|
Post by unkleE on Mar 20, 2009 20:33:13 GMT
This comment is based on Humphrey's excellent post on the Quodlibeta Blog. Like most everyone here, I have no difficulties with accepting the truths of both evolution and christianity, and accepting the early parts of Genesis as mythic. I can see there a some good reasons to believe that God "could make all things; but behold, he is so much wiser than even that, that he can make all things make themselves’, an escape from ‘that shallow mechanical notion of the universe and its creator", as Charles Kingsley said. But evolution changes one aspect of apologetics in a way that creates difficulties, and I'd be interested in comment. If we took Genesis literally, then the world was created perfect by God and humanity brought sin into the world, and this sin spread to all the world, and affected all manner of things. We could conceivably believe that before Adam and Eve's sin, lions did not eat other animals (despite the evidence of the structure of their intestines), etc. But after Darwin, we can only believe that evolution and natural selection were part of God's original design, and therefore he chose to have a world which is "red in tooth and claw". (Alvin Plantinga has suggested that the existence of evil spiritual beings prior to the creation of the universe may perform the required apologetic function, but, while I find his other arguments very persuasive, I cannot feel this explanation is sufficient.) So I still find the arguments in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, and I can believe that the good outweighs the bad, but I still wonder why. Do others wonder the same? Have you any answers as to why?
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 20, 2009 22:42:19 GMT
I don't have an answer, but I am reminded of a scene from Hamlet:
Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv'd at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?
Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?
Hamlet: Denmark's a prison.
Rosencrantz:Then is the world one.
Hamlet:A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.
Rosencrantz:We think not so, my lord.
Hamlet: Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
To some extent, "good" and "bad" are questions of perspective. I suppose most people would define good as that which prolongs life, or provides pleasure, comfort or contributes in some way to satisfying perceived needs.
My kids think ice cream is better than vegetables, and wonder how a so-called loving parent could deny them ice cream. From my perspective, vegetables are better for them (and I ate the last of the ice cream after they were in bed last night...ahem).
So what seems good to God must surely be from quite a different, long-term broader perspective than ours.
Of course, you could argue that if God were all-powerful, then he should achieve his goals without death, gangrene, mosquitoes, car accidents etc.
However, this would make us pretty much like blissed-out sea slugs, lying in a plentiful supply of nutrition sucking it up while making no contribution to our own existence. An alternative idea is process theology which (if I understand it) is the view that God is not all powerful, but has limits that make the world full of real risks and consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 21, 2009 7:26:55 GMT
I don't have an answer, but I am reminded of a scene from Hamlet: Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv'd at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither? Guildenstern: Prison, my lord? Hamlet: Denmark's a prison. Rosencrantz:Then is the world one. Hamlet:A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. Rosencrantz:We think not so, my lord. Hamlet: Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. To some extent, "good" and "bad" are questions of perspective. I suppose most people would define good as that which prolongs life, or provides pleasure, comfort or contributes in some way to satisfying perceived needs. My kids think ice cream is better than vegetables, and wonder how a so-called loving parent could deny them ice cream. From my perspective, vegetables are better for them (and I ate the last of the ice cream after they were in bed last night...ahem). So what seems good to God must surely be from quite a different, long-term broader perspective than ours. I agree. I reject that position. If God had such foresight and foreknowledge as to be able to exactly design the physical constants as to be able to produce chemistry and complexity (not to speak of life) to the uncanny degree of accuracy that they must have (the fine-tuning argument), and to create, based on this, an event of such magnitude as the Big Bang (or a wider universe that could produce such an event) out of nothing, then that position is hardly defensible.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 21, 2009 7:36:39 GMT
Yes, great article, Humphrey. Could you please provide the source of that Darwin quote:
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
It is of good apologetic use. I would also suggest to mention the source in the article itself.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 21, 2009 7:39:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 21, 2009 10:43:22 GMT
But after Darwin, we can only believe that evolution and natural selection were part of God's original design, and therefore he chose to have a world which is "red in tooth and claw". (Alvin Plantinga has suggested that the existence of evil spiritual beings prior to the creation of the universe may perform the required apologetic function, but, while I find his other arguments very persuasive, I cannot feel this explanation is sufficient.) So I still find the arguments in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, and I can believe that the good outweighs the bad, but I still wonder why. Do others wonder the same? Have you any answers as to why? Hi Unklee Here are my initial thoughts. The standard account you always get is that, before evolution, all the silly Christians blamed all suffering and death on the fall. This is (somewhat predictably) very wrong indeed. Darwin was heavily influenced by Thomas Malthus, a clergyman and demographer. No-one reads the final section of 'An Essay on the Principle of Population', but if they did they will find that he wrote two chapters of natural theology in order to reconcile Christianity with 'the struggle for existence'. www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prppl10.txtAll his points are worth taking into consideration, especially given that his position was a lot more difficult before it was shown that the 'struggle' is what produces all the wonderful diversity of life. Locke, if I recollect, says that the endeavour to avoid pain rather than the pursuit of pleasure is the great stimulus to action in life: and that in looking to any particular pleasure, we shall not be roused into action in order to obtain it, till the contemplation of it has continued so long as to amount to a sensation of pain or uneasiness under the absence of it. To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to be the great duty and business of man, and this world appears to be peculiarly calculated to afford opportunity of the most unremitted exertion of this kind, and it is by this exertion, by these stimulants, that mind is formed. If Locke's idea be just, and there is great reason to think that it is, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, and exertion seems evidently necessary to create mind.
'The idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are the instruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, and that the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursue good is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplation of human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the existence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that part of both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from the principle of population. But, though, upon this supposition, it seems highly improbable that evil should ever be removed from the world; yet it is evident that this impression would not answer the apparent purpose of the Creator; it would not act so powerfully as an excitement to exertion, if the quantity of it did not diminish or increase with the activity or the indolence of man. The continual variations in the weight and in the distribution of this pressure keep alive a constant expectation of throwing it off."Hope springs eternal in the Human breast, Man never is, but always to be blest."
Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity.
We are not patiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It is not only the interest but the duty of every individual to use his utmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circle as he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful these efforts are; the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind, and the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of his Creator.'I did also write a short essay here on natural evil. bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/10/chisel-of-death.html
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 21, 2009 14:43:02 GMT
Eckadimmock:
<i>An alternative idea is process theology which (if I understand it) is the view that God is not all powerful, but has limits that make the world full of real risks and consequences.</i>
Why resort to this? God is not able to do what is logically impossible; this does not impinge on his omnipotence, nor does it require us to further limit God's abilities. As a result, it is perfectly possible that God permits evil because it is needed if He is to be consistent and achieve other, greater goals. In fact, it's really quite likely given God's numerous demonstrations of love for us (e.g. the cross) and the frequent instances of God working around or through "bad" circumstances to achieve something worthwhile (cf. Joseph's abduction and slavery).
A brief theodicy, I admit, but this is the paradigm I use when approaching the typical objection about an omniscient, omnipotent, onmibenevolent God causing suffering.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 21, 2009 21:59:53 GMT
I'm not saying that's my view, but it is one way around the problem of evil. Man-made evil is one thing, but how do you square things like the 2004 Asian tsunami with love?
The choices as I see it are:
1) In the long term, both victims and survivors will benefit, in a sense that is not apparent to us now. 2) The tsunami was a punishment of some kind (as some of the loonier churches and Muslim imams suggested) 3) The Tsunami was a natural process that God knew about, could have stopped but didn't. 4) There are limits to Gods power (possibly self-imposed).
I tend to favour #3, since tectonic shifts are part of the same processes that drive evolution and creation of life on this planet. However, it does leave me with the problem of why God couldn't have chosen a less destructive mechanism. I simply have to have faith that in the eternal scheme such things are for the best. It would be a hard thing to accept if my family had been among the victims, however.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 22, 2009 10:31:16 GMT
I tend to favour #3, since tectonic shifts are part of the same processes that drive evolution and creation of life on this planet. However, it does leave me with the problem of why God couldn't have chosen a less destructive mechanism. I simply have to have faith that in the eternal scheme such things are for the best. It would be a hard thing to accept if my family had been among the victims, however. Personally I'd say 1, 3 and 4 all have some weight, but it's early in the morning and my head isn't sorted yet for digging into them My one comment about the above is: how do you know that God could have chosen a less destructive system and still behaved within the boundaries of logic and consistency? How do you know that, with all variables considered (and there are a heck of a lot of variables in the history of the universe!) that the world would have worked out a better place had the tsunami not happened? We're simply not in the epistemic position to even begin to make judgements like that. I have the "faith" you described above because God has already demonstrated his love and ability to make seemingly bad things work out for good. Course, as you say, this is coming from someone who hasn't lost any family members in a natural disaster...
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 22, 2009 14:11:21 GMT
I think this is one of those topics where you have to write a book to be able to do it justice. Its not something you can resolve in a couple of easy soundbites. The reason for this is, as Malthus observes, 'To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to be the great duty and business of man'.
Being as brief as I can:
1) It seems to me that, for the purposes of producing certain types of moral good, there needs to be attendant evils in the world or at least the possibility of evil occurring.
2) We are part of a much larger system (not a toy world) which needs to work in certain ways and is independent in character. Plate tectonics is a good example, the renewal of the earth's surface is critical and the activity of the plates is important for creating new habitats and niches for evolution to exploit.
3) The situation is made far worse by human evil - compare the activity of an earthquake in China to that in California.
4) It is incumbent on a deity not just to make his creatures happy but also to give them purpose. Often the two will conflict as any parent knows.
5) By looking at history it is possible to see how abhorant events in history have been subsequently redeemed by the unlikely action of contingency. For me, redemption is the highest good.
6) Limiting power is itself a great action. Any historian knows that, in the main, humanity only progresses by making stupid and bloody mistakes. It is better that we go through this process and freely choose to do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Mar 22, 2009 17:13:37 GMT
2) The tsunami was a punishment of some kind (as some of the loonier churches and Muslim imams suggested) This is a crude generalisation of the Muslim response to the Tsunami. Islamic scripture and Muslim theologians generally offer two "explanations" for suffering: 1. It is a trial ( fitna); originally fitna has the meaning of purifying gold through fire, and it 'is only by experiencing hardship, and loss, and bereavement, and disease, that we rise above our egos, and show that we can live for others, and for principles, rather than only for ourselves' (Tim Winter, When the Generous Appears with the Name Avenger: www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/requital.htm - a useful read). The Qur'an says: 'And surely We shall try you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and crops; but give glad tidings to the steadfast. Who say, when a misfortune striketh them: Lo! we are God's and lo! unto Him we are returning. Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.' (2:155-157). The Prophet Muhammad and the Prophets before him also suffered: 'The most severely tried of men are the Prophets' (Bukhari). A hadith also tells us 'Nothing afflicts the Muslim, neither fatigue, pain, anxiety, grief nor injury; nor the prickling of a thorn except that for that God expiates his sins'. Imam Zaid Shakir concludes 'Our understanding of suffering, justice, the trials of this world and many other issues integral to any meaningful assessment of the human condition, are incomplete and inevitably misleading when they are divorced from the next, eternal life' (Reflections on the Tsunami: lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/Reflections%20on%20the%20Tsunami.pdf ) 2. Not so much a punishment, but a consequence of turning away from the sunna (order) God has ordained in the natural world, and for human beings this means obedience to the sacred law. An example is the hadith in Malik's Muwatta 'Never does sexual immorality appear among a people, to the extent that they make it public, without there appearing amongst them plagues and agonies unknown to their forefathers' - with particular reference to HIV; Winter writes 'It is not that AIDS is a punishment for consuming drugs or for sex outside marriage: that is too crude a view. Instead, the hadith indicates that the Sunna is a protection for our kind, which preserves us from breakdowns in the body’s defence systems. And any student of medicine will be aware of the extraordinary complexity of the human immune system: the titanic battles fought between pathogens and antibodies throughout our lives, in every cell of our bodies. To the extent that we deny the Sunna, we unbalance that system, and catastrophe follows.' The Sunna God has ordained is a function of his rahma (mercy) which is His dominant characteristic ( He hath prescribed for Himself mercy (Qur'an 6:12)) and 'it is of God’s mercy, and a proof of His providence, that any life can exist at all' (the Qur'an repeats the taskhir - fine-tunedness - of the created order); turning away from the revealed sunna (which is a 'protection for our kind') has consequences manifesting other Names of God like The Just or The Avenger (which are ontically posterior to the divine Name Rahman, The All Merciful) [this theology of Names, although drawn from the Qur'an, is essentially from the writings of the twelfth century theologian ibn al-Arabi and his successors, like al-Qashani]. In the recently published volume, The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, Winter observes Islamic theology was treated as a "Cinderella subject" which flowed from the persistence of nineteenth-century assumptions about the marginality of abstract intellectual life in Islam. These assumptions has now been successfully challenged so 'the significance of Islamic theology reflects the significance of Islam as a central part of the monotheistic project as a whole, to which it brings a distinctive approach and style, and a range of solutions which are of abiding interest'.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 23, 2009 2:00:49 GMT
I'm sure I did not do the argument justice: I was living in Singapore at the time and I remember an Imam in Banda Aceh (Indonesia) rebuking Indonesians for their loose living, and he appeared to be saying the tsunami was a judgement. There were Muslims who strongly disagreed with him.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 30, 2009 17:28:50 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/Did Darwin Kill God? 31 March, 7pm BBC Two The debate between religion and evolution has been hijacked by extremists: on one side stand fundamentalist believers who reject evolution, and on the other side are fundamentalist atheists who claim that Darwin's theory rules out the possibility of God. Philosopher and theologian Conor Cunningham declares that it's time to set the story straight and argues that it is possible to be both a Christian and accept the theory of evolution. A startling conclusion there!
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 31, 2009 15:57:06 GMT
Podcast from Conor Cunningham here: wirksworthii.nottingham.ac.uk/Podcasts/files/rmg/public/culture/conor.mp3Hope the programme isn't dumbed down too much. Its one thing to state that there is no conflict but you have to address the main objections. 1) Contingency 2) Scriptural difficulties 3) Evolutionary evil 4) The idea that evolution renders God superfluous (skyhook).
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 31, 2009 20:12:26 GMT
Liked the programme even if it only had time to skim over things. Liked the contributions from Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Michael Ruse. Sue Blackmore and her memes were the comedy spot? (took him about 20 seconds to knock that theory on the head). A good swipe or two at the"ultra-Darwinists".
|
|