Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is God Really Good?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Chapter 6, “Is God Really Good?” of my new Wipf and Stock book Christianity for Doubters is almost the same as the “Epilogue” of my 2015 Discovery Institute Press book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. What does the problem of pain have to do with intelligent design? A lot, I think, because after 40 years of promoting intelligent design, it is obvious to me that many of the strongest opponents of design, for all their talk about defending science, are completely immune to scientific arguments, they will never look objectively at the scientific evidence until they can find answers to some very legitimate theological questions they have, three of which I try to address in chapters 4,5 and especially in chapter 6 of the new book: if life is designed, why is it so hard?

The publisher’s flyer with preface and chapter 1 are here. See also sections 2.1, Why Evolution is Different, and 2.3, Why Similarities Do Not Prove the Absence of Design. (All used with permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers.)

6.1 Is God Really Good?

Why do bad things happen to good people? This is the question which Rabbi Harold Kushner, in his highly-acclaimed 1981 book When Bad Things Happen to Good People called “the only question which really matters” to his congregation. It is a question which has been asked by philosophers and ordinary human beings throughout the ages; if not the most-asked question, certainly the most passionately-asked. It was certainly the first question that occurred to me in 1987 when I was told that my beloved wife Melissa, 34 years old and the mother of our two small children (Chris and Kevin), had cancer of the nose and sinuses, and in 1990 when we discovered that the cancer had recurred. The suffering she bravely endured during those years was beyond description, from the aggressive chemotherapy treatments, each of which required hospitalization for severe nausea and other side effects, from the radiation therapy, and from three major surgeries. Before the last surgery, during which they would remove her left eye and half of her teeth, she said, well, many people would be happy to have one eye. The cancer recurred two months after this surgery and I was terribly depressed for many years after her death. Since I am a pretty logical person, it never occurred to me to ask “does God really exist?” but I certainly wondered, “is God really good?”

Melissa Wehmann Sewell (1953-1991)
Melissa Wehmann Sewell (1953-1991)

I think most people who claim not to believe in God, say this not because of any shortage of evidence for design in Nature, but because it is sometimes so hard to see evidence that God cares about us, and they prefer not to believe in God at all, than to believe in a God who doesn’t care.

Of course, Christians point to the life and death of Jesus as the ultimate proof that God does care about us, because he came to live and suffer with us. Jesus asked the same question we have all asked at some time in our lives: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But while it is comforting to think that, despite all evidence to the contrary, God really does care about us, that still does not explain why the world God made is sometimes so cruel.

A wonderful little article in UpReach [Nov-Dec 1984] by Batsell Barrett Baxter, entitled “Is God Really Good?” contains some insights into the “problem of pain,” as C.S. Lewis calls it, which I have found very useful. I will follow Baxter’s outline in presenting my own thoughts on this question, and I would like to begin with his conclusion: “As I have faced the tragedy of evil in our world and have tried to analyze its origin, I have come to the conclusion that it was an inevitable accompaniment of our greatest blessings and benefits.” In his outline, Baxter lists some examples of blessings which have, as inevitable consequences, unhappy side effects. None of these points is likely to make suffering in its severest forms any easier to accept, and we may be left wondering whether these blessings are really worth the high cost. But I believe they do at least point us in the right direction.

6.2 The Regularity of Natural Law

The laws of Nature which God has made work together to create a magnificent world of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls, oceans and forests, animals and plants. The basic laws of physics are cleverly designed to create conditions on Earth suitable for human life and human development. Gravity prevents us and our belongings from floating off into space; water makes our crops grow; the fact that certain materials are combustible makes it possible to cook our food and stay warm in winter. Yet gravity, water and fire are responsible for many tragedies, such as airplane crashes, drownings and chemical plant explosions. Tragedies such as floods and automobile accidents are the results of laws of physics which, viewed as a whole, are magnificently designed and normally work for our benefit. Nearly everything in Nature which is harmful to man has also a benevolent side, or is the result of a good thing gone bad. Even pain and fear themselves sometimes have useful purposes: pain may warn us that something in our body needs attention, and without fear, we would all die young doing foolish and dangerous things, or kill ourselves the first time life disappoints us.

"...a magnificant world, of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls..."
“…a magnificant world, of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls…”

But why won’t God protect us from the bad side effects of Nature? Why doesn’t he overrule the laws of Nature when they work against us? Why is he so “silent” during our most difficult and heart-breaking moments? First of all, if we assume he has complete control over Nature, we are assuming much more than we have a right to assume. It does not necessarily follow that, because something is designed, it can never break down. We design cars, and yet they don’t always function as designed. When our car breaks down, we don’t conclude that the designer planned for it to break down, nor do we conclude that it had no designer; when the human body breaks down, we should not jump to the conclusion that God planned the illness, nor should we conclude that the body had no designer.

That we were designed by a fantastically intelligent super intellect is a conclusion which is easily drawn from the evidence all around us. To jump from this to the conclusion that this creator can control everything is quite a leap. In fact, I find it easy to draw the opposite conclusion from the evidence, that this creator cannot, or at least does not, control everything. Nearly everyone seems to assume that if you attribute anything to God, you have to attribute everything to God. And even if we assume he has complete control over Nature it is hard to see how he could satisfy everyone. Your crops are dry so you pray for rain—but I am planning a picnic. It seems more fair to let Nature take its course and hope we learn to adapt. Controlling the motions of all the atoms in the world so that nothing terrible ever happens to us, so that we always get what we most need, is probably not as easy as it sounds!

In any case, what would life be like if the laws of Nature were not reliable? What if God could and did stand by to intervene on our behalf every time we needed him? We would then be spared all of life’s disappointments and failures, and life would certainly be less dangerous, but let us think about what life would be like in a world where nothing could ever go wrong.

I enjoy climbing mountains—small ones. I recently climbed an 8,700 foot peak in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and was hot and exhausted, but elated, when I finished the climb. Later I heard a rumor that the Park Service was considering building a cable car line to the top, and I was horrified. Why was I horrified—that would make it much easier for me to reach the peak? Because, of course, the pleasure I derived from climbing that peak did not come simply from reaching the top—it came from knowing that I had faced a challenge and overcome it. Since riding in a cable car requires no effort, it is impossible to fail to reach the top, and thus taking a cable car to the peak brings no sense of accomplishment. Even if I went up the hard way again, just knowing that I could have ridden the cable car would cheapen my accomplishment.

When we think about it, we see in other situations that achieving a goal brings satisfaction only if effort is required, and only if the danger of failure is real. And if the danger of failure is real, sometimes we will fail.

When we prepare for an athletic contest, we know what the rules are and we plan our strategy accordingly. We work hard, physically and mentally, to get ready for the game. If we win, we are happy knowing that we played fairly, followed the rules, and achieved our goal. Of course we may lose, but what satisfaction would we derive from winning a game whose rules are constantly being modified to make sure we win? It is impossible to experience the thrill of victory without risking the agony of defeat. How many fans would attend a football game whose participants are just actors, acting out a script which calls for the home team to win? We would all rather go to a real game and risk defeat.

Life is a real game, not a rigged one. We know what the rules are, and we plan accordingly. We know that the laws of Nature and of life do not bend at our every wish, and it is precisely this knowledge which makes our achievements meaningful. If the rules of Nature were constantly modified to make sure we achieved our goals—whether they involve proving Fermat’s Last Theorem, getting a book published, finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, earning a college degree, or making a small business work—we would derive no satisfaction from reaching those goals. If the rules were even occasionally bent, we would soon realize that the game was rigged, and just knowing that the rules were flexible would cheapen all our accomplishments. Perhaps I should say, “if we were aware that the rules were being bent,” because I do believe that God has intervened in human and natural history at times in the past, and I would like to believe he still intervenes in human affairs, and even answers prayers, on occasions, but the rules at least appear to us to be inflexible.

If great works of art, music, literature, or science could be realized without great effort, and if success in such endeavors were guaranteed, the works of Michelangelo, Mozart, Shakespeare and Newton would not earn much admiration. If it were possible to realize great engineering projects without careful study, clever planning and hard work, or without running any risk of failure, mankind would feel no satisfaction in having built the Panama Canal or having sent a man to the moon. And if the dangers Columbus faced in sailing into uncharted waters were not real, we would not honor him as a brave explorer. Scientific and technological progress are only made through great effort and careful study, and not every scientist or inventor is fortunate enough to leave his mark, but anyone who thinks God would be doing us a favor by dropping a book from the sky with all the answers in it does not understand human nature very well—that would take all the fun out of discovery. If the laws of Nature were more easily circumvented, life would certainly be less frustrating and less dangerous, but also less challenging and less interesting.

Many of the tragedies, failures and disappointments which afflict mankind are inevitable consequences of laws of Nature and of life which, viewed as a whole, are magnificently designed and normally work for our benefit. And it is because we know these laws are reliable, and do not bend to satisfy our needs, that our greatest achievements have meaning.

6.3 The Freedom of Man’s Will

I believe, however, that the unhappiness in this world attributable to “acts of God” (more properly called “acts of Nature”) is small compared to the unhappiness which we inflict on each other. Reform the human spirit and you have solved the problems of drug addiction, drunk driving, war, broken marriages, child abuse, neglect of the elderly, crime, corruption and racial hatred. I suspect that many (not all, of course) of the problems which we generally blame on circumstances beyond our control are really caused by, or aggravated by, man—or at least could be prevented if we spent as much time trying to solve the world’s problems as we spend in hedonistic pursuits.

God has given us, on this Earth, the tools and resources necessary to construct, not a paradise, but something not too far from it. I am convinced that the majority of the things which make us most unhappy are the direct or indirect result of the sins and errors of people. Often, unfortunately, it is not the guilty person who suffers.

But our evil actions are also the inevitable result of one of our highest blessings—our free will. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, says,

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having…. Someone once asked me, ‘Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?’ The better stuff a creature is made of—the cleverer and stronger and freer it is—then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong.

Why do a husband and wife decide to have a child? A toy doll requires much less work, and does not throw a temper tantrum every time you make him take a bath or go to bed. A stuffed animal would be much less likely to mark on the walls with a crayon, or gripe about a meal which took hours to prepare. But most parents feel that the bad experiences in raising a real child are a price worth paying for the rewards—the hand-made valentine he brings home from school, and the “I love you” she whispers as she gives her mother and father a good night kiss. They recognize that the same free will which makes a child more difficult to take care of than a stuffed animal also makes him more interesting. This must be the way our Creator feels about us. The freedom which God has given to us results, as an inevitable consequence, in many headaches for him and for ourselves, but it is precisely this freedom which makes us more interesting than the other animals. God must feel that the headaches are a price worth paying: he has not taken back our free will, despite all the evil we have done. Why are there concentration camps in the world that God created? How could the Christian church sponsor the Crusades and the Inquisition? These terribly hard questions have a simple answer: because God gave us all a free will.

Jesus told a parable about “wheat and tares,” (Matthew 13) which seems to teach that the weeds of sin and sorrow cannot be eliminated from the Earth without destroying the soil of human freedom from which the wheat of joy and goodness also springs. It is impossible to rid the world of the sorrow caused by pride, selfishness and hatred without eliminating the free will which is also the source of all the unselfishness and love that there is in the world.

If we base our view of mankind on what we see on the television news, we may feel that good and evil are greatly out of balance today; that there is much more pain than joy in the world, and much more evil than goodness. It is true that the amount of pain which exists in our world is overwhelming, but so is the amount of happiness. And if we look more closely at the lives of those around us, we will see that the soil of human freedom still produces wheat as well as weeds. The dark night of Nazi Germany gave birth to the heroism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie ten Boom and many others. The well-known play “The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds” is about two sisters raised by a bitter mother who suffocates ambition and discourages education. One sister ends up following the path to destruction taken by her mother; the other refuses to be trapped by her environment, and rises above it. It may seem at times that our world is choking on the weeds of pain and evil, but if we look closely we will see that wheat is still growing here.

Again we conclude that evil and unhappiness are the inevitable by-products of one of our most priceless blessings: our human free will.

6.4 The Interdependence of Human Lives

Since it is our human free will which makes our relationships with others meaningful, his third point is closely related to the second, but Baxter nevertheless considers this point to be important enough to merit separate consideration.

Much of an individual’s suffering is the direct or indirect result of the actions or misfortunes of others. Much of our deepest pain is the result of loneliness caused by the loss of the love or the life of a loved one, or of the strain of a bad relationship. How much suffering could be avoided if only we were “islands, apart to ourselves.” Then at least we would suffer only for our own actions, and feel only our own misfortunes. The interdependence of human life is certainly the cause of much unhappiness.

Yet here again, this sorrow is the inevitable result of one of our greatest blessings. The pain which comes from separation is in proportion to the joy which the relationship provided. Friction between friends is a source of grief, but friendship is the source of much joy. Bad marriages and strained parent-child relationships are responsible for much of the unhappiness in the modern world, but none of the other joys of life compare to those which can be experienced in a happy home. Although real love is terribly hard to find, anyone who has experienced it—as I did for a few short years—will agree that the male-female relationship is truly a masterpiece of design, when it works as it was intended to work.

As Baxter writes, “I am convinced that our greatest blessings come from the love which we give to others and the love which we receive from others. Without this interconnectedness, life would be barren and largely meaningless. The avoidance of all contact with other human beings might save us some suffering, but it would cost us the greatest joys and pleasures of life.”

6.5 The Value of Imperfect Conditions

We have thus far looked at suffering as a by-product of our blessings and not a blessing in itself. And certainly it is difficult to see anything good in suffering in its severest forms.

Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice that some suffering is necessary to enable us to experience life in its fullest, and to bring us to a closer relationship with God. Often it is through suffering that we experience the love of God, and discover the love of family and friends, in deepest measure. The man who has never experienced any setbacks or disappointments invariably is a shallow person, while one who has suffered is usually better able to empathize with others. Some of the closest and most beautiful relationships occur between people who have suffered similar sorrows.

It has been argued that most of the great works of literature, art and music were the products of suffering. One whose life has led him to expect continued comfort and ease is not likely to make the sacrifices necessary to produce anything of great and lasting value.

Of course, beyond a certain point pain and suffering lose their positive value. Even so, the human spirit is amazing for its resilience, and many people have found cause to thank God even in seemingly unbearable situations. While serving time in a Nazi concentration camp for giving sanctuary to Jews, Betsie ten Boom told her sister, “We must tell people what we have learned here. We must tell them that there is no pit so deep that God is not deeper still. They will listen to us, Corrie, because we have been here.”

In a letter to our children composed after she realized she had lost her battle with cancer, Melissa wrote:

While I no longer feel physically normal…in an odd sort of way, I feel even more human. I have seen and felt more suffering by myself and others around me in the last few years than I probably ever would have. I have seen children still in strollers hooked up to IV chemotherapy and young children, my own children’s ages, with monstrous tumors bulging from their necks. In the face of this unjust tragedy, they still had a sweet innocent smile on their faces. I have talked with young women and men my own age who are struggling with the reality of leaving their young children and spouses long before their responsibilities of parenthood are completed.

I have also discovered a deepness in relationships with others that I probably never would have otherwise cultivated…. I have seen the compassion and love of others towards me. I have witnessed how good and true and caring the human spirit can be. I have learned much about love from others during these times.

We might add that not only the person who suffers, but also those who minister to his needs, are provided with opportunities for growth and development.

C.S. Lewis concludes his essay on The Problem of Pain by saying “Pain provides an opportunity for heroism; the opportunity is seized with surprising frequency.” As Baxter put it: “The problems, imperfections and challenges which our world contains give us opportunities for growth and development which would otherwise be impossible.”

6.6 Conclusions

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley paints a picture of a futuristic Utopian society which has succeeded, through totalitarian controls on human behavior and drugs designed to stimulate pleasant emotions and to repress undesirable ones, in banishing all traces of pain and unpleasantness. There remains one “savage” who has not adapted to the new civilization, however, and his refusal to take his pills results in the following interchange between “Savage” and his “civilized” interrogators:

“We prefer to do things comfortably,” said the Controller.

“But I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustopha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“Alright then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

If God designed this world as a tourist resort where man could rest in comfort and ease, it is certainly a dismal failure. But I believe, with Savage, that man was created for greater things. That is why, I believe, this world presents us with such an inexhaustible array of puzzles in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology and philosophy to challenge and entertain us, and provides us with so many opportunities for creativity and achievement in music, literature, art, athletics, business, technology and other pursuits; and why there are always new worlds to discover, from the mountains and jungles of South America and the flora and fauna of Africa, to the era of dinosaurs and the surface of Mars, and the astonishing world of microbiology.

Why does God remain backstage, hidden from view, working behind the scenes while we act out our parts in the human drama? This question has lurked just below the surface throughout much of this book, and now perhaps we finally have an answer. If he were to walk out onto the stage, and take on a more direct and visible role, I suppose he could clean up our act, and rid the world of pain and evil—and doubt. But our human drama would be turned into a divine puppet show, and it would cost us some of our greatest blessings: the regularity of natural law which makes our achievements meaningful; the free will which makes us more interesting than robots; the love which we can receive from and give to others; and even the opportunity to grow and develop through suffering. I must confess that I still often wonder if the blessings are worth the terrible price, but God has chosen to create a world where both good and evil can flourish, rather than one where neither can exist. He has chosen to create a world of greatness and infamy, of love and hatred, and of joy and pain, rather than one of mindless robots or unfeeling puppets.

Batsell Barrett Baxter, who was dying of cancer as he wrote these words, concludes: “When one sees all of life and understands the reasons behind life’s suffering, I believe he will agree with the judgment which God himself declared in the Genesis story of creation: ‘And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.'”

Comments
mike1962 wrote,
The matter is really suffering, and why God could ever possibly allow it
There are so many problems with that common viewpoint, which is based on ignorance, it's hard to know where to begin! Please do not interpret this as an attack, but the possibilities are truly staggering! For each of these possibilities, there's no way to disprove any of them objectively. For example: 1. Maybe undeserved suffering absolves people of their flaws; deserved suffering teaches them not to be idiots. It's simply karma. 2. Maybe suffering is nature's way of evolving compassion in higher animals. Is evolution a good thing? 3. Maybe God always makes sure the suffering that people experience is offset by what they learn and how they develop spiritually. 4. Maybe God is not the only actor here. Maybe God is trying to save humanity from a nasty wannabe God called Lucifer who is messing up big time. 5. Maybe you would resent God constantly interfering with your free-will decisions every time your actions initiate a chain of events leading to someone's suffering. Think of the butterfly effect in Chaos theory. 6. If you believe that suffering is "wrong" or "evil," then you're making a God-like moral judgment based either on your personal opinions on some absolute natural law. Which is it? 7. Suffering is necessary to motivate people to employ the scientific method and to prioritize their spending. Isn't that a good thing overall? 8. Living organisms reproduce, they do stuff and stuff happens to them, and they die. Do you personally feel morally obligated to make sure that every organism, every human in your span of access has a good time and doesn't suffer? What percent of your net worth have you contributed so far to the people in Louisiana? Why are you holding God to a standard that you're not willing to follow at your level of influence? 9. Maybe suffering affects our genetic/epigenetic code, which results in additional variation or expression which in turn results in enhancements to the DNA of our offspring. Don't you want humanity's future generations to suffer less? 10. What's your honest preference: Do you want God to enable your lifestyle, or would you want a closer relationship with God? These are just a few of the possibilities. -QQuerius
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Granville Sewell: What we are both really asking is, “Does God Really Care About Us?” That's not even good enough, because one could use the same words regarding cattle raised for the purpose of slaughtering and eating. See my post above. The matter is really suffering, and why God could ever possibly allow it, or how it's even possible within the "it's" ontological domain, if "he" is really what the classical theists defines "him" to be. (We who reject classical theism have no problem with this question.)mike1962
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
I got side-tracked by work and had to go off-line for a while, but when I came back it seems most of the threads I had been on are moribund anyway. And not much else interesting is being discussed; except for this. Some comments: 1. For doubters, biblical accounts (such as Jesus’s plea to God “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) carry no weight. They are persuasive only to believers. 2. Regarding the Regularity of Nature, Granville Sewell writes “First of all, if we assume [God] has complete control over Nature, we are assuming much more than we have a right to assume.” Wow. There goes the omniscient/omnipotent deity. This is, of course, ID’s pudenda: it guts the concept of God in order to save it. 3. Regarding Free will, Sewell writes:
I believe, however, that the unhappiness in this world attributable to “acts of God” (more properly called “acts of Nature”) is small compared to the unhappiness which we inflict on each other. Reform the human spirit and you have solved the problems of drug addiction, drunk driving, war, broken marriages, child abuse, neglect of the elderly, crime, corruption and racial hatred. I suspect that many (not all, of course) of the problems which we generally blame on circumstances beyond our control are really caused by, or aggravated by, man—or at least could be prevented if we spent as much time trying to solve the world’s problems as we spend in hedonistic pursuits.
I think this is exactly correct. Then Sewell goes off the rails, writing:
God has given us, on this Earth, the tools and resources necessary to construct, not a paradise, but something not too far from it. I am convinced that the majority of the things which make us most unhappy are the direct or indirect result of the sins and errors of people. Often, unfortunately, it is not the guilty person who suffers.
We just don’t have the tools we need to make the world something even near a paradise. Our weakness and ignorance inevitably get in the way. If some God created us, they created us with these faults, and did not give us the tools to overcome them as much as we’d need to approximate a paradise. Sewell continues in error:
But our evil actions are also the inevitable result of one of our highest blessings—our free will.
I will not get caught in the futile debate over whether we actually have free will; TAKING IT AS A GIVEN, free will is not the cause of our failures. It is our ignorance and weakness that are. Blaming free will is an evasion; it enables the shifting of blame from the deity to us. But in fact, if our evil actions are the inevitable result of free will, calling it a gift or a “highest blessing” is absurd. If evil is its inevitable result then free will is a curse. If evil is the inevitable result of free will, it is because we exercise our free will under the twin constraints of ignorance and weakness. If we can only escape evil by abandoning free will, then it is no gift or blessing. Sewell wrote:
The freedom which God has given to us results, as an inevitable consequence, in many headaches for him and for ourselves, but it is precisely this freedom which makes us more interesting than the other animals.
Again, Sewell jettisons the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent God; and also jettisons the idea of a benevolent God: we suffer because his God is bored. Facepalm At this point I had to stop. Duty calls and what I’ve read so far offers little hope for a valuable idea yet to come in Sewell’s writing. Maybe later. sean s.sean samis
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
The ‘best of all possible worlds’ thesis is flawed, not just because we can think of a better world (imagine a possible world where neither Adam nor Satan fell)
I am not sure that such world's are better. We do not know God's objectives. It may be the world God created ensured a Fall once free will and doubt about consequences entered the picture. If not Satan or Adam then someone else. There is also something called the Felix Culpa.
Therefore, asking for the best of all possible worlds is like asking for the greatest possible natural number — there is no such thing.
Not if every other option is less optimal. The comparison to a natural number is not appropriate. We are dealing with finite entities here and finite entities can have maximums. We cannot begin to understand all the parameters that have to be built in and how God fine-tuned them.
This doesn’t mean that secondary causes, i.e., created persons cannot frustrate that telos by their actions.
These are definitely part of the design. Free will and doubt are built in and what else we do not know. It seems no matter how much we learn, doubt persists. The Intelligent Design community tries to frustrates the doubt by trying to prove a creator exists but somehow it doesn't get there. If it did, the world would be incredibly different and I am not sure it would be better. But then again we do not know what better means in terms of God's objectives.jerry
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
jerry @36, The 'best of all possible worlds' thesis is flawed, not just because we can think of a better world (imagine a possible world where neither Adam nor Satan fell), but because no created entity can be such a thing. This is because created entities are finite, and finite things have only an infinitesimal reflection of the infinite perfection which is proper to God alone. Therefore, asking for the best of all possible worlds is like asking for the greatest possible natural number -- there is no such thing. That said, does God always does what is best? Indeed He does, if by this we understand He creates everything such that each entity is designed to perfectly fulfill its telos. This doesn't mean that secondary causes, i.e., created persons cannot frustrate that telos by their actions. That often happens, ergo, our present flawed condition.Autodidaktos
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
Dionisio @48, Yes, I agree. My comments in 45 sound more harsh than I intended---sorry. The word "good" in Psalm 118:1 means fit, capable in the Greek Septuagint, a narrower interpretation of the Masoretic Hebrew word used. That verse and many similar ones deliver a strong, consistent message that God is the standard for goodness. To the ancient Hebrews, interpretations that deviate from this absolute would usually be attributed to the sovereignty and supremacy of God. Sometimes there would also be a hint of the limitations of our perception, attitude, or incomplete knowledge. To take an extreme example, Jesus was called "the man of sorrows." His public life could be characterized by the words, intense, confrontational, frustrating, sorrowful, excruciating (literally), and short. Nevertheless, Jesus endured. As Hebrews 12:2,3 (NASB) states
. . . the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
Did Jesus experience any justice? Was God good? -QQuerius
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Dear Dr. Granville Sewell, Since you're a Math scientist too, I thought you would like to read this: I have a good friend who got his PhD in Math (Differential Equations). He currently teaches at an engineering institute. Back in high school he easily beat me and other colleagues playing chess, while he played blindfolded. We had to tell him our moves and he had to tell us his moves so we could move his chess pieces for him. Apparently he memorized the entire state of the chessboard after each move. Really cool, isn't it? Perhaps that's a natural capability he inherited from our evolutionary LUCA? Maybe a deleterious random mutation kept that nice feature from being passed to me? Or was it a beneficial random mutation what produced a novel functionality that he was lucky to acquire? Dunno. But in either case I was somehow left out of that 'luck' distribution list (LDL). Oh, well. :) As a busy professor and the grandfather of a bunch of kids, most probably he won't read this commentary, but I'm sure he would confirm most of what I wrote about him, though he's quite humble and might not like it. :) He helped me academically in high school. He's the only student in our class who pursued a career in Math science, but no one was surprised by that. The rest of us 'chose' relatively easier paths. :) When my wife and I have visited them, his lovely wife has told us about him and their numerous family, but he is as quiet as he was when we were much younger and our wives were not around yet. One can tell High Math, the Queen of Science, is for the bright ones. The 'commoners' like me can only wish we could understand at least a little of what y'all do. :) But God has made us different, and only He knows exactly why. We just have to trust in Him. We believe He can use each of us according to the purpose of His will, in His time and for His glory.Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Querius @45: Thank you for your comments. Apparently you misunderstood my questions and my whole comment @44. At least your second sentence gives that impression. Please, keep in mind my communication skills --both verbal and written-- are rather poor. I'm still learning. If you don't understand what I wrote and still want to understand it, just ask me. That might help me to see what exactly is confusing and correct it next time. Thank you. You may want to read #44 again and pay special attention to the last question @44. That's the key. Also, the comment @47 may help too. BTW, the Psalms you quoted @45 helps to answer the last question @44. And yes, I agree with most of your comment on our judgmental capacity. That too relates to the last question @44. Basically, if there's a standard or rule for measuring or judging, then shouldn't it be a standard/rule giver?Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
Granville Sewell @46
Perhaps “Is God Really Good?” was not the best choice of title, I used this because that was the title of the Baxter article upon which the chapter is based. What we are both really asking is, “Does God Really Care About Us?”
That's very interesting. If God is the standard of goodness (as suggested by the Psalms verse Querius referenced @45 and many other verses in the OT and NT), then the OP question “Is God Really Good?” seems equivalent to asking 'how good is goodness?', doesn't it? Regarding the suggested substitute question “Does God Really Care About Us?”, do the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection help to answer it?Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Jerry (and others who expressed kind words): Thank you very much. Dionisio: "What does “Good” mean in the case of this OP title?" Perhaps "Is God Really Good?" was not the best choice of title, I used this because that was the title of the Baxter article upon which the chapter is based. What we are both really asking is, "Does God Really Care About Us?"Granville Sewell
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Good is assumed by context as the opposite of evil. The question is not whether God is a type of chocolate or a swimmer.
Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; For His lovingkindness is everlasting. -Psalm 118:1 (NASB)
Furthermore, we make highly unqualified judges of good and evil, having access to only perhaps 5% of the information necessary for an informed conclusion. That's the point of my kal v'chomer argument in 21. Being armed with that 5% of information, imagine the presumptuousness of accusing God, who presumably designed the mind-boggling complexity of the living cell with all of its chemical cycles and genetic controls, of being a capricious idiot. Or in a self-righteous huff, accuse God of being "evil" based on our own, self-centered standards. If we barely understand some of how quantum mechanics works and are clueless about how life on earth began, how much less informed are judgments pronounced against God? -QQuerius
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewel: You asked a very interesting question:
Is God Really Good?
In order to answer that question accurately one would need to know at least what do you mean by "Good". If we ask: Is this bread good? Is this car good? Is this chocolate good? Is that person good? Is that swimmer good? Is that apple good? what do we really mean in each case? What does "Good" mean in the case of this OP title? What is the "Goodness" standard to use as reference in this case?Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
#39, 40, 41, addendum: The book “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), is mainly based on Traudl Junge’s personal stories, written soon after the end of WW2. The book was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. On page 237, in relation to a story published by the magazine Quick in Munich, Traudl Junge wrote:
I remember that one Shrove Tuesday the editorial office was working on a big story about several war crimes trials and executions in Landsberg. Only then I did find out, for the first time, details of what went on behind the scenes in the Third Reich. Above all, I discovered what lay behind the facades of people I had known as pleasant, cultivated companions. For instance there was Dr Karl Brandt, one of Hitler's attendant doctors, whom I had thought an educated, humane man, but he was hanged in 1948 for taking part in medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners and practicing euthanasia. I could hardly grasp it.
Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
john_a_designer: That is an intellectually and morally bankrupt point of view. I sincerely hope you mean it as some kind of joke No, it isn't. But you are more than welcome to splash around in the philosophical kiddie pool and give your strong reasons.mike1962
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
The book “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), is mainly based on Traudl Junge’s personal stories, written soon after the end of WW2. The book was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. On page 244 Traudl Junge talks about Sophie Scholl:
"At that time I must often have walked past the commemorative plaque to Sophie Scholl in Franz-Joseph-Strasse without noticing it. One day I did, and I was terribly shocked when I realized that she was executed in 1943, just when I was beginning my own job with Hitler. Sophie Scholl had originally been a BDM member herself, a year younger than me, and she saw clearly that she was dealing with a criminal regime. All of a sudden I had no excuse anymore."
Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Not sure if this is exactly within the topic of Dr. Sewel's OP, but I thought some readers might find it interesting too. The book “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), is mainly based on Traudl Junge's personal stories, written soon after the end of WW2. The book was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. On page 243 Traudl Junge talks about her friend Luise Lanzenstiel:
Luise was married to a pastor and had had six children. She was amazingly cheerful and steadfast. The family got through the Nazi period very bravely, without sacrificing their ideals. Luise told me she never once said "Heil Hitler" in all that time. The whole family were securely anchored in their faith, in an open-minded way -- not at all bigoted. They always said grace before meals, which made me feel very awkward at first, but then I got to feel more and more like part of the family. I owe it to Heinz Bald that I have a substitute family today, because I am friends with those six children and thirteen grandchildren too. I'm their Auntie Traudl. With the Lanzenstiels, I saw for the first time what it's like for people to have the strength of faith. I envied them very much for their ability to believe -- it's not a gift given to me. But they weren't missionaries, they accepted me as I am. I've gone to Luise when I wanted to hide from the rest of the world. I felt safe with her, I knew I was with someone who understood me.
Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewell, Not sure if this is within the topic of your excellent OP, but I thought some of your readers might find it interesting too. The book "Until the Final Hour" (subtitled "Hitler's Last Secretary"), is mainly based on the personal stories written by Traudl Junge soon after the end of WW2. The story was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. The second paragraph on page 108 reads:
Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he [Hitler] would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbor and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.’
Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Querius @21: Interesting example. Thank you.Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Dr. Sewell, Thank you for sharing your story.Dionisio
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Dr Sewell, Thank you for your personal story and a great article. The first is an example of true faith. Bought your book after reading your OP so one more sale. I have always been a believer in Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds” thesis. Despite the best attempt by Voltaire to mock the thesis in Candide; One must ask why would God do anything less than the best. It is our calling or quest to try to understand just why we live in this best of all possible worlds and why it is best. Why would any change actually be sub-optimal. While I don’t think we will ever know in this world all the reasons why our world is the best of finite worlds, we can surely try to understand. The theme of a recent homily was “Faith is the only meal ticket.” This brought back to me a discussion I had several years ago while teaching college. A Jewish adjunct and I shared an office. One night we started to discuss religion. He said that we must all have faith but faith only has meaning when there is doubt. The theme turned to doubt as central to religion and faith is how we overcome that doubt. Reason and evidence play a part but the final leap is always one of faith. While not a Christian, he pointed out that even some of the greatest saints had doubt but they also had faith. Now given that there is doubt in this world and I doubt that many would dispute that, doubt must be part of the “best of all possible worlds.” What kind of a world would we have if there were no doubt. If God and His nature were so certain and surely known what would his creations be like? And if it were so obvious there was not a God, what would the world be like? If God were certain, would we have free will? Theoretically, yes. But who in their right mind would violate the prescriptions of a God, certainly known. We wouldn’t execute free will and essentially be automatons. You get almost there in your last section. Any world where there was no doubt would be a sterile world. There would be no virtue or even any choice because we could only do what the certain God wanted us to. So no action would have value. With doubt and faith our choice take on new meaning and value. So we must live in a world where there is a knife’s edge between one view of the universe and another. Is the world materialistic or is it designed for an end? And are the numerous unfortunate circumstances in this world necessary so that this knife’s edge exists. Does the world have to look almost like random and that no caring person would design it as such. Certainly numerous people have argued that suffering points to one side of the knife’s edge while other have argued for their necessity in making life more meaningful. I agree with this later view of suffering but also argue that suffering is mainly necessary for the creation of doubt. Without doubt faith can not exist and without doubt our choices would be meaningless. So God creates what many call an imperfect world but it is necessary for it to appear imperfect for us to have a meaningful existence prior to another world. So maybe we are in what I call the “the perfect imperfect.” Anyway a possible addendum to your excellent chapter.jerry
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Nobody knows. The entire creation of the universe and existence of humans could be a colossal joke, and it could be largely an illusion, for the amusement of “God” and who knows what/who else? It could appear baffling and contradictory because it was intended to be so. Much or most of what you believe about reality could be completely illusory. Or maybe we are “God” playing a very elaborate virtual reality game, with temporary amnesia while we are incarnated into this world. There are all kinds of conceivable possibilities. Or maybe there is some higher purpose to it all that we simply cannot fathom. Maybe it has our best interests at heart. Maybe it doesn’t. Again. Nobody knows.
That is an intellectually and morally bankrupt point of view. I sincerely hope you mean it as some kind of joke-- though to be honest, if it is a joke, it is a really bad one.john_a_designer
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Is God Really Good? It depends on what "good" means. Usually, this is framed relative to suffering. Nobody would even ask the question, if nobody suffered. Suffering is what we care about, not abstract notions of "goodness." Suffering exists. Consciousness can experience pleasure and pain. When you ask if God is "good", what you are really asking is, "is God something that desires to maximize pleasure, joy, etc, and minimize suffering?" Nobody knows. The entire creation of the universe and existence of humans could be a colossal joke, and it could be largely an illusion, for the amusement of "God" and who knows what/who else? It could appear baffling and contradictory because it was intended to be so. Much or most of what you believe about reality could be completely illusory. Or maybe we are "God" playing a very elaborate virtual reality game, with temporary amnesia while we are incarnated into this world. There are all kinds of conceivable possibilities. Or maybe there is some higher purpose to it all that we simply cannot fathom. Maybe it has our best interests at heart. Maybe it doesn't. Again. Nobody knows. At very least, human attempts at philosophizing over it all are probably a great source of amusement for anyone looking on "from above." For if "God" and the "transcendent" reality genuinely transcends this universe and human reason, then human reason is never going to get to the bottom of ultimate questions. But, by all means, knock yourself out. In the mean time, may as well settle back and enjoy/survive the ride as best you can. And help others to do so, if you are so inclined. (I could add, go ahead and hurt others, if you are so inclined, but that would violate my sensibilities.)mike1962
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
On naturalism there is neither an explanation nor a fix for man’s fallibility. However, from a Christian-theist perspective our falleness is rooted in our moral nature. And even though our falleness affects us epistemologically, there is no solution for our problems from the standpoint of reason alone. Francis Schaeffer explains it this way: “There was a space-time historic change in man. There is a discontinuity and not continuity in man. Man, made in the image of God and not programmed, turned by choice from his proper integration point at a certain time in history. When he did this man became something that he previously was not and the dilemma of man becomes a true moral problem rather merely a metaphysical one. Man at a certain point in history change himself, and hence stands, in his cruelty, in discontinuity with what he was, and we have a true moral situation: morals suddenly exist.” Naturalism has no solution for man’s moral dilemma, because naturalism reduces man to a machine and machines are amoral.john_a_designer
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
PS: 2350 years ago, Plato warned us in no uncertain yerms . . .
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
RVB8, it is high time you moved beyond outdated rhetoric on the problem of evil, all you are doing is showing that you do not understand moral good and how a world in which LOVE is possible requires a world in which genuine responsible rational freedom is possible. But then evolutionary materialistic scientism turns the conscious self into a perceived delusion, thus doing away with good, love, virtue, freedom dignity and all, ending in opening the door to a dark night of amoral manipulation and nihilistic domineering. As Plato warned against long since in The Laws, Bk X. Which you have obviously not read with understanding. It is time to turn away from a failed fantasy that thought it could seize upon science, sever it from its roots in the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation and build an atheistical utopia. Surely the ghosts of over 100 million murdered by atheistical states and the further ghosts of 800+ million slaughtered in the womb warn us that instead we have only achieved a new age of endarkenment. KFkairosfocus
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Moreover, Avise's example of flawed Theology masquerading as science is hardly the only example of the flawed Theology that lies at the base of Darwinian science. Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
Here is a quote from the Nature article that tried to refute Johnson's book. A quote that is blatantly theological:
David Hull, reviewing Darwin on Trial for Nature, was equally severe with me for refusing to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic religion for good. Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine of God: "What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.6" http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/151johngould.htm
In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala extensively uses the theological argument of ‘bad design’ in his book to support Darwinian evolution and invites him to present empirical evidence, any positive evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Perhaps some may think that these are just a few isolated examples of Darwinists improperly using Theology instead of scientific evidence. Yet, far from being isolated examples, bad liberal Theology was used extensively in Darwin's book 'Origin of Species':
Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X
And flawed liberal Theology, instead of scientific evidence, continues to be used extensively today by leading Darwinists to try to support Darwinian evolution:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Moreover, as if the preceding was not more than enough to disqualify Darwinian evolution as a rigorous empirical science, denying the reality of God, and denying agent causality in particular, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science:
Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a foundation of illusions and fantasy Excerpt: Thus, given materialistic premises, people become illusions whose observations of reality are illusory. And why in blue blazes should anyone trust what illusions having illusions have to say about reality? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit
This catastrophic epistemological failure for science found within Atheistic Materialism really should not be all that surprising. Modern science was born in Christian cultures of Europe. Born out of Theistic presuppositions as to the reality of our mind, which was presupposed to be made in God's image, to understand and comprehend the rational order to which God had created (and still sustains) this universe.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. - per townhall - Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.
bornagain77
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Christianity is a death cult? Really?? Would not the term 'death cult' be much more appropriately assigned to your atheistic worldview since your atheistic worldview is the one that champions abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide (Singer, Dawkins)? Or does that just make too much sense for you? Ignoring all of rvb8's superficial, and highly hypocritical, rhetoric against Christianity, and going to the meat of the matter, there are some major, self-refuting, fallacies within his 'argument from evil'. First off, the argument from evil is a self-refuting theologically based argument, and is not a scientifically based argument. It is a self-refuting Theologically based argument since it presupposes the reality of objective morality, i.e. of God, in its premises in order to try to reach the conclusion that God does not exist..
Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M Stealing from God: Atheists Presuppose God for Morality - Frank Turek, PhD - 2015 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxBxDMTzjM The Moral Argument - drcraigvideos - 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM “The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,, The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,, Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159
Moreover, instead of ever presenting any empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is actually true, Darwinists rely primarily on this self-refuting, Theologically based, 'argument from evil' to try justify their 'science'. A particularly telling example of Darwinian Theology masquerading as science is the following example: In the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a VERY powerful scientific argument against Darwinian evolution being true, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would supposedly never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html
In his book, Avise also cites this
“Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
Mutation total (as of May 6, 2016) - 179,235 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
And here is a recent paper from ENV that drives this point home
A Billion Genes and Not One Beneficial Mutation – August 26, 2016 Excerpt: Nature just published results of the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), the largest survey of human genes to date. (An "exome" is the portion of the genome that codes for proteins.) The exomes from 60,706 individuals from a variety of ethnic groups have been collected and analyzed. If we multiply 60,000 people by the 20,000 genes in the human genome (the lowest estimate), we get a minimum of 1.2 billion genes that have been examined by ExAC for variants.,,, ,,, we search(ed) the paper in vain for any mention of beneficial mutations. There's plenty of talk about disease. The authors only mention "neutral" variants twice. But there are no mentions of beneficial mutations. You can't find one instance of any of these words: benefit, beneficial, fitness, advantage (in terms of mutation),improvement, innovation, invention, or positive selection. They mention all kinds of harmful effects from most variants: missense and nonsense variants, frameshift mutations, proteins that get truncated on translation, and a multitude of insertions and deletions. Quite a few are known to cause diseases. There are probably many more mutations that never survive to birth. As for natural selection, the authors do speak of "negative selection" and "purifying selection" weeding out the harmful mutations, but nowhere do they mention anything worthwhile that positive selection appears to be preserving. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_billion_genes103091.html
Contrary to what Dr. Avise, and other Darwinists, may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations, and the sheer poverty of any unambiguously beneficial mutations that would counter such an overwhelming negative mutation rate, is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution being true! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinism being true!,,,
Genetic Entropy – peer reviewed references http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c In a memorable turn of phrase, Lee Spetner says that anyone who thinks that an accumulation of mutations (information-losing processes) can lead to macroevolution (a massive net gain of information) ‘is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.’
That this fact that a overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is actually a VERY powerful argument against Darwinian evolution being true would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the science at hand.bornagain77
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
BA said that God knew of the evil that man would bring to his creation, but chose to create man anyway because of the, 'greater good that would ultimately be accomplished'. So, this end times death cult, was innaugerated by a God who knew about all that was to befall disease ridden children, tortured children, corrupt leaders and their people, rascist genocidal dictators and their victims, biblical-Koranical fanatics and their tedious followers, a planet barely able to sustain life, and the greedy men destroying it; and said "It is good"!? Hmm, seems like a mildly nonsensical deity to be praying to. At least the Hindus can point to their deity, it's eating hay in the streets, and should be avoided by automobiles. In fact, sun worship should get a rebilling, like Hiduism it too can at least point to something as being worthy of being reveered; the sun! "Is God Really Good", is the title of this piece. It was written by a loving husband, to try to understand the suffering, and death of his beloved wife. The answer to the title question is very simple. It is either, there is no God, or 'No'! Is this nhilistic, bereft of hope, or is it ultimate misery? Again No! It is life, with all of its misery, happiness, joy and suffering; I like it! And please keep your tiny tedious God to your self, I don't need Him/Her/It!rvb8
August 27, 2016
August
08
Aug
27
27
2016
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Of related interest to free will, In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum mechanics with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgment day as Dr. Zeilinger stated, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' to the infinite extent possibly allowed in a Theistic view of reality. Moreover, in regards to free will, it is important to point out that although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options in the end. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. states it as such:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5
As to the scientific evidence itself for the reality of free will, Zeilinger himself helped solidify the inference to free will’s axiomatic position in Quantum Mechanics with this following experiment. In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is directly falsified by the fact that present conscious choices are, in fact, effecting past material states:
“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000.,,, According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. - per physorg
You can see a little better explanation of the “delayed-choice entanglement swapping” experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my present choices on how to measure a particle instantaneously effecting the state of other material particles in the past? This experiment is simply impossible for any coherent materialistic presupposition that holds that my current thoughts are merely the result of whatever state the particles of my brain happened to be in in the past! Furthermore, in this recent video Prof. Anton Zeilinger mentions another recent experiment (2015-2016) in which the the freedom of choice loophole is closed:
Prof. Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology lecture: Entangled Photons – from Bell Tests (closing all loopholes, including the freedom of choice loophole, at 16:40 minute mark) to Applications – Published on Jul 25, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMdKCcCGDI
Here is a more detailed explanation of the closing of the freedom of choice loophole
Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons – Dec. 2015 Excerpt page 5: By closing the freedom-of-choice loophole to one natural stopping point—the first moment at which the particles come into existence—we reduce the possible local-realist explanations to truly exotic hypotheses. Any theory seeking to explain our result by exploiting this loophole would require to originate before the emission event and to influence setting choices derived from spontaneous emission. It has been suggested that setting choices determined by events from distant cosmological sources could push this limit back by billions of years [46]. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.03190.pdf
Here is a video lecture of the preceding paper:
Marissa Giustina: Significant loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons – video Published on Jul 5, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgoWM4Jcl-s
Moreover, as was briefly mentioned in the preceding paper, due to these recent advances in quantum mechanics, the materialist is now forced to claim that our free will choices, if they were determined, instead of being determined by the random jostling of the material particles in our brain, as atheists had originally claimed, is now forced to claim that our free will choices were somehow ‘superdetermined’ almost all the way back to the Big Bang itself:
But why is the quantum world thought spooky anyway? – September 1, 2015 Excerpt: Zeilinger also notes that there remains one last, somewhat philosophical loophole, first identified by Bell himself: the possibility that hidden variables could somehow manipulate the experimenters’ choices of what properties to measure, tricking them into thinking quantum theory is correct.,,, Leifer is less troubled by this ‘freedom-of-choice loophole’, however. “It could be that there is some kind of superdeterminism, so that the choice of measurement settings was determined at the Big Bang,” he says. “We can never prove that is not the case, so I think it’s fair to say that most physicists don’t worry too much about this.” per UncommonDescent post Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
Moreover, if you truly believe that your free will choices were ‘superdetermined’ all the way back at the big bang, then I say welcome to Christianity since ultra-strict Calvinists have, for centuries, held to a ‘superdeterminism’ view of reality. Here is an excellent sermon by Tim Keller that gets the Calvinist’s ‘God is omniscient we are not’ position across very well.
Does God Control Everything? – Tim Keller – (God’s sovereignty, evil, and our free will, how do they mesh? Short answer? God’s Omniscience!) – video (12:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/MDbKCZodtZI?t=727
Verse:
–Deuteronomy 30: 19-20 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days.”
bornagain77
August 27, 2016
August
08
Aug
27
27
2016
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
Anthropic, and again, might I suggest that you, like Darwinists and Dr. Sewell, also are not qualified for the job of God? God knew full well ALL the evil that would ensue when He decided to create creatures with free will but, in His omniscient sovereignty, chose to do so anyway because of the greater good that would ultimately be accomplished through that creation. Moreover, knowing what people will choose to do beforehand with their free will is not the same thing as forcedly causing them to choose their particular evil choices. Yet using their own evil choices to His own advantage to bring about His greater purpose is exactly what God has done:
“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland Genesis 50:20 And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
At around the 15:00 – 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Neal spoke about how she, when in the presence of God, and from being able to see things from that much higher “omniscient’ perspective, finally understood why God allows evil in the world (i.e. she finally ‘got it’) and understood how our limited perspective on ‘evil’ severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to those tragedies in our lives. (The take home message is to trust in God no matter what comes your way)
Dr. Mary Neal’s Near-Death Experience – (Life review portion starts at the 13:00 minute mark) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXW1erHMtg
Verse:
Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
bornagain77
August 27, 2016
August
08
Aug
27
27
2016
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply