by an avalanche evil? If not, then how many have to be killed before what happened is evil. If the person gets a severe disabling disease, pick any one, and the person is saved, was the disease evil. There are numerous cases of the "innocent" (whatever that means) suffering but I fail to see what that has to do with evil. That sounds like a classical biblical counsel that those who work hard and play by the rules will get rewarded in this life. And if it turns out otherwise, then is it evil? I grew up with people who were my age who had cerebal palsy, Downs, severe birth defects, etc. I thought what had happened to them as very unfortunate but not evil. It seems what a lot of people call evil is something that makes them feel squeamish and would not want to happen to them or makes them fell uncomfortable when they learn about it. I have brought up several examples before on other discussions of evil which illustrated this point. And then to attribute unpleasantness in this world to God is absurd. If there is no God, then it is meaningless. If there is a God and his plans are salvation, then what happens here to someone is also meaningless. Granted this is a Christian perspective and some others might not agree with this perspective. Another conundrum is what is evil in a supposed evil act. For example, if someone shoots someone and kills them for no good reason, is the person evil who did the shooting or is the act itself evil. Are certain acts evil or does evil only apply to the person and his motive? Can a person commit what is an evil act but have good intentions? Is the person then evil? Is the act then evil? Also we have the gold standard in evil, Hitler. What makes Hitler or Nazis more evil than others? Is it the act or the motive. Why not Timur? He makes Hitler look like a piker. There is a huge statue of him in Uzbekistan in his honor. Would it make any difference if the numbers were less? I could go on and on with different examples and I bet we could not get any agreement on anything.jerry_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

jerry:
I will ask my traditional question on a thread that has to do with evil. What is the definition of evil and why are some acts/situations/happenings evil and others not? I have never seen it answered yet but we discuss it at length.
Neither good nor evil can be defined quantitatively. This is because they transcend nature. They are ideas that reside in a separate dimension; the soul. Quality, love, hate, beauty are also in this category. Only their effects can be discussed. My belief is that we can only view the ultimate effects good and evil from their logical consequences. This is because goodness often reveals itself 'through' evil and evil hides 'beneath' goodness. Examples: abortion may appear as a good in that the mother could be saved, a child with defects could be spared 'innocent suffering', a victim of rape could avoid psychological damage, etc. Yet there is plenty of evidence testifying to the damaging effects of abortion, the psychological scars. Shouldn't we encourage society to support expecting mothers in their time of distress? As well, who are we do decide that a child with defects would not enjoy their temporal experience? How about the child of incest or rape? Regardless of the circumstance of their conception, can they not decide for themselves once they come of age if their life is worth living? If we are so fond of life and living and are astounded by the wonder of it all, let ALL have a go, ABSOLUTELY. And again, all of us in society have a responsibility to counsel, provide emotional and yes, financial support to victims of rape and incest as they deal with the trauma. But abortion only amplified the pain. There is no chance to bring good from bad. There is only bad topped with more bad. Capital punishment seems a good because justice would be served. Yet state-sanctioned killing has never shown a positive effect on society. Retribution brings emotional gratification for sure, but does not ease the pain of loss. Rather, it complicates it. For the innocent now becomes equally guilty of ignoring the nature and consequences of the act of killing. Euthanasia would obviously stop a person's suffering. This is a difficult one, I know. Yet my belief and personal experience is that those suffering are doing the greatest service to humanity. They are pillars of strength (read Fuastina's Divine Mercy in My Soul). ---Suffering is the hardest to understand from an agnostic/atheist view since preservation of the body is the highest priority. But from a Christian perspecitve, it is the soul that has the highest priority. Whereas, what appears evil to some like earthquakes, floods, disease, are facilatators of the good. Destructive nature beckons us to enhance our cognitive skills to learn and practice preventive design and maintanence of our surroundings, self-sacrifice to support rebuilding and caring for the hurt in areas where PD&M was ignored, or pleads for teaching and funds to do PD&D was left unheeded, etc. As well, Stephen Hawkings degenerative disease has not stopped him from learning. Ask him if he wants to pull the plug, so to speak. John Paul II in the same way, struggled to the end with grace, dignity,honour and majesty; and he gave us a gift of grace upon his death. I don't know how many recieved it but I was a recipient of that grace. His pain was our gain for sure. But if you cannot discern and don't believe, how can you take advantage of such a gift? My Mom's pain was a great, great gift. She never, ever considered euthanasia. She told my sister she had no idea of the difficulty of her decision to forge ahead without the needle. Thank God she made that decision. Her death was the most powerful moment in my life. She reached out from the depths of an oncoming coma, and hugged my father for one last time, in our whole family's presence. She crossed the bridge to the Crystal Palace with courage, power, grace, and majesty. Wow! is all there was to say. IOW, goodness nurtures and binds, evil divides and destroys. Neither can be discerned fully from appearances but often only from the reasoned, rational, logical end of their effects.Oramus_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

JamesBond You asked for a recommendation regarding a good ID textbook. I haven't read it myself yet, but I'd suggest you buy The Design of Life .vjtorley_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

DonaldM, "Let’s lay aside for the moment that Dawkins considers God fictional, that is to say (in Dawkins’s words) “almost certainly does not exist.” (even that betrays some slight doubt on Dawkins’s part)." There's doubt only to the extent that Dawkins can't absolutely prove a negative, i.e. it can't be proved that something doesn't exist, including God. It puts God in the same category as Thor, unicorns and fairies.Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Regarding are humans selfish, as a topic on it's own: Why do we have a problem with selfishness? For some reason people don't want to be selfish and that's an inherent part of the package too. And that would mean that people aren't selfish.lamarck_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @ 22
I mean no disrespect, but your quote indicates that you don’t really understand the New Testament God. Most Christians understand that the Old Testament God is the same as that portrayed in the New Testament. The demiurge notion was effectively destroyed by the Early Church fathers. If you can’t understand that, you have no business really, defining for Christians what the NT God is like. We already know that He is the same as the OT God.
We can all read the Bible and reach our own conclusions about what it means. I have known Christians who would argue for a different interpretation of the Scriptures but you are certainly right in that you are all entitled to worship the God of your choice.Seversky_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 21
—Seversky: “The obvious question is what is to prevent us from working out our own morality, from setting our own standards of good and evil?” The obvious answer is that we would all have different standards based on our own selfish proclivities.
and Clive Hayden @ 24
Go ahead and work out your own morality, and I’ll do the same, and ne’er the tween shall meet, for it will only be by artifice, and what you prefer will be different than what I prefer.
...made much the same point. And I agree, it is going to be difficult and messy. But who said it would be easy? Just because it is likely to be hard is no reason not to at least try and we may find ourselves surprised by just how much we agree.Seversky_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply