Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Malicious Intelligent Design and Questions of the Old Testament God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“The Lord God is subtle, but he is not malicious.”
Einstein

“I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.”
Einstein

Can the Intelligent Designer of life create malicious designs? If the flagellum and other parts of bacteria are intelligently designed, it would raise the question whether microbially-based diseases and plagues are intelligently designed. It seems the best inference from the evidence is that even malicious designs are also intelligently designed.

How can we resolve the problem of malicious design with intelligent design? There are a number of ways some have come to terms with this. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, just slapped together:

0. there is no intelligent design, so it’s not a problem

1. the intelligent designer of malicious designs is malicious, so it’s not a problem, he’s just a bit more malicious than we suppose

2. ID doesn’t have anything to say about bad design or malicious design

3. postpone trying to find an answer and study other questions

4. if the intelligent designers are Extraterrestrials (like Hoyle supposes), they are under no obligation to be benevolent and could well be malevolent

5. there is a benevolent intelligent designer (God) and malevolent intelligent designer (the devil)

6. the intelligent designer is indifferent to our notions of malice, so he essentially doesn’t care

7. some other solution (let the UD commenters offer their opinion)

Now, supposing that the Old Testament God is the Intelligent Designer, Richard Dawkins famously said of the supposed malice of God:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

To which David Berlinski responded, “These are, to my way of thinking, striking points in God’s favor.”

Given that the Old Testament is full of examples of God sending (if not creating) cruel plagues, it stands to reason, from a theological standpoint, malicious design exists. Even in the New Testament, Jesus describes all sorts of malicious Intelligent Design visiting humanity in the form of plagues. Death being visited on Ananias and Saphira, blindness descending on Elymas the Sorcerer, worms eating Herod, and all the plagues of the Apocalypse.

So from the standpoint of Christian theology, God creates malicious designs. If you’re not a Christian, then trying to solve problem of malicious design and the notion of a loving God isn’t a problem. But if you are a Christian, then the explanation of why all the bad things in the world are happening cries out for an answer. I’ve stated before, that one possible explanation is that God makes heaven more meaningful by making the present world miserable. (See 2 Cor 4:17 and Romans 8:20).

But then, what about the genocide in the Old Testament, how is that justified? Even though this is not strictly a question about ID, the objection to genocide in the Old Testament is still used against ID, so I feel it is worthwhile addressing. The materialist critics have raised the issue in UD threads, and I feel it would be helpful to provide responses to their difficult questions.

Surely it would break my heart if I were in the Old Testament and had to do the things that God commanded the children of Israel to do in the conquest of Canaan. Were they murderers for doing what they did? Well, are executioners charged with carrying out justice, murderers? I say no. If the children of Israel were merely the executioners of God’s judgment, then they aren’t murderers.

But how then can God find such guilt in little babies that He should feel justified in destroying them in the way the children of Israel carried out His judgment? One solution is to say that God doesn’t find guilt in the children, and that they died for some other reason. For those that accept ID is true, but don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, a solution is to say that the children of Israel were murderers and that the Old Testament is just spinning their acts of genocide to be something good. Surely everyone has an opinion on the matter, and I will not venture to say who is right or wrong. Few answers are consoling, and perhaps the right answer is even terrifying.

How is it possible God finds guilt in a little baby? I will venture my humble opinion by saying God left answers for us in the pictures of intelligently designed biology. When we exterminate other creatures for our own good will and pleasure (like that rat or cockroach), we don’t think of ourselves being unjust, in fact, just the opposite. Hard as it is to accept, perhaps in the scheme of things, humans apart from God’s mercy and love, are like those detestable cockroaches which we give no thought to exterminating.

Did the cockroach suffer cruelly when I terminated its life? Yes, but in the scheme of what I view as the greater good, my malicious act toward the cockroach was a good thing. He may not think so, but I do. In like manner perhaps, we are a lot less “good” in the universal scheme of things than we suppose.

What, if in fact, we are the villains in the Divine Drama without realizing it. God’s grace is the grace that enlightens us to our true position in the scheme of things. Apart from his mercy, perhaps we’re not as deserving of His goodness as we presume. So if God terminates someone’s life, even if by human standards it seems horribly cruel, in the end that is not the standard by what He judges as good or bad. Sometimes we don’t know if the suffering is because of one’s guilt in God’s eyes or if God had a higher purpose (as was the case in Jobs life).

Thus when God ends the life of humans violently (be it through natural disasters or wars or plagues), he has a right to do so. He may recruit the forces of nature, microbes, humans or various malicious intelligent designs to execute judgment. That is my view, and it is not a popular one, but if the intelligent designer of life is the intelligent designer of the plagues that destroyed Egypt and the plagues that will continue to injure humanity, it would seem He is an Intelligent Designer that is to be feared.

The question then is how we can find it in ourselves to love a God who can do these things? This would almost seem like asking a cockroach to worship me after I just exterminated its family! Now, if we feel we deserve a good life and heaven, I suppose it would be hard to love God, but if we feel we deserve a bad life and hell, and instead are granted eternal life, our viewpoint changes, and it becomes possible to love God.

But, those are my views, and I don’t mean to argue that they should be the views of the readers, or that I’m even close to being right. I’m sure many will find my solution to the problem of malicious design and an Old Testament God an awful solution. That’s fine, but we can’t run away from the evident fact of malicious design, and if the Intelligent Designer is the Old Testament God, we can’t run away from the fact of the malicious designs he has created in this world.

NOTES:
At UD the following related essays have been offered:

0. Craig crushes Ayala

1. The Shallowness of Bad Design Arguments

2. The Reason for Imperfect Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

3. Is suffering in the world evidence against Intelligent Design?

4. Contingencies for failed designs: Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail

[Update 9/3/2012 9:30 PM EST: Eric Anderson was kind enough to point out Barry’s thread on William Lane Craig, the OP now includes a link to that thread]

[Update 9/4/2012 9:40 AS EST: added a link to the “Passover Post” HT: Butifnot]

Comments
Indeed, Timothy, arguably we believe, not just in improbable things occurring, but in impossible things, qua paradoxes, occurring - hence not absolutely impossible. Indeed, we have identified and to some degree measured such mysteries, such impossibiilties, in both quantum physics and astrophysics. HOWEVER, THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT COUNTER-INTUITIVE, but COUNTER-RATIONAL! Something you hapless mutts don't want to get your heads around because it totally devalues, and deservedly holds up your precious 'promissory note' to ridicule and alas, contempt. The existence of the world truly is a mystery, wrapped up in an enigma, etc, but of which by our Christian God's grace, alone, we are able to understand a great deal by our own very puny standards.Axel
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
butifnot, Hey! Thanks for correcting my grammar and typos. The above has now been corrected:
I've stated before, that one possible explanation is that God makes heaven more meaningful by making the present world miserable. (See 2 Cor 4:17 and Romans 8:20).
Thanks to you and UD readers for helping me improve my essays. The ideas will be repackaged, redone, and ported to my upcoming website : CreationEvolutionUniversity.org and UD has been a very good vetting ground for my brainstorms.scordova
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001 It mystifies me how one can use a text in a way that requires it is truthful and revealed by God, in order to demonstrate that God has been found out keeping "dirty secrets". Genesis claims to be the first book of the Torah God revealed, and in the very first couple of pages God talks about the perils for mankind of "knowing good and evil". So it's hardly a secret, is it? At most, if the story did mean that God had previously introduced "evil" into the world (which it doesn't), then a literalist interpretation that says there was no animal death before the fall would fall flat. It may surprise some here to realise that in the early centuries of the Church, the concept that there is "evil" in the non-human creation was strongly denied by all, except the Gnostics - witness Irenaeus, Augustine, Athanasius etc. And these guys were considerably more aware than us urbanised moderns of what actually goes on in nature, in disease, and in death, because most were acquainted with farming, died young of untreatable disease and there were genuine wild beasts in the countryside that ate people sometimes. So how do we know we see things clearer than they did, or the writer of Job did?Jon Garvey
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Butifnot, Hey, thanks for reminding me about the Passover post! I'll update the OP to include a link to it: The "The Passover Post" -- The reason for Imperfect, Self-Destructing Designs. I meant to provide links to it earlier. Thanks a million!scordova
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
JLAFan2001: Why would an all-powerful God create through a process that brings such suffering? If evolution and the age of the earth are true then God created through “the survival of the fittest” method which is very cruel.
How do you know it's cruel? You apparently assume that animals have consciousness. Why do you assume that? Is your assumption scientific? As for God being "all powerful", maybe God isn't. That's classical theism. Classical theism could be wrong. There are other options.CentralScrutinizer
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Timothy, you keep plumbing ever lower depths of folly: 'Axel posted this: What on earth has evidence to do with truth . . . immediately before Kairosfocus repeated this: . . . it is reasonable to infer per empirically reliable signs, that objects bearing such are designed Well, OK. One of you has got to be wrong about the value of evidence. I don’t expect correctness, but is consistency a little too much to ask?' Surey.. SURELY... you can understand that Kairosfocucs is no contending that truth DEPENDS UPON our capacity to PROVE it. Surely that is not too much to ask from someone posting on a board for adults to discuss. You simply seem to be whollyunequipped to think logically in even the simplest informal way. 'Axel also posted this: And [I bet you still believe] that the world is the product of an unending sequence of risible astronomically improbable, nay, impossible strokes of chance. No biologist thinks this. It is a fantasy invented by uncomprehending creationists (who do actually believe that wildly improbable events are the main causes of the world and its contents).' So, you are a biologist and as such, you believe random chance had no role in the appearance or manifestation of the universe? What would be your best guess, pray?Axel
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light', i.e. 'eternal', concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony
It is also very interesting to note that special relativity is found to 'merge' with quantum mechanics, whereas general relativity does not 'merge' with quantum mechanics:
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and '70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you've already been introduced to. If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you'll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
This lack of 'merging' between the two theories is interesting because it seems of logical necessity that general relativity space-time must somehow 'emerge' from the 'spaceless and timeless' physics of quantum mechanics:
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
Moving forward as to a very credible 'Christian resolution' of this dilemma
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/godel-human-intuition-and-intelligent-design/#comment-432090 Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth." Matthew 27:50-52 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
Related notes: 'higher dimensional' mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, and even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/
Moreover, quantum mechanics is found to be 'infinite dimensional' whereas space-time is 'merely' found to be 4-Dimensional,,,
3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA
Moreover, this 'infinite dimensional' state-space of quantum mechanics is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Thus, this finding of a 'infinite dimensional' state-space in molecular biology on a massive scale provides a very viable mechanism for a 'eternal soul' which is able to make transitions to either of the two 'eternal' regions of space-time of General Relativity or Special Relativity:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578
bornagain77
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Hopefully not too far off the topic of 'bad design', But of somewhat related interest, the bible holds that God will separate the wheat from the chaff. i.e. that God will separate the 'good from the evil' Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." In relation to establishing the plausible reality of this separation of good from evil, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are two very different curvatures of space-time geometry in reality. The first curvature of space-time is the space-time curvature most people are familiar with. It is the curvature made famous by Einstein in General Relativity:
'Fabric' Of Space-Time and The Infinite Curvature Of Black Hole Space-Time - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
The other curvature of space-time, that people are not so familiar with, is the curvature that occurs in Einstein's other theory, special relativity, as a 'hypothetical observer' approaches the speed of light. Please note the 3:22 mark of the following video to see the tunnel effect as the 'higher dimension' of the speed of light is approached:
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Why this is interesting to point out is because both space-times, special relativity space-time and General Relativity space-time, find parallels in Near Death Experience testimonies. Here is a special relativity parallel:
The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven. (Barbara Springer - Near Death Experiencer)
And here is a General Relativity parallel: A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a 'tunnel' in the transition stage from this world to hell:
Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/
As well, the man in this following video also speaks of 'tumbling down' a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
Bill Wiese on Sid Roth – video http://vimeo.com/21230371
Moreover there is also found to be two very different 'qualities of entropy' to be noted between the two different space-times:
The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space." Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Scientists gear up to take a picture of a black hole - January 2012 Excerpt: "Swirling around the black hole like water circling the drain in a bathtub, the matter compresses and the resulting friction turns it into plasma heated to a billion degrees or more, causing it to 'glow' – and radiate energy that we can detect here on Earth." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-gear-picture-black-hole.html
i.e. Black Holes are found to be singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang where light was first brought into being. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘singularity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded' persuasion!
Blackholes - The neo-Darwinist's ultimate ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all life in the universe, according to them, is in fact a found to be a 'pit of destruction' within space-time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit?hl=en_US Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. (At the event horizon of a Black hole, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Time Dilation - General and Special Relativity - Chuck Missler - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7013215/
bornagain77
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
I’m not sure if any converts will be won over by saying things like “That’s the way God did it. Who are we to question how he does things?”. Why would an all-powerful God create through a process that brings such suffering? If evolution and the age of the earth are true then God created through “the survival of the fittest” method which is very cruel. I know that this not a new argument but I think it’s one that hasn’t been answered satisfactorily. Also, if you look at the Genesis text, it doesn’t say that man brought sin into the world. It says he will have the knowledge of good and evil. This almost implies that evil was already in the world but man would now be able to tell the difference or he would be unaware of it. Perhaps man would have added to the “survival of the fittest” by continuing to kill one another and not really know that the act is evil. The act would just be part of nature that God used to create. In other words, man found out about God’s dirty little secret. Doesn’t the bible also say that God creates evil?JLAfan2001
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
BIN: I agree, and Tektonics is often a helpful site, though searching around there can be a bit hard. On the range of issues in focus here, try here and here and as a start. I have also given some onward discussions in 2 above that deal with the problem of evil vs good (in a context of building a worldview, cf here on in context, on warrant for Christian foundations) and with the sort of accusations commonly raised by so-called new atheists. Note too the RH column link on dealing with the rhetoric of EvilBible and here on, on the sort of rhetoric in the 10 questions for intelligent Christians and the like. (Note the onward links in the RH column there, too.) I hope these will help KFkairosfocus
September 4, 2012
September
09
Sep
4
04
2012
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Sal, enjoyed your 'passover' post, interesting way to think of things.
I’ve stated before, that one possible explanation is that this [is God’s] makes heaven more meaningful by making the present world miserable. (See 2 Cor 4:17 and Romans 8:20).
I think the curse makes heaven possible at all. Man cannot be saved if he is sinful and eternal. The curse was 'for his sake', it is necessary for the plan of redemption. This site is a great resource. Reading through different treatments of the 'maliciousness' of the old testament God put the 'problem' to rest for me. http://www.tektonics.org/index.htmlbutifnot
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ 46&47 I heartily agree. I occasionally spend time reading posts on sites like NPR, and it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will make the most impassioned speeches (ala Dawkins) against the idea of God primarily driven by a self-righteous indignation. The arguments have a strong rhetorical appeal, but they are barren intellectually. Most of the atheist commentors at UD seem to suffer that same shortcoming, mounting nothing substantive in favor of their position. The bare fact that someone may find God's dealings (as recorded in Scripture) not to their liking has absolutely no bearing on explaning the manifest design in biology. It's rather like saying, "I don't like Bill Gates, because of 'business decision A', therefore the windows operating system was not designed." Applying that same logic to other situations reveals just how bankrupt it really is. It also must be noted that those who would criticize God seem to be blind to the amorality of the culture around them. It brings to mind an opinion piece I read some years ago by Leonard Pitts, who found the very concept of capital punishment offensive but vehemently favored the right to abortion. Even seemingly "civilized" societies are quite savage when God is excised from the collective conciousness.Optimus
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
To my mind, degraded design is most supported by the entire body of evidence we have.butifnot
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Well, in the christian view there's nothing to resolve of course - God created the universe in a perfect state, sin entered through a man and the creation was cursed. This is old-hat of course, and the other 'problems' of the old testament have been well expounded for thousands of years?butifnot
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
The argument about bad design is similar to the argument about a malicious god - if you don't know what was in the mind of the designer, what the purpose of the design is, what the limitations involved were, there's simply no way to determine if the design is good or bad. It's a foolish argument that never amounts to anything more than appeals to emotion.William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
It really has nothing to do with our perspective being "limited" any more than it is "limited" in knowing the intent of any conscious entity. We can ascribe malice to anyone, but that doesn't mean that there was any malice involved. The argument about a malicious god simply by viewing acts and events is utterly irrational. I've found that western atheists generally become atheists due to liberal sensibilities - they reach conclusions often based on emotion, not sound reasoning. Sound reasoning necessarily leads back to the premise of a good god, not away from it.William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Maybe Einstein is malicious? And on these issues useless. stick to gravity stuff Al. nature is not in its original form. originally nature had eternal life and mechanisms to do it. only a great and weird FALL changed nature into a thing of death. The bible says this. Any analysis of nature must include a option its not what God planned. Christianity is about bringing remedy. God was executed. This is not showing a healthy universe.Robert Byers
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Eric from the linked thread: One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks . . .
LOL!scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Eric, Whoa! Thanks. Yeah, I looked at the date on that thread, no wonder I totally missed it! I was wrapping up some schooling and business and was backlogged by my sister's wedding. Ha! I only remember responding to Nick in a hurry. I updated the OP to include a link to Barry's post. PS Barry, sorry boss, I missed your thread earlier. It was awesome.scordova
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
EvilSnack, you posted while I was putting together my comments. Apologies for repeating your point about the fallacy of ascribing omniscience to us. Great minds in the same vein and all . . . :)Eric Anderson
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Sal, sorry for the multiple comments. In addition to the comment I linked above see also my comment #86 to the thread I linked. As for the options you outline above, you are correct that there are several coherent ways to reconcile malicious design with intelligent design. All of them are on the table as possibilities and point to the fallacy of concluding no design due to observations of malicious design. Personally, however, I think your catch-all #7 may be the most reasonable. Specifically, our perspective is limited; our understanding of what is "malicious" is necessarily skewed by our small, temporary, superficial viewpoint and our lack of comprehension of the bigger picture. Lest anyone is tempted to think this is not the case, let me point out that to deny this is to commit the following gross error: ascribing to us omniscience. And that is really one of the key errors committed by those who point to malicious design as evidence of no designer. Namely, they are holding themselves out as the arbiters of what constitutes evil/malicious design; they think they have some special understanding of what the designer would be like and what the designer would and would not do. If only, that is, the designer existed . . .Eric Anderson
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Sal, this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/craig-crushes-ayala/#comment-430136 Lots of additional discussion there about the implications of bad/evil design.Eric Anderson
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
The doctrine of a omnipotent and benevolent God is not disproved by showing that something ascribed to Him is unpleasant to our sensibilities. Yes, you've racked your brains trying to think of a non-malicious reason for whatever it is you're holding against God, with no results, but that does not prove anything. God, being omniscient, will have reasons of which we are ignorant. If you claim that there can be no such reasons, you are either claiming omniscience (which is absurd on its face), or you are attributing to God a limitation; but then you are attacking a straw man.EvilSnack
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
PS: Onlookers, it seems that this is a case of playing strawman games with logic. Somehow, TA thinks we will swallow that he work of grounding a claim that something is an empirically reliable sign, is a simple matter of appearances. Thar's nonsense, but if someone plays madcap rhetorical games round and round again, a lot of distraction and confusion as well as time wasting will result. So, let's just short circuit the endless circles game and state one and for all that to suppress the process of grounding that something is a tested, shown empirically reliable sign [a fairly common exercise in science and general common sense reasoning], is a major strawmannising of the point being made. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
TA: looks like you are gunning for the 1984 doublespeak award:
looks => “appears from empirically reliable signs . . .” then => “it is reasonable to infer that . . .”
FAIL. KFkairosfocus
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
WJM:
If god wipes out a tribe, or lets infants suffer, that doesn’t mean god is malicious. That is certainly not a valid logical conclusion.
Resisting urge to mention Hitler. Mustn't give in to the Goodwin... Oh wait, you're talking about GOD! Well, if God does it, of course it's OK!NormO
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
timothya: The only poster twisting in the wind here is you, as you have repeatedly shown yourself unable to understand basic logic. If my intent is to protect the nation, causing pain and suffering as a byproduct of that goal is not malice.William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
In a different context, the following post from William J Murray would be nominated for a Chez Watt and immediately adopted as a signature line. I read it several times before I could convince myself that the author actually meant to write the words. I wonder if he had the governments of Iran or North Korea in mind? As it is, I think it should be left twisting, twisting slowly in the wind:
Because I manufacture (hypothetically) bombs or land mines to defend our national interest, and those devices generate pain and suffering, doesn’t mean my intent was to cause that pain and suffering; it just means I’m willing to accept those consequences in relationship to the goal.
timothya
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Timothya said: "What a hoot. That sound you can hear is the horde of psychologists harrumphing into their breakfast cereal at being told by a non-scientist that their discipline is unscientific" What a hoot. That sound you hear is the horde of astronomers, physicists, biologists, chemists and geologists harrumphing into their breakfast cereal at the notion that psychology is a science.William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
The term "malice" means to have the intent of causing pain and suffering in others. Whether there is malice involved cannot be resolved by simply observing the act itself - malice only exists in the conscious mind. Because I manufacture (hypothetically) bombs or land mines to defend our national interest, and those devices generate pain and suffering, doesn't mean my intent was to cause that pain and suffering; it just means I'm willing to accept those consequences in relationship to the goal. If god wipes out a tribe, or lets infants suffer, that doesn't mean god is malicious. That is certainly not a valid logical conclusion. One might as well assume deadly viruses have malice or that someone in a packaging plant had malice because you found some rat hair in your can of tuna. We must presume god to be the essence of good because without god being the foundation of good (and thus, without malice) then we're morally lost. We either have faith in the pure goodness of God, or we're just living under the arbitrary rule of a very powerful entity. That god is the essence of good is one of those necessary assumptions we have to make in order for our lives to make any rational and meaningful sense.William J Murray
September 3, 2012
September
09
Sep
3
03
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply