I have often commented that it is the arguments of theistic evolutionists, as opposed to those offered by Creationists, that have convinced me that evolution and Christianity can not be reconciled in any reasonable way. A good case in point is Francisco Ayala.
Via Ed Brayton I came across this profile of Ayala from Tuesday's New York Times. In it we find items such as this:
Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all.”
Or consider, he said, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates' genitals, along with all their other parts.
So far, so good. I'm assuming that a “personal” God refers to an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. It is certainly true that ID, in the form proposed by the Dembski/Behe crowd, really ratchets up the problem of evil. Behe, in a rare fit of intellectual honesty, admitted this forthrightly in The Edge of Evolution. If you have God constantly intervening to tinker with his creations, a flagellum here a blood clotting cascade there, then all of the nastiness and cruelty of nature is placed right at his feet.
But how does evolution solve the problem?
For the midges, Dr. Ayala said, “it makes evolutionary sense. If you are a male and you have mated, the best thing you can do for your genes is to be eaten.” But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”That is also the message of his latest book, “Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion” (Joseph Henry Press, 2007). In it, he writes that as a theology student in Spain he had been taught that evolution “provided the 'missing link' in the explanation of evil in the world” -- a defense of God's goodness and omnipotence, despite the existence of evil.
“As floods and drought were a necessary consequence of the fabric of the physical world, predators and parasites, dysfunctions and diseases were a consequence of the evolution of life,"”he writes. “They were not a result of a deficient or malevolent design.”
I think it is highly debatable whether floods and drought are a necessary consequence of the fabric of the physical world. (Note that necessary has to mean logically necessary if this is to serve as a resolution to the problem of evil.) Leaving that aside, how does recognizing awfulness like “predators and parasites, dysfunctions and diseases” as inevitable consequences of evolution somehow absolve God of responsibility?
God, after all, set the evolutionary process in motion. It was He who decided that the appropriate way to create a species with human-like intelligence was several billion years of evolution by natural selection (helped along by numerous mass extinctions, we should add). If we find it unlikely that a benevolent God would directly create parasites and the rest, why should we find it likely that God would set in motion a process that has parasites as a near-inevitable consequence?
The only way out of this is to argue that in some way God was logically compelled to create through evolution. He grieves regularly over the general awfulness of nature, but accepts it as the price He had to pay to achieve His goals. Ken Miller takes some steps in that direction in Finding Darwin's God. He writes:
Clearly, many people look at the string of historical contingencies leading to our species as something that diminishes the special nature of humankind. What they fail to appreciate is that the alternative, a strictly determined chain of events in which our emergence was preordained, would require a strictly determinant physical world. In such a place, all events would have predictable outcomes, and the future would be open neither to chance nor independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is also a world in which we would never be free. (pp. 273)
I'm sorry, but isn't that paragraph just obvious nonsense? Strict determinism is hardly the necessary consequence of human inevitability. A human baby is the inevitable result of purely material processes playing out during the nine months of pregnancy, but that baby eventually grows up and becomes a free and independent person. God could simply have brought us into existence instantaneously, and then, His creation finished, could have granted us the freedom to explore our world at will.
I find it interesting that Miller's fellow theistic evolutionist Simon Conway-Morris bases his theological views on precisely the opposite premise. From the preface of his book Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe:
Contrary to popular belief, the science of evolution does not belittle us. As I argue, something like ourselves is an evolutionary inevitability, and our existence also reaffirms our one-ness with the rest of Creation. Nevertheless, the free will we are given allows us to make a choice. Of course, it might all be a glorious accident; but alternatively perhaps now is the time to take some of the implications of evolution and the world in which we find ourselves a little more seriously.
Well, which is it?
Unless Ayala can explain why God felt compelled to create through evolution by natural selection, I'm afraid he has done nothing to resolve the problem of evil.
People like Ayala, Miller and Conway Morris are surely among the best theistic evolution has to offer, yet their arguments represent the crassest sort of desperation and special pleading. Ayala's argument for why evolution resolves the problem of evil is afflicted with obvious holes. (Lest you think that the Times article was too short for him to develop his argument seriously, let me assure you this is not the case. I have read his book, and he does not provide any additional illumination there.) Miller's argument is based on an obviously false premise, and even taken it at face value does not explain why Darwinian evolution specifically had to be the mechanism through which God created. Conway Morris' argument is almost certainly false biologically, but even leaving that aside it leaves us in no better position theologically than the ID folks. If we can not explain why God directly creates nasty creatures, we also can not explain why he sets in motion a process that inevitably leads to nasty creatures.
Why are such intelligent people willing to tie themselves into these knots? Why not simply acknowledge the more likely branch of Conway Morris' dichotomy? The reason the relentless march of science seems so constantly to menace religion is that we are, indeed, just a glorious accident?
Comments
Insightful, Jason!
Dang, I had trouble even writing a response to this. When I was a kid playing with Hot Wheels, I often had trouble getting them to successfully jump from one track to the other. I think I'd have to practice doing the same jumps and loopdey-loops just to follow how exactly the being responsible for everything could still not be responsible for evil or suffering, even though he's responsible. But not.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | May 1, 2008 10:27 PM
... over the general awfulness of nature ...
I assume you're not using "awful" to mean "inspiring awe". To which I suppose: One man's awfulness is another man's elegance.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 1, 2008 10:35 PM
Why are such intelligent people willing to tie themselves into these knots?
I dunno. What are they even arguing about? They don't even have a starting point from which to argue do they?
Do they have conversations with their god or something? Otherwise, how would they even have a clue? Even if they do talk to their god, how do they know it's telling them the truth?
Posted by: 386sx | May 1, 2008 10:50 PM
I disagree, in part. If evolution cannot be reconciled with religion in any reasonable way, it's because the problem of evil cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way. Evolution by itself doesn't present any additional problems, no more than it presents additional solutions.
Posted by: miller | May 1, 2008 10:53 PM
Surely these guys must be having converstions witht heir god, right? Otherwise why would they sound like they know what they're talking about? Good luck getting them to admit that though. At least fundamentalists will admit that they're having chat sessions their god all the time!
Posted by: 386sx | May 1, 2008 10:57 PM
Miller: I think that is what Jason is saying: the theistic scientists have not found any reconciliation in evolution. They are back to square one. Religion, once again, simply pushes the question back a step and announces it has figured something out and that things make sense.
Posted by: john-riley harper | May 1, 2008 11:27 PM
I'm not sure why you think Miller's view is at odds with Conway-Morris's view.
And theologically, evolution fits nicely. The story of Jesus is the story of the greatest of people, the king of kings, being born neglected, in a stable. From the humblest of beginnings, great things come, in other words.
How does evolution differ?
Don't get hung up the way creationists do, assuming scripture must somehow explain exactly, scientifically, how life originated. That's not what scripture is for.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 1, 2008 11:27 PM
And theologically, evolution fits nicely.
Of coarse it does because you want it to. Theologically creationism fits nicely too. The story of Jesus is the story of the greatest of people, the king of kings, being created "poof" in Mary's womb.
If theologically evolution fits nicely, then what took the theologians so long. Theologically whatever you want fits nicely with whatevah.
I don't think being visited by three wise men and having the angels in the heavens blowing trumpets sounds like "being born neglected".
Soon as science discovers something else, then theologically that's going to fit nicely too. Unless you don't want it to. Then it won't.
Don't get hung up the way creationists do, assuming scripture must somehow explain exactly, scientifically, how life originated. That's not what scripture is for.
Okay thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 12:10 AM
"And theologically, evolution fits nicely. The story of Jesus is the story of the greatest of people, the king of kings, being born neglected, in a stable. From the humblest of beginnings, great things come, in other words."
Ed, what's going on here with this graph? It's a string of non sequiturs. What are you getting at?
Posted by: caynazzo | May 2, 2008 12:19 AM
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Theologically that doesn't sound like being born neglected. I'm sorry.
Boy those shepherds must have really been scared there for a minute what with the glory of the Lord shone round about them and whatnot!
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 12:32 AM
Don't get hung up the way creationists do, assuming scripture must somehow explain exactly, scientifically, how life originated. That's not what scripture is for.
Mr. Darrell, why is it that it is science that determines what scripture is for, but religion is utterly irrelevant in that regard? Why is that?
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 12:43 AM
386sx:
I'm not Ed, but this is just a silly comment. You don't need science to tell you that large parts of the Bible are historically understood to be non-literal, since later authors quote earlier bits non-literally.
(Disclaimer: I'm insufficiently familiar with the sacred texts of other religions to know if this argument is more generally applicable or not.)
Posted by: Pseudonym | May 2, 2008 1:48 AM
Spot on, as usual. Quit that book Jason, and get some more blogging done.
Worth mentioning that Ayala invokes NOMA:
"Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge..."
As has been said so many times, what a load of nonsense. The day religion restricts itself to purely metaphysical claims is the day we all have nothing to say any more. As Ayala / Miller are at the Catholic end of the spectrum (and it's my area of expertise), let's list a few:
1. God actually works miracles in this world. Today. Shame no-one seems able to release well-documented evidence thereof.
2. Prayers and petitions to saints achieve something.
3. If a loving husband and wife with 5 children have sex using a condom (in order to prevent the burden on their family of another child), it's a gravely immoral act.
I could go on.
Posted by: snafu | May 2, 2008 4:47 AM
Gods were invented by previously evolved humans (and maybe even sensed by an ape or two) to explain and control the good and evil "forces" which had previously been conceived of by those same humans (and perhaps sensed by an ape as well) to describe what appeared to be the purposeful vagaries of an otherwise godless nature. You might then say that evolution created the gods, making it rather difficult for that evolution to have been the tool of its own invention.
Posted by: royniles | May 2, 2008 5:39 AM
That's a grossly oversimplified christology, and an even more grossly oversimplified view of evolution. I could easily "reconcile" any fictional story to any scientific theory if I were permitted to water each down to the point where they can be summed up in a single vague platitude.
"Theologically, plate tectonics fits nicely. The Eqyptian book of the Dead has the Sun god Amon-Ra rising and falling, rising and falling, and giving forth fire and heat.
How does plate tectonics differ?"
"Theologically, the germ theory of disease fits nicely. Leprechauns are tiny, mischievous beings who can do incredible things.
How do germs differ?"
"Theologically, quantum mechanics fits nicely. In Ghostbusters, the ghosts pop in and out of existence unpredictably, and can only be detected and controlled by being blasted with light.
How does quantum mechanics differ?"
Posted by: Wes | May 2, 2008 7:52 AM
I'm not Ed, but this is just a silly comment. You don't need science to tell you that large parts of the Bible are historically understood to be non-literal, since later authors quote earlier bits non-literally.
Yeah but large parts of the Bible were historically understood to be literal too, but now they ain't. The "religious method" is useless for determining which parts are literal and which parts aren't. If something was understood to be non-literal then it must have been something obviously non-literal. No religion necessary for determining the obvious, homie!
Did the later authors of the Bible quote the earlier bits about the flood or the creation story or the exodus non-literally after having determined the stories were non-literal via the wonderfully accurate religious methodology? I don't think so dude!
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 9:12 AM
I wish the author(s) of the creation story had let us know if they "historically understood" the creation story to be non-literal. That would probably help a lot. Thanks a lot!
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 9:28 AM
Some discussion here as well: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/02/ayalas-darwins-gift.html
And I have a review of his book coming out in Cosmos magazine; however, that probably won't be on the internet for a considerable time.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 2, 2008 9:50 AM
I wish the author(s) of the creation story had let us know if they "historically understood" the creation story to be non-literal. That would probably help a lot. Thanks a lot!
Actually the religious method is extremely helpful for determining that the creation story is indeed meant to be taken very literally. Gee thanks a lot religious method!
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 3:01 PM
I wish the author(s) of the creation story had let us know if they "historically understood" the creation story to be non-literal. That would probably help a lot. Thanks a lot!
Though your statement is a rhetorical one with no interest in digging at the heart of the matter, you raise a good point which Hugh Ross handles rather well in his book The Genesis Question. I actually find Ross more convincing than Conway-Morris and Miller when it comes to reconciling the Bible with evolution.
Posted by: Lofcaudio | May 2, 2008 4:49 PM
You need to understand to whom all those quotes are directed to. It's to the religious side of the house. First a disclosure. I am one those theistic evolutionists. I have argued on the American Scientific Affiliation list that it's pointless to argue the theodicies above because all historical theodicies ended up with a bigger problem than they tried to solve. Case in point, Leibniz' theodicy that this was the best of all possible worlds was brutally satirized in Voltaire's Candide.
But, back to my point. What Ayala et al are saying is that contrary to the impression many religious people have evolution is less of a problem than intelligent design to a person of faith. The ID folk have made out evolution to be some atheistic conspiracy when it has not. In order to defend ID, Behe in the Edge of Evolution implies that God is specifically tinkering with the Plasmodium parasite to resist our attempts to eradicate it. (I think one of the reasons why Behe doesn't specifically identify the intelligent designer to be one and the same God he as a Roman Catholic believes in is because of the implications vis-a-vis theodicy here.) As monstrous as you might think Ayala's God is that's even worse and that's what Ayala and others are trying to communicate to their religious peers.
Ayala's mistake in my opinion is trying to specifically identify God's higher purpose(s) and because of it you have ably dispatched his argument in short order. Not only has theological history shown this to be a fool's errand it is also highly offensive -- and rightly so -- to those who are suffering.
Posted by: Rich Blinne | May 2, 2008 7:36 PM
Though your statement is a rhetorical one with no interest in digging at the heart of the matter, you raise a good point which Hugh Ross handles rather well in his book The Genesis Question.
Lofcaudio, there is no "digging at the heart of the matter". People can project whatever intentions they want into the minds of the authors of the creation stories. And so they do. Because they can.
Posted by: 386sx | May 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 2, 2008 9:44 PM
Posted by: Rich Blinne | May 2, 2008 7:36 PM
"Ayala's mistake in my opinion is trying to specifically identify God's higher purpose(s) and because of it you have ably dispatched his argument in short order. Not only has theological history shown this to be a fool's errand it is also highly offensive -- and rightly so -- to those who are suffering."
But where, in Jason's or anyone else's argument that ably dispatched the higher purpose assertion, is that dependence on their own personal suffering that you are magically pulling out of a cloud somewhere? Aren't we ably dispatching the higher purpose claim using impersonal, unemotional, facts and logic? Or is acknowledging that too much to ask of a theistic evolutionist?
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | May 3, 2008 12:07 AM
Ed Darrell, Lilith is from the Sumerian prologue to the The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Ancient Mesopotamia, which has nothing to do with Genesis.
Aquinas, following the lead of Augustine, argued that the natural sciences serve as a kind of veto in biblical interpretation. Augustine says that if physicists show us that there cannot be physical light without a luminous source then we know that this particular passage does not refer to physical light. The Bible cannot authentically be understood as affirming as true what the natural sciences teach us is false. Yet the same problem remains: Prior to science identifying what must be vetoed, what we now consider non-literal passages from the bible were considered to be literally true, including the passages about the night and day before the sun, etc. Religion itself never veteod biblical interpretation, only science did that, even in the time of Augustine and Aquinas. Today that veto covers all of the Genesis version of the origins of the world but in Aquinas' time it was just a partial veto.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | May 3, 2008 12:32 AM
The problem of evil has theological answers that have to do with "free will". This would be quite compatible with a view of evolution as a deistic natural process, and I think that is what Miller is trying to get at.
Posted by: NP | May 3, 2008 2:12 AM
Posted by: NP | May 3, 2008 2:12 AM
'The problem of evil has theological answers that have to do with "free will".'
As Jason wrote in his article here in response to Miller's argument "God could simply have brought us into existence instantaneously, and then, His creation finished, could have granted us the freedom to explore our world at will." How does a need for human "free will" justify evolution with the very long history of chance sequences of events that could have taken very different paths from that which it did and which incorporates predators and prey and parasites and disease and all that, and then there are non-biological, physical natural disasters, etc.? At what point in evolution did humans acquire a "free will" that is unique to humans and absent from other primates, mammals, etc.? I know, its all about faith, that is the fallback, but isn't invocation of faith here an evasion?
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | May 3, 2008 2:54 AM
You know, Riche Blinne seems like the kind of sensitive, moderate, liberal theist with whom I have no serious quarrel, if I can judge from this from the one comment that I've read. If all theists were like that, there'd be no need for any heat in discussions of religion.
But I must add that, when I (so often) read or hear religious people say explicitly that they think all attempts at theodicy are failures, I don't know why they don't draw the further inference that it is irrational to believe in a God whose ways are justifiable (in the sense that they are the ways of a loving, providential, omnicompetent deity). In other words, why not draw the inference that belief in such a God is contrary to reason, and therefore false, and with it the adherence to any form of religion that involves belief in such a God?
It's no big deal: hey, may all the hardline fundamentalists in the world become nice religious liberals of various kinds! That would improve the world greatly.
But I still don't get it.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 3, 2008 9:42 AM
What? Theologians have noted that creation stories are not literal for the past 5,000 years or so. See the story of Lilith; see the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, among others. What took you so long to notice?
Thanks Mr. Darrell I'll read up on that sometime. Sorry for the wisecracks up there. I get in a hyper mood sometimes. Hope I didn't offend anybody. Thanks Mr. Darrell!
Posted by: 386sx | May 3, 2008 7:42 PM
"At what point in evolution did humans acquire a "free will" that is unique to humans and absent from other primates, mammals, etc.?"
Humans acquired free will when they were created human by God. God took the dust of the earth (on the evolutionary hypothesis, an animal--some primate--with an animal soul whose body had developed over time into whatever the earliest human form was) and infused it with a human soul (a soul possessing the power of intellection, as opposed to the merely sensitive, animal soul). At that point the species Man came to be. We were no longer of the species Ape or whatever, due to the specific difference of rationality that we now possessed.
The reason why being created human caused us to have free will is that it is the presence of the intellective soul that makes free will possible, inasmuch as the will is the rational appetite. Objects of desire--of appetite--are apprehended through the senses, a decision is made by the intellect through reasoning to either obtain or not obtain the object, and the will is conformed to that choice. Because we are able to move toward or away from things solely on the basis of conclusions drawn through ratiocination, our choices are not constrained, but free.
Choice, in the full and proper sense of free choice, is only possible in creatures possessed of intellect (since you don't believe in God or angels, that would limit it to man). Animals have a natural power of estimation that mimics in some ways the power of rational choice in man, but inasmuch as animals do not reason their "choice" is not free. It is constrained by what you would call "instinct."
------------------------------------------------------------
Note that except for the part about how man acquired his free will (which I was obliged to include because that's what you asked), this is all the product of purely secular, Aristotelian philosophy.
Posted by: James Newland | May 3, 2008 8:23 PM
"But I must add that, when I (so often) read or hear religious people say explicitly that they think all attempts at theodicy are failures, I don't know why they don't draw the further inference that it is irrational to believe in a God whose ways are justifiable..."
I understand your bewilderment. It doesn't seem, as stated, to make much sense. On the other hand, I've never heard a believer say that they think all attempts at theodicy are failures absolutely. Maybe that's because I run with the wrong crowd or something, but what I have heard people say is that they think it's a waste of time to try to use such arguments to convince hostile unbelievers. I agree with them in that. There is no argument, no matter how logical or rational, that can force anyone to believe what they're determined not to believe.
I've never had a lot of trouble with the problem of evil myself. The Christian position is that evil entered the world with sin. Prior to Adam's sin, man suffered no evil. However, Satan was permitted by God to tempt Adam, such temptation being seemingly evil, yet not really, insofar as it could easily have been resisted. Adam suffered nothing in being tempted; it was only after he freely chose to share in Satan's evil that he himself, and the human race following him, suffered.
I liken fallen man to a previously well-behaved dog that has picked up a habit of biting its master. Whereas before punishment and obedience training were unnecessary, now they are. Moreover, there is the fact that God, being completely without any need for us, owes us nothing. We exist only insofar as He permits us to exist. Thus, we're not in a position to complain that anything we suffer is unjustified. It is fully justified, from God's perspective. We're just a pack of vicious dogs who, really, unless we choose to submit, the world would be better off without. (And be without us it will, should be die in our vicious state...)
But I see the difficulty unbelievers have, insofar as it is often the meekest among us who suffer the worst evils, while the worst biters seem to get off scot-free. There are many reasons for this, I think, not least among them God's desire to mask, or obscure, His actions in the world from unbelievers. If appropriate earthly punishments always and infallibly accompanied man's transgressions, there would be no question of faith; of freely chosen love of God. We would be obliged by direct experience to acknowledge God's existence and obey Him, like slaves obeying the whip of their master. But that isn't what He wants. He wants our, for lack of a better word, "pure" love. So he obscures His lessons and His reproofs, masking them in ways that only those "with ears to hear" can hear.
Now, since we are all destined for a supernatural end--either an unutterably joyful one in heaven, or an eternity of well-deserved torment in hell--those who suffer in this world can turn it either to their advantage or disadvantage by suffering either willingly or unwillingly. Let's take the case of a saintly person, who is least of all deserving of earthly suffering. The saintly person suffers such evils patiently, because he/she wishes to cooperate with God's will. In doing so, she builds up her treasure in heaven: her real, ultimate destination, which nothing on earth can compare to. The defiant man, on the other hand, whines and cries about the injustice of it all, when in fact it's not, particularly given his reaction, unjustified at all. He begs to be dumped in the river and drowned like the ugly, hateful specimen he is.
(Admittedly, innocent babies and children who have not reached the age of reason are a hard case. They are vicious dogs by nature, but they haven't actually bitten yet--or they're at least not yet culpable. Christians have struggled with this question since the beginning and there's no hard agreement about it. Yet it is, in principle, answerable. I will, however, demur for now.)
So I hope I've at least suggested how the ways of God can be rationally justifiable to the Christian, while not to the unbeliever. Again, if one rejects the teaching of man's fall from grace and his alienation from God, then of course the presence of evil in the world seems arbitrary and unjust. But if one accepts it, it all makes perfect sense.
Posted by: James Newland | May 4, 2008 2:00 AM
I know that James Newland´s arguments are hardly original, but as it is Sunday and I have some spare time available I can not resist.
James Newland
"There is no argument, no matter how logical or rational, that can force anyone to believe what they're determined not to believe."
I do not think so. I would rather say that the arguments that are presented are not very convincing. Let´s take a look at yours.
"I've never had a lot of trouble with the problem of evil myself. The Christian position is that evil entered the world with sin. Prior to Adam's sin, man suffered no evil. However, Satan was permitted by God to tempt Adam, such temptation being seemingly evil, yet not really, insofar as it could easily have been resisted. Adam suffered nothing in being tempted; it was only after he freely chose to share in Satan's evil that he himself, and the human race following him, suffered."
I am afraid that your attempt at theodicy is as good as doomed right from the start. Our scientific knowledge lets us conclude that the likelihood of a single man being the ancestor of all humanity is so low that it is indistinguishable from 0. But for the sake of argument I will play along.
You hit the next wall when you state that Adam was rightly punished for giving in to Satan´s temptation because he could have resisted. However, we are talking about an OMNISCIENT deity here, i.e. God knew beforehand that Adam would not resist. So what is the point of punishing a creature that God himself created in full knowledge of its flaws? Why did he have to "test" Adam at all as he knew all along what the result would be? A test only makes sense if you are unsure of the outcome.
And finally, concerning this preposterous notion that every descendant of Adam is inherently sinful and in need of redemption, how does that square with God being merciful and loving toward his creation? Sounds more like collective punishment to me. But I see that you provide a "reasonable" explanation for this in the next paragraph.
"I liken fallen man to a previously well-behaved dog that has picked up a habit of biting its master. Whereas before punishment and obedience training were unnecessary, now they are. Moreover, there is the fact that God, being completely without any need for us, owes us nothing. We exist only insofar as He permits us to exist. Thus, we're not in a position to complain that anything we suffer is unjustified. It is fully justified, from God's perspective. We're just a pack of vicious dogs who, really, unless we choose to submit, the world would be better off without. (And be without us it will, should be die in our vicious state...)"
Ahh, what a kind and benevolent deity, which results in an equally loving, healthy and positive picture of human beings. So we are just wretched little scum, which can but grovel at the feet and lick the hand of its master in the hope of being forgiven for something that a distant ancestor once did. Meanwhile, every evil, misfortune and calamity that befalls us is nothing more than we deserve. Charming. Is anyone else reminded of a cosmic Genghis Khan at this point? Somehow I am having difficulties to see a loving and caring deity in this picture. But that may be just me.
"But I see the difficulty unbelievers have, insofar as it is often the meekest among us who suffer the worst evils, while the worst biters seem to get off scot-free. There are many reasons for this, I think, not least among them God's desire to mask, or obscure, His actions in the world from unbelievers. If appropriate earthly punishments always and infallibly accompanied man's transgressions, there would be no question of faith; of freely chosen love of God. We would be obliged by direct experience to acknowledge God's existence and obey Him, like slaves obeying the whip of their master. But that isn't what He wants. He wants our, for lack of a better word, "pure" love. So he obscures His lessons and His reproofs, masking them in ways that only those "with ears to hear" can hear."
Aha, so God wants our "pure", freely chosen love. I would like to know how that fits into your next paragraph where you state that anyone who fails to obey God will receive his/her just reward in the form of eternal punishment in hell. If you really believe this, it seems to me that you have as much freedom in this matter as if someone puts a gun to your head. Such a behaviour would be appropriate for a petulant, malevolent bully.
I also note that you did not fail to employ the really worn-out "You must believe it to understand it" line. I realize its attractiveness for the religious apologist, since it absolves him from producing evidence and/or a reasonable argument in favor of his position. Unfortunately, this maxim can be used to justify even the most ludicrous and psychopathic propositions and must therefore be rejected.
I would further be interested to hear how you KNOW all these things about the mind of God, e.g. that he wishes to obscure his lessons, that he wants our pure love etc. As it is, these are just assertions that you trot out to bolster your argument.
And then we have this little gem:
"Admittedly, innocent babies and children who have not reached the age of reason are a hard case. They are vicious dogs by nature, but they haven't actually bitten yet--or they're at least not yet culpable. Christians have struggled with this question since the beginning and there's no hard agreement about it. Yet it is, in principle, answerable. I will, however, demur for now."
Nonono, please do not just demur. Please explain how it is rational to believe in an omnibenevolent deity that punishes little babies and children for Adam´s sin. After all, this is a consequence of the proposition you have tried to defend here. These babies and children who die agonizing deaths through floods, earthquakes, malnutrition, mistreatment etc. justly get what God metes out, right? They are just vicious dogs that can be treated as God sees fit, or not? Who are you, a fellow vicious dog, to say that they are not culpable if your master decides they are? I would REALLY like to hear your answer to this.
"So I hope I've at least suggested how the ways of God can be rationally justifiable to the Christian, while not to the unbeliever. Again, if one rejects the teaching of man's fall from grace and his alienation from God, then of course the presence of evil in the world seems arbitrary and unjust. But if one accepts it, it all makes perfect sense."
Well, I would not presume to speak for others, but in my view to say that you have fallen short would really be an understatement.
It is not only the fact that your first premise of a literally existing Adam who was tempted by the Devil is scientifically untenable. What is even more damning IMO is that your arguments, which were targeted (at least I hope so) at defending the notion of an omnibenevolent, loving and caring God ended up portraying a deity with attributes that are anything but. Furthermore, it seems to me that in order for your argument to make any sense you would have to deny God his omniscience.
Looking forward to your answer.
Posted by: Iapetus | May 4, 2008 6:18 AM
Iapetus,
I think this notion of falling from grace into sin and the subsequent punishment is interpreted all wrong. It is a narrow interpretation of The Fall, it is a popular one, but it is also a nonsensical one.
The Fall is described in allegory as man eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This should tell you something about what is going on. Why wasn't it simply a regular old tree whose fruit was forbidden? Because the nature of that fruit is the important thing. The eating of the fruit allegorically alludes to that point in the evolution of humans when they acheived consciousness, self-awareness, and imagination. At that point, suddenly free-will, morality, empathy for the suffering of others, modeling our own possible role in that suffering, modeling the consequences of potential actions, etc, all become valid subject matter for discussion. This is the point where "knowledge of good and evil" become possible. These abilities are creative abilities and as such, they are abilities cast in the image of the God, the Creator himself.
As far as we know, or certainly as far as ancient man knew, other species do not have this capacity, therefore they don't share the responsibility of it. Although my dog seems to have a really affectionate personality, she is mostly carrying out aspects of her biological programming. She doesn't alter her behavior based on conviction of abstract concepts such as democracy or a God. The potential actions of my dog might be endearing or they might be horrible if she kills some child like an enraged pit bull. However, there is no way you can call the actions of my dog moral or immoral.
Since that moment (or time period) when these human mental abilities evolved, all subsequent progeny inherited the same capacity. Once Adam can imagine an evil act, model its outcome, and consider his own role within it, he can truly be evil and as his heir, so can I. Adam is the first person who can sin (meaning the first hominid who can deliberately bring about the suffering of others through action or abstaining from action, with full foreknowledge of the result.) and as heir to his mental abilities, so can I.
As far as I am concerned, Genesis is a book of astonishing wisdom for being written thousands of years ago.
How does this square with evolution? I will certainly not claim that Genesis was written with an awareness of evolution. But I will claim that Genesis is not in conflict with it unless you choose to interpret it literally.
But then, interpreting it literally reduces it to a disney cartoon with apples and talking snakes.
I know this doesn't answer the theodicy problem, but at least it shows Genesis to be something more than an interesting fable.
Posted by: Chiefley | May 4, 2008 9:54 AM
As for the theodicy problem, Genesis also contains some wisdom regarding that. Unlike the creation stories of other religions, Genesis is unique in drawing a huge distinction between the Creator and his creation.
Genesis tells a story of a Creator who deliberately empties out his omnipotency and creates a "region" where an imperfect Creation exists and operates through its own natural processes. It is this very notion that gave Judeo-Christian adherents the notion that the Creation was something that could be observed and understood scientifically. Although it took a long time, it was the this understanding of Genesis that gave religious Judeo-Christians "permission" to consider natural processes as something worthy of study.
This emptying out of God's omipotence in the "region" where God creates The Creation, is called by a Greek word, kenosis.
The Book of Job, which is considered to be the oldest book in the Bible, is an allegory about theodicy and kenosis. The highly successful Job's life is ruined by Satan messing with Job's destiny. (Satan is always represented as part of Creation, by the way, not a co-equal with the Creator).
Job ends up destitute, his beautiful family dead, and he is lying in the mud with his skin falling off and crying out for an explanation from God. An ancient theodical "Why Me??". Job's friends all come and attempt to console him with the kind of folk religion theodicies we here even today. "God has a plan for you", "Everything happens for a purpose.", "What you sow, so shall you reap.", etc.
Job is dissatisfied with all of these explanations and in his final demand for an accounting from God, God appears to answer his question. God's answer, however, is a long and terrifying description of aspects of The Creation. In other words, God starts discussing natural processes. In effect, he is telling Job that the chain of causality for processes in the universe is so complex, that mere Job will never figure it out. So Job might as well simply remember that "Shit happens."
In Job, God declares his kenosis. For the most part, the universe works through its own natural processes.
Posted by: Chiefley | May 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Chiefley
"I think this notion of falling from grace into sin and the subsequent punishment is interpreted all wrong. It is a narrow interpretation of The Fall, it is a popular one, but it is also a nonsensical one."
I agree with you that a literal interpretation of Genesis is both scientifically false and also results in logical contradictions regarding the attributes of God. Since James Newland seemed to start off from this premise, I accepted it for the sake of argument.
"The eating of the fruit allegorically alludes to that point in the evolution of humans when they acheived consciousness, self-awareness, and imagination. At that point, suddenly free-will, morality, empathy for the suffering of others, modeling our own possible role in that suffering, modeling the consequences of potential actions, etc, all become valid subject matter for discussion. This is the point where "knowledge of good and evil" become possible. These abilities are creative abilities and as such, they are abilities cast in the image of the God, the Creator himself."
Well, I would be tempted to deem the last sentence an assertion lacking any evidence. Furthermore I doubt that there was a defined point in time during human evolution when mental capacities like self-awareness, empathy, free will (the presence or absence of which in human beings is highly contested amongst philosophers and neuroscientists alike, BTW) suddenly appeared from nothing. Behavioural, cognitive and molecular studies in higher mammals indicate that the ability to feel empathy towards the suffering of others, to recognize oneself as a distinct entity etc. is present at least to some extent in e.g. apes, dogs and cats. Therefore it is sensible to infer that the cognitive capacities of modern humans emerged gradually over time and were not the result of a sudden, maybe even supernaturally assisted leap. This however raises the question as to when a human being is sufficiently evolved to be regarded as capable of sinning. How does God decide this? Is a speculative proto-human safe from punishment of sin because he has not crossed that threshold? I think that when a hypothesis raises these kinds of questions which allow only for an arbitrary answer or none at all, it is a sign that the fundamental premises are incorrect.
"Since that moment (or time period) when these human mental abilities evolved, all subsequent progeny inherited the same capacity. Once Adam can imagine an evil act, model its outcome, and consider his own role within it, he can truly be evil and as his heir, so can I. Adam is the first person who can sin (meaning the first hominid who can deliberately bring about the suffering of others through action or abstaining from action, with full foreknowledge of the result.) and as heir to his mental abilities, so can I.
As far as I am concerned, Genesis is a book of astonishing wisdom for being written thousands of years ago."
But this interpretation of Genesis can not be right because according to the literal view Adam was punished for DOING evil, i.e. consciously disobeying a command by God. In contrast, you seem to understand original sin to be merely the CAPABILITY of committing this sin, which Adam did not even choose to have as it was thrust upon him by evolution. Unless you posit that there is no "sin" we have to be redeemed from and that Genesis is merely a parable of our ability to do evil. However, then I have to ask: What did Jesus die for?
"How does this square with evolution? I will certainly not claim that Genesis was written with an awareness of evolution. But I will claim that Genesis is not in conflict with it unless you choose to interpret it literally.
But then, interpreting it literally reduces it to a disney cartoon with apples and talking snakes."
And why would that be clearly false? How do we decide whether or not the writers of Genesis meant everything, something or nothing to be taken literally? Why not go one step further and posit that this curious, invisible "God" character is just a colourful metaphor for our innate moral conscience that punishes us with remorse when we perpetrate an evil act? I would say that you are in danger of a form of retrograde thinking, i.e. you realize that many parts of the Genesis story (and the Bible as a whole) are bound up with an obsolete view of the world, yet you do not want to discard it completely. The answer then is to try and fit our current knowledge into the Biblical narrative by declaring some parts which collide with known facts a metaphor while holding on to the rest. I believe that this is not a good way of pursuing the truth.
Posted by: Iapetus | May 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted by: James Newland | May 4, 2008 2:00 AM
"Humans acquired free will when they were created human by God. God took the dust of the earth (on the evolutionary hypothesis, an animal--some primate--with an animal soul whose body had developed over time into whatever the earliest human form was) and infused it with a human soul (a soul possessing the power of intellection, as opposed to the merely sensitive, animal soul). At that point the species Man came to be. We were no longer of the species Ape or whatever, due to the specific difference of rationality that we now possessed."
That could work, if there was a point of time when the power of intellection began. Intellection proceeded Homo sapiens sapiens, it is found in other primates and non-primates, and other sub-species such as Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo neanderthalensis were intelligent. There was a step by step increase in brain volume among Homo species over time. It is difficult, I think it is impossible, to reconcile the notion of a sudden introduction of the power of intellection with the historical record. Of course, religion as we know it "begins" only after humans acquired written langauge. But that is a logical necessity, and to interpret that as indicating humans were given written language by God is like interpreting the rising and falling of the sun as evidence that the sun circles the earth, it is interpreting the sequence backwards. Gods were all created by Human intellection, not the other way around.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
I just wanted to add that I was not proposing that intellection suddenly popped into being with one particular person called Adam. I was just showing how Genesis has wisdom beyond the cartoon notions of talking snakes, apples, and original sin.
Also, the notion of The Fall referring to intellection is not an attempt to fit Genesis into a framework of what is known now from modern science. The authors of Genesis did not need modern science in order to observe that man seemed unique in those abilities.
I believe the authors of Genesis did think that intellection appeared all of a sudden, but that is no more important than the talking snake. It is interesting that in Genesis, Creation is what bestows intellection on Man.
Also, the notion of original sin was a construct from the second century and made popular by St. Augustine later on.
Thanks for the great comments Iapetus and Explicit Atheist.
Martin Luther felt that we know nothing of God except that what is revealed through Jesus. Jesus makes that claim a few times in the NT. So it is interesting to consider the accounts of Jesus' short lifetime in the world. Like the previous poster said, Jesus was born a helpless baby to an unwed mother in a pig trough. He grew up undoubtedly suffering from some childhood diseases. Throughout his ministry he performs some miracles that for the Creator of the Universe are really no more than simple parlor tricks. He heals a few infirmities, but that healing is local. He does not heal all blindness or cure all those who are lame.
He finally allows himself to be done in by petty politics and jealousy and is nailed to a tree to die a painful death in which he does not intervene.
So his whole life, from birth to death is a dramatic submission of the Creator of the universe to the very natural processes that he created. Jesus exhibits the same Kenosis that is implied by Genesis. According to the story, Jesus' death serves a cosmic purpose, but that purpose is carried out outside the world, after he dies.
Jesus' career in the world is decidedly "low impact" when it comes to natural processes. I believe this is an important point when thinking about theodicy.
Posted by: Chiefley | May 5, 2008 12:59 AM
Thanks for making this point! I find that theistic evolution is an oxymoron in trying to reconcile dysteologica[[ atelic] natural selection with teleological God. It is the new Omphalos argument that albeit the weight of evidence shows no pre-conceived plans ,there is deception in that there are those plans! No, selection contradicts any teleology and also is its own boss [unless Will Provine is right that other natural forces are its boss.]
We no more need God as a personal explanation, contrary to Richard Swinburne, than we need gremlins in addition to mechanical laws to explain mechanical failure, demons in addition to psychology to explain mental illness or Thor in addition to meteorology to explain the weather.
Furthermore, God is otiose: He amounts to the unimformative tautology that God wills what He wills or God did it- a pseudo-explanation.
Contrary to the indefatigable Eugenie C. Scott, the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology ! She alleges that scientists who so aver, are not making a scientific point but a philosophical one but that ignores that weight and the demarcation problem as Paul Draper points out to me in an email.
She can, for all I care, try to get creationists to see that they can have their God and evolution and find divine purpose but not with this assertion of hers. From the side of religion , she is so right but from the side of science, she goes too far!
Furthermore, her concern is with the creationists whereas mine and others is with the truth that there is probaly no God. She should not bash us for that! Dawkins shows that there is no design but patterns.
Furthermore, teleological arguments beg the question of design - that we or other intelligent animals had to arrive.
All theodicy is a series of rationalizations like Ayala's to exonerate God from the imperfections and evil! See the problem of Heaven in my friend Graham Oppy's thorough "Arguments about God."
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth [SKEPTIC GRIGGSY] | May 5, 2008 4:21 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 5, 2008 1:36 PM
If it's non-anthropogenic, it's not evil.
Posted by: royniles | May 5, 2008 3:16 PM
"If it's non-anthropogenic, it's not evil."
God(s), should it exist, most certainly would have evil to answer for (I can't imagine to whom, but nevertheless).
Posted by: JimCH | May 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Evil is a human concept, where causation of harmful, painful, and destructive events was attributed to supernatural forces of nature. The concept involves intent and purpose. But the only beings that we know of where such intent and purpose are demonstrated would be life forms. We know of no extra-terrestrial life forms (except the imaginary) that operate with any specific intent to impose such evil upon life forms here on earth.
By our own imaginings, if Gods exist, it is because we had traced their evil deeds back to that source. We might thus have only ourselves to blame.
Posted by: royniles | May 5, 2008 4:08 PM
I have to say, I found most of Jason's article pretty good. Except maybe the stuff about free will. Biological determinism undermines the notion of free will.
What I find missing (on a metaphysical level) from most of the Christian theological speculation about evil is the concept of reincarnation. The Christian conception of creation simply doesn't make a lot of sense of evil if we are only here once and have to deal with how the cards are dealt one and once only. It's like basing your entire life on the outcome of one hand of poker, rather than a long series of hands that determine general playing skill in the face of all the good and bad hands that can be dealt. Reincarnation puts evil into perspective - that we are here over and over again until, so to speak, we get it right. Evil is part of what we have to deal with in ourselves and in others. Evolution can then be seen as a mechanism that produces the full range of possibilities in order to test us under all possible conditions, and to enable us to learn and grow by the hard knocks of life. Even the worst outcome in any individual life - horrible death by torture, say - is still only one lifetime among many, and could actually help us to grow and mature. Nietzsche's dictum that whatever does not kill us makes us stronger leaves only the "makes us stronger" if we don't actually die, but reincarnate. Reincarnation also makes it possible for us to make the kind of turnabout necessary to change our own evil ways, sometimes, perahps, by being the victims of evil ourselves.
Now, this kind of thinking is abhorent to some - both religious Christians and atheists. But it certainly is a lot more coherent and sensible explanation for why the world would have evil in it if God created it. But it does throw out the window the notion that the purpose of creation is to create a Utopia of Good. It is not. It suggests that God created the world as a place for souls to grow and learn how to be compassionate in the face of terrible randomness and tragedy.
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 4:12 AM
"it certainly is a lot more coherent and sensible explanation for why the world would have evil in it if God created it."
However, even ignoring whether "coherent" and "sensible" are apt, if one puts this God/reincarnation-based concept and nihilism in adjacent barbershop chairs, I believe the latter comes out smoother. Though, of course, not necessarily more appealing.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | May 6, 2008 7:21 AM
Charles,
I'm not clear on what your point is in comparing reincarnation to nihilism, in relation to this issue of theodicy. Reincarnation is not nihilistic, and is not indifferent to the problem of evil.
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 7:28 AM
conradg,
I believe Charles refers to Occam's Razor, i.e. a theodicy that requires a concept like reincarnation looks an awful lot more complicated than the assumption that the class of omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator gods is empty and therefore we have no need of a theodicy of any kind.
Posted by: Iapetus | May 6, 2008 7:49 AM
lapetus:
You should consider a career in cryptology.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | May 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Charles,
Thanks. But you know what they say: Every dog has his day...;-)
Posted by: Iapetus | May 6, 2008 8:19 AM
Iapetus,
Thanks. I thought something along those lines too. I just don't see how that factors into this particular thread, in that we don't seem to be debating the issue of which is the simplest explanation, but how any theology can deal with the issue of theodicy and also accept evolution. If we start with the presumption that all theology is bullshit, then why even bother with the discussion?
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 8:50 AM
conradg,
"I just don't see how that factors into this particular thread, in that we don't seem to be debating the issue of which is the simplest explanation, but how any theology can deal with the issue of theodicy and also accept evolution. If we start with the presumption that all theology is bullshit, then why even bother with the discussion?"
I do not wish to speak for Charles, but I have not understood him as saying that all theology is bullshit from the start. Rather, the question is which concept is more parsimonious, corresponds best with the known facts and involves the least hand-waving and special pleading (and therefore according to our experience is more likely to be true): that reality does not care one way or the other whether human beings suffer pain, disease, misfortune etc. as it was never intended as a place of enjoyment for us since we are not an inevitable or even likely outcome of the evolutionary process.
Or the alternative view is correct that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being created this reality with us in mind. However, this position runs into the problem of having to be reconciled with the gratuitious misery and suffering that befalls us so often, not to mention that evolution by natural selection as we currently understand it seems to be as a-teleological as you can get. Consequently we watch these elaborate twists and turns like those reported in Jason's article or your idea of reincarnation. However, quite apart from the lack of concrete evidence for any of these attempts at theodicy, Occam's Razor should lead us to conclude that the first option is the most likely.
That is not to say that it is impossible to come up with a theodicy that reconciles evolution and God. You can ALWAYS erect these kinds of mental constructs that serve to rescue your favourite idea from outright refutation. But this does not mean that the result is plausible or likely to be true.
Posted by: Iapetus | May 6, 2008 9:31 AM
"I do not wish to speak for Charles"
Please do - I could never speak for myself so eloquently.
And I have not, in fact, said "all theology is bullshit" (at least not in a public forum like this ~(:>)). However, a common theme through what little theology I've read seems to be "Let me explain how one might think about the god that I must assume exists in order for me to carry on." I don't denigrate that posture - life is, in fact a bitch, and one must cope somehow; it's just the posture of neither me nor numerous friends. We all "carry on" quite satisfactorily without the need for (cosmic, of course) purpose, meaning, hope, justice, etc.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | May 6, 2008 10:37 AM
thanx a lot
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com
www.p2parea.com bedava ödev alanı
www.p2parea.com
Posted by: Global | May 6, 2008 2:51 PM
Look, theology takes its conclusions for granted. It has no place in logical argument for that reason. Considering hypotheticals is one thing, but talking about assumptions as though they were demonstrated facts is another.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 6, 2008 2:52 PM
http://www.p2parea.com Bedava ödev indir, ödev yükle, okul ödevleri, tez, ödev kapakları, ödev kaynakları, Yıllık Ödev Dönem Ödev Kapakları p2prea.comBedava ödev indir, ödev yükle, okul ödevleri, tez, ödev kapakları, ödev kaynakları, Yıllık Ödev Dönem Ödev Kapakları p2parea.com
Posted by: Global | May 6, 2008 2:53 PM
lapetus: I would say that you are in danger of a form of retrograde thinking, i.e. you realize that many parts of the Genesis story (and the Bible as a whole) are bound up with an obsolete view of the world, yet you do not want to discard it completely.
I disagree that the Genesis story portrays an "obsolete view of the world." I would instead argue that you along with Young Earth Creationists ("YEC") have used your own interpretations of said story to conclude things which frankly, are not supported in the Biblical account.
lapetus: The answer then is to try and fit our current knowledge into the Biblical narrative by declaring some parts which collide with known facts a metaphor while holding on to the rest.
The Genesis account is an ancient writing written in an ancient language for an ancient group of people to be passed down and applied over a lengthy period of time. Yet you (and presumably many others) can easily dismiss it because your own interpretation does not align with "known facts." Can you give me an example where the Bible "collides with known facts"? Just one will suffice.
lapetus: I believe that this is not a good way of pursuing the truth.
Pursuing truth is using any and all sources of evidence. Ignoring credible sources is the definition of ignorance (which is why those YECs look silly when they badmouth science). You obviously feel that the Bible is not a credible source for anything. I would disagree in that I think that the Bible is an excellent resource on many things, but only those things that it was intended to be a resource.
Posted by: Lofcaudio | May 6, 2008 3:30 PM
Iapetus,
I don't have a problem with your voicing the view that any form of theism is inferior to atheism, or that atheism passes the Occam's Razor test, while all forms of theism do not. But that seems to me a different discussion than the one Jason opened up here, which has to do with whether the specific theological forms of theism he cites (all Christian) which attempt to resolve the issue of theodicy, can reconcile themselves with the facts of evolution. I think he does a very good job of essentially destroying those attempts, and pointing to their internal inconsistencies. Other religious commenters here, such as James Newland, who attempt to defend Christian notions of theodicy, introduce so many internal contradictions into their argument as to virtually refute it all on their own, without much commentary. I'm more addressing these commentators, and pointing out that the weaknesses in the general Christian view of a benign Deity creating a world in which evil clearly exists among men, and uncaring randomness in world events, are generally solved by introducing the concept of reincarnation.
So if we are to stick to the thread topic, it would certainly make sense to use Occam's Razor to compare the Christian cosmology to a reincarnation-based cosmology, and see which more efficiently reconciles itself with the facts of evolution and evil in the world. I think the reincarnation model wins that test. Now, maybe you're not much interested in that discussion, and wish to point out that you think both of them are so far inferior from atheism as to be virtually identical in implausibility. That's fine, but it seems to be a departure from the discussion of whether any theological system can show internal consistency in relation to theodicy. I don't think the Christian system does, but I think the reincarnation system works pretty well in that regard, even if it were incorporated into general Christian notions of metaphysics.
I'm flattered that you think I've invented the whole idea of reincarnation just to try to create some metaphysical system that can make sense in relation to science and evolution and the general problem of evil. But I think you well know that reincarnation is a very ancient religious belief, and that even many early Christians believed in it. It was not considered heresy among Christians until about 600 AD if memory serves me correctly. It was certainly not invented to solve the problem of theodicy, or to satisfy the criticisms of scientists or atheists. There's many variants of reincarnation to look to and see which are most easily reconcilable with the facts of evolution, but it's also simply true that many such systems, such as the Hindu and Buddhists systems, already posited evolution as a part of their cosmology many thousands of years ago. They didn't describe it in terms of natural selection, but they did clearly see the reincarnation model as an evolutionary model, unlike the Christian one, and this was certainly achieved to some degree simply by adopting a more naturalistic view of God than Christians do.
I understand that Jason and most here prefer to criticize Christianity, given their involvement in the whole creationist movement, but it remains the case that Christianity is just one of many theological systems out there, and that pointing out the flaws in Christianity does not constitute a generalized criticism of religion, or religious approaches to the problem of evil existing in a universe created by God.
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 4:42 PM
Lofcaudio,
"I disagree that the Genesis story portrays an "obsolete view of the world." I would instead argue that you along with Young Earth Creationists ("YEC") have used your own interpretations of said story to conclude things which frankly, are not supported in the Biblical account."
This is a rather vague, general statement. Could you be more specific as to what you think my interpretations are and in which way they are not supported by the Biblical account?
"The Genesis account is an ancient writing written in an ancient language for an ancient group of people to be passed down and applied over a lengthy period of time. Yet you (and presumably many others) can easily dismiss it because your own interpretation does not align with "known facts." Can you give me an example where the Bible "collides with known facts"? Just one will suffice."
I feel in a generous mood and will even give you two:
1. A single man ("Adam") being the ancestor of humanity.
2. A global flood which killed off every animal except those that were passengers on Noah's Ark.
"Pursuing truth is using any and all sources of evidence. Ignoring credible sources is the definition of ignorance (which is why those YECs look silly when they badmouth science). You obviously feel that the Bible is not a credible source for anything. I would disagree in that I think that the Bible is an excellent resource on many things, but only those things that it was intended to be a resource."
I would not say that the Bible is not a credible source for anything. It certainly gives insights into the worldview of some of the people living in a small part of the Middle East 2-3000 years ago, what their cosmology, their moral system or their societal conditions looked like. In that regard I concur with you and see the Bible as a valuable resource for historians and anthropologists. However, I have a feeling that this is not what you had in mind. Therefore I will add that I would be very careful to assign any validity to the supernatural claims regarding the feats of Yahweh or Jesus.
Posted by: Iapetus | May 6, 2008 4:46 PM
Charles,
I know you're too decent a guy to say something like "All theology is bullshit". That's just my way of crudely summarizing your view. But I think you have put the same sentiment in less crude terms here. I simply don't find how that is germane to the thread itself, which involves an actual discussion of the specifics of various theologies, rather than just a benevolent dismissal of them all as irrelevant. You argument seems to be with Jason himself, who addressed these specifics, rather than just dismiss them as not worthy of discussion.
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 6:29 PM
Iapetus,
I think Lofcaudio is looking at Genesis as mythical, metaphysical allegory rather than as scientific reporting. As mythical metaphysical allegory, he thinks it works fine. I think even there it requires a lot of fudging to imagine that it works.
Posted by: conradg | May 6, 2008 6:33 PM
lapetus: I feel in a generous mood and will even give you two:
1. A single man ("Adam") being the ancestor of humanity.
First of all, no where in Genesis does it say that Adam is the ancestor of all of humanity. Genesis 3:20, however, does refer to Eve as the "mother of all living" (which would not necessarily collide with the facts). Secondly, more than likely much (if not all of these first chapters of the Bible) is symbolic. Now just because I am suggesting that this portion of Genesis is symbolic doesn't mean that it can be inaccurate. However, your statement regarding Adam is typical in that it is a poor reading of what the Bible actually say